Submitted by blowfly on Wed, 07/01/2020 - 09:40
I couldn't find the old one so......
Anyone following climate change science would have been aware of increasing concern recently. Scientists working on the (IPCC) sixth assessment report (AR6), due next year have expressed concerns about new models which suggest that the potential increase in warming has been under-estimated.
These concerns are based on changes in climate sensitivity. This is the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature increases. Higher sensitivity, which is what the new models are suggesting, means greater temperature rises. The change in the models relates to cloud cover. There has always been uncertainty about the interaction between increasing temperature and clouds.
What the latest models show is cloud cover and water content decreasing as temperatures rise. This creates a feedback loop as decreased cloud cover increases the amount of sunlight reaching the surface which further increases the temperature. The increase in temperature predicted by these models is rapid and catastrophic. The average of the 20 new models shows Australia warming 4.5°C by the end of the century and 2°C by 2040.
The consequences of this amount of warming are impossible to predict with any certainty but would include reduced food production, increased disease, unprecedented heat waves, unprecedented bushfires, large areas becoming uninhabitable, collapsing ecosystems including the loss of virtually all coral…..all before considering the political and social impacts.
So when the report is published next year can we expect to see world leaders hastening to declare a real climate emergency and introduce policies to immediately and massively reduce emissions? Not likely is it?
Following BB, and it’s f%@ked! :(
Last weeks 100 degrees Fahrenheit set inside the arctic circle wasn’t lost on me
Good to hear shoredump. Too many people are not paying enough attention to realise what a shithole we are being led into.
Covid 19 has given us a great opportunity for a reset. We could spend money of protecting the planet's climate, but Scumo wants big shiny new weapons costing $270 bil. What a complete fucking arsehole.
"angry online, smiley in the brine"
VicLocal to put that amount of money into perspective if we used it to build schools, universities, etc and if the average building contract for each project was say $100,000,000 which is a truckload of building, then we could build 2,700 schools, universities, etc. Not that we need that many but makes your eyes water don't it.
What a twat.
Not much point building all this cool infrastructure if our enemies can just sail in at their leisure and take over.
The Fourth Degree
Since our global leadership seems intent on us getting there by 2100, it is worth considering what a world 4°C warmer might actually look like. It is also worth considering that even the models with the worst forecasts still give us a chance of reducing these impacts. The problem then is that we have left it very late and those in power seem content to leave a 4°C warmer world to their undoubtedly wealthy children. After all they will be able to preseve a semblance of normal life in their air conditioned cubicles in the more habitable and less degraded regions of the planet.
So yes this issue in essence boils down to a war of the developed nations against those less developed and, within each nation, of the rich against the poor. Unfortunately there will not be much middle ground so make your choice now. Morality vs survival. Ethics vs your children’s standard of living. Which side are you on? Choose now and avoid the rush as things preogressively turn to shit.
So let’s start with what has already indisputably happened. Since the 1950s the bulk of the extra heat (around 90%) produced by global warnming has been absorbed by the oceans resulting in an average increase in sea levels of 15-20cm. In many regions there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves as well as increased intensity of extreme rain events and droughts. Globally the ten hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. No surprises there, after all the record matches the earlier predictions quite accurately. So we saw it coming but were too busy adjusting our economic models to further concentrate the wealth to be bothered doing anything about it.
Now the future might be the least certain of landscapes, but somethings are more predictable than others. Climate change after all is a well understood physical process so when ten thousand of the best brains on the planet spend decades staring into their finely tuned precision crystal balls the odds are high that they will get things right, within the stated limits of error, naturally. There will always be minor uncertainties in the models but the only really significant uncertainty comes down to animal behaviour as applied to the most abundant member of the Primate family. Yes those crazy humans, who can tell what they will do next? Start a nuclear war? Carelessly spread some horrible new virus? Keep shitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in ever greater volumes, who’s to know? We can be pretty sure though, that whatever they do in terms of climate change, it will be too little and (is already) too late to avoid significant environmental change.
So a quick trip through 2100. Let’s start with the inundation of global cities just a few examples should give you the general idea. Jakarta (9.5 million), Bangkok (8.2 million), Lagos (17.5 million), Manilla (20 million), Shanghai,(25 million) Dhaka (21 million), London (9 million), Houston (2 million). Moving on we come food. Agricultural yields always decrease during climate extremes. Livestock are equally vulnerable. Floods, heat waves and drought are the main causes, all of which are expected to increase with climate change. Then we have water shortages, increased frequency of the most intense cyclones, irreversible loss of biodiversity including coral reefs (already well under way, eg The Not-So Great Barrier Reef)
In the developed world there will be adjustments and some really unpleasant surprises along the way for just about everyone. (Even worse bushfire seasons than this year’s model are now inevitable.) In the developing world there will be catastrophe upon catastrophe and greatly expanded opportunities for abject human misery. On the upside fat arrogant narcissistic bastards are expected to thrive.
