When I travelled to Kyoto in 1997 to take part in the UN Climate Change Convention, my hopes were high that negotiations informed by science would result in global action.
Fifteen years later, the resulting climate treaty that was intended to cut emissions - the Kyoto Protocol – has been extended just before it expired, while total emissions of greenhouse gases rise faster than ever.
Perversely, the consequences of catastrophic climate change are so unimaginable they inspire denial, and so far away as to give the impression there’s no urgency. In Tasmania, we’re not immune.
The waters off Tasmania are already a global hotspot for warming sea temperatures. Ice at both poles is disappearing more rapidly than expected. The earth itself is melting, as thawing permafrost releases more methane than predicted. The world as we know it will be transformed within a couple of generations.
But a ghastly silence about global warming has fallen upon our decision-makers and elected representatives.
For the first time in years, not one Australian Minister represented our country in the most recent round of climate change negotiations in Qatar.
And all the haggling is over a treaty that has failed to regulate the emissions of our fossil-fuelled economy, in order to keep our greenhouse planet liveable. When introduced, the aim of the Kyoto Protocol was to deliver a 5 percent reduction on 1990 levels. So far, emissions have increased by 58 percent, and the treaty has been extended until 2020.
When confronted by a global problem like runaway climate change, Tasmania can seem a safe bolthole to bunker down in, too small to impact on world affairs.
In fact, there are more than sixty nations less populous than our island home, so neither size or proximity should hinder our voice from being strong in this most important of public discussions.
Tasmania has a legislated target to reduce the State’s greenhouse emissions to at least 60 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2010, we were already halfway there, and with the introduction of a carbon price, Tasmania should be on track to meet the 2050 target.
But we have the ability – and the self-interest – to be much more ambitious. In our own backyard, Hobart has much to lose from climate chaos.
Life in Hobart this century is likely to be defined by fire, through its catastrophic threat to life and property. We live on an explosive tinderbox, strung with bushland detonators, and climate change will light the fuse.
Whether emissions continue to rise or eventually stabilise, Hobart’s climate future will see higher temperatures, heavier rainfalls interspersed by longer dry periods, and greater extremes. In terms of fire, that means more fuel loads in dry hot conditions.
Our exposure to wildfire is terrifying. The boundary between bushland and suburbs surrounding Hobart stretches for more than 50 kilometres – and that doesn’t include Glenorchy or Kingsborough. Like every summer, this is the last line of defence against fire.
During hot dry conditions in February with continuous winds from the north-west, bushfires are already impossible to contain. Where suburbs meet the bush – not just in Hobart, but throughout Tasmania – will be an increasingly desperate battleground in the coming decades.
However, we don’t have to follow a process where we experience a terrible crisis, before denial ends and we finally enter a ‘rapid response’ phase on climate change. We can still turn this around by facing reality - if we’re serious about limiting temperature increases to two degrees, we have to end our use of fossil fuels within a few decades.
That’s part of my vision in running for election as a Greens MP to represent Denison in the House of Representatives – to challenge the status quo, and jump tracks to a more secure future.
Tasmanians can be proud that two of its own – Senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne - played a pivotal role in Australia finally adopting a comprehensive climate change policy package this year.
Their leadership for sustainability is sorely needed in a perverse world. The Labor Party ends solar energy rebates for households early while shielding the coal seam gas industry from its liabilities for methane emissions. The Liberal and National parties are building an entire electoral strategy on trashing the only serious policy Australia has to deal with climate change.
Even Denison’s current MP, Andrew Wilkie, representing an electorate with possibly the world’s highest density of climate scientists, was mute in Parliament this year about the introduction of the historic Clean Energy Bill.
The Greens are the only Parliamentary party in Australia with the independence and vision to call for an end to the reign of Old King Coal. With a stronger team in the House of Reps and the Senate, we will continue to fight for policies that wean us off our addiction to fossil fuels. Join me in tackling this challenge head on.
*Anna Reynolds is one of Australia’s climate change pioneers. She established the Climate Action Network Australia in 1997, bringing together the major environment organisations on climate change for the first time. She is the Greens candidate for the Federal seat of Denison.
Show Comments
Comments (6)
Oh please!
Admitting that emissions are going up not down despite the Kyoto Protocol says it all really.
Kyoto is a dud. Simple as that. There’s no point pretending otherwise.
“Our exposure to wildfire is terrifying” I agree. The next catastrophic bush fire in Tasmania is only ever a lightening strike of cigarette butt away which begs the question what are you going to do a practical level about the greatest single risk to our beautiful state? Thinking globally might be necessary but aren’t you (Green’s) also supposed to act locally?
It must have been about two years ago I was at a BBQ at Pirates Bay the majority of the guests identified themselves as Greens and environmentalists. It was summer and the conversation got around to the danger of bush fires. I asked my fellow guests how many were members of the rural fire brigade and or SES answer two,one was also our token Liberal for the evening and myself as a member of the local SES, at the time I was still a member of the ALP. I very much doubt if anything has changed lots of global chatter local action well that can be left to everybody else.
The poles aren’t in a death spiral, and neither is anywhere else on earth. Peddling repeated more rain/longer drought claims is contradictory alarmism. 16 years of the highest ‘emissions’ in our history and no corresponding increase in temperature. Didn’t you know climate model predictions are just averages of woefully and infinitely incomplete and imperfect programs. Get out of your padded high-price renewable world. The world needs saving from many things more serious than this. While you are weaning us off coal, why don’t you fundamentally restructure our society so we don’t need to slave to pay bills to slave more. You might have to wait until we have a free substitute.
3 Matt.You may be right but what if you are wrong
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record
01.19.12
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.
NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record
01.19.12
Further Confirmation of a Probable Arctic Sea Ice Loss by Late 2015
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.
Although the sudden high rate Arctic methane increase at Svalbard in late 2010 data set applies to only a short time interval, similar sudden methane concentration peaks also occur at Barrow point and the effects of a major methane build-up has been observed using all the major scientific observation systems. Giant fountains/torches/plumes of methane entering the atmosphere up to 1 km across have been seen on the East Siberian Shelf. This methane eruption data is so consistent and aerially extensive that when combined with methane gas warming potentials, Permian extinction event temperatures and methane lifetime data it paints a frightening picture of the beginning of the now uncontrollable global warming induced destabilization of the subsea Arctic methane hydrates on the shelf and slope which started in late 2010. This process of methane release will accelerate exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere and lead to the demise of all life on earth before the middle of this century.
Yes, we absolutely need courage from our political leaders or perhaps more appropriately leadership from courageous politicians.
The courage will be necessary in being able to confront climate deniers and contrarians and say, ‘no, you are wrong’, the best available science shows beyond reasonable doubt that human activity is altering the climate in a way that is damaging present generations and creating dangerous risks for future generations.
Bushfire is one risk, though we don’t need to look to the future for damaging consequences. The warming ocean off the east coast is already damaging fisheries and it’s unlikely we’re going to see a rapid cooling of ocean temperatures any time soon.
What isn’t fully appreciated are the benefits to health through many of the actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The burning of coal, irrespective of the effect on global climate is damaging the health of local communities. Reducing our reliance on imported coal fired power will help our Victorian counterparts wean themselves off this health destroying energy source.
I’m absolutely ready to do my part and to support those who are willing to speak and act courageously on the urgent need to address climate change.
Matt I so hope you are accurate, but your view does not agree with the wealth of peer reviewed science that has been undertaken over the past 30 years.
We can’t put our bindfolds on and ignore this. Yes there are some levels of extent to how quickly or how long things and what will happen, but the discussion on our carbon energy causing changes to the temperature is accepted.
Go the the library and read a number of books, both for and against. The for is backed up by much more science than the against.
And even is all those independent scientists all stuff up their work, I am not prepared to take the risk of stuffing our life support system just to save some money on fixing the issue. But so far our actions seems to say we are prepared to accept some unacceptable level of temp change.