Just saw this website, its pretty cool shows each state energy mix live.
Currently night so no solar, but biggest surprise is how much gas we are using.
In WA right now its close to a 50/50 mix of coal and gas.
Decent chunk of gas getting used in QLD right now too.
One thing i dont get is it also shows energy demand in grey, currently TAS demand is a little higher than energy produced and SA demand a fair bit over energy produced.
Anyone got ideas on how this works?
So some houses are blacked out?
Please Stunet give me an ignore button for Talking Turkey, Shatners Basoon, Dale Cooper, Factotum, Pupkin, and any new fake profile he decides to create.
Thanks Indo. Interesting.
Wonder what the "other" energy being used currently in QLD & WA is?
Do we have some bio fuels or thermal energy?
I suspect in FNQ it would be moral indignation from the perennially angry
Indo the Eastern states trade power hence demand being higher than local supply , they are importing the short fall.
Other maybe bio mass or diesel
Scrub diesel (liquid fuel)
On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:
Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decades and peaked in Britain, Germany and France in the mid-seventies
Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.
In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.
Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions
Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”
But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.
I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.
But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”
The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”
Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.
As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.
Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.
I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.
And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.
Some highlights from the book:
Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
“Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants
Why were we all so misled?
In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism
Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.
Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.
The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.
The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.
But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.
The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid- 19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.
Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.
Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.
Nations are reorienting toward the national interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.
And the invitations I received from IPCC and Congress late last year, after I published a series of criticisms of climate alarmism, are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment.
Another sign is the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. "Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer- winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.
“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well- crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”
That is all I that I had hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.
I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.
Yeah , I read that second link after reading the letter I’ve posted . Trying to get a bit of background on the fella. I still do t think it completely undermines his claims . I don’t understand how the ad hominem that he’s a nuclear power advocate necessarily eradicated his perspective ?
Surely if he’s who he claims and he’s come to the genuine conclusion that nuclear is the answer then perhaps it behoves us to look into it a little further ourselves ?
I’m no fan of nuclear after seeing the Chernobyl and Fukushima scenarios but really, what would I know ? Maybe the cost / benefit analysis does work in the favour of nuclear ?
He certainly makes several claims which contradict standing theories and which go unchallenged by the IA articles.
The whole idea that someone pro nuclear cant be an environmentalist is crazy.*
If we were building nuclear as fast as we are building renewables we would be carbon free much much much quicker.
Wind/solar & Nuclear/Hydro complement each other perfectly, it shouldn't be a choice between either but more a combination of all. (like many country's)
*Yes Nuclear has waste but that waste can be contained, especially in a country like Australia geographically stable.
"Nuclear power is far, far safer than fossil fuels, contrary to public belief"https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
I guess it’s cold enough here in Vicco today for the old nuclear power is safe chestnut to be brought out and publicly roasted again. Let’s put right next door to the desal plant near Powlett River after all it’s the State’s biggest user of power.
Id honestly have no issue with that and im only 18km away.
... right up to the nano second you realise your property value had dropped by 30-50% you would and then you would be screaming louder than a bus full of school girls.
what in the fukushima could go wrong?chernobyl what i'm saying??
Guy.....I honestly don’t know enough about it beyond knowing that you really , really , really don’t want shit to go wrong .
But hey .....this is Australia. We’re an enviable first world nation . We do shit right the first time !
Just look at the impressive way we are worse at quarantine now than we were a century ago.
Info doesn’t mind being within 18kms from a nuclear power plant but I’m sure he wouldn’t like to be a “Three Mile Island” from one!
Fair point about property prices...never thought of that aspect.
Chuck it at Portland, prices there cant go any lower with the increase in jobs it could even raise property prices.
Unless there is some big break through in tech in relation to cost it's never going to happen anyway.
But it is pretty crazy in Australia the whole paranoia and disinformation around Nuclear , when ever it is talked about people never fail to mention chernobyl and fukushima both power plants that started getting built exactly 50 years ago, so tech min 50 years old possibly older.
Imagine if you were to have conversation about anything else be it cars, computers, surfboards etc and you based you argument on 50 year old tech.
Yeah computers are shit i dont need one for starters i dont have a room big enough to fit one in.
Regarding the site, Watts Up With That...
The purpose of that site, is not to provide all the facts/objective facts, etc etc. It was set up specifically to muddy the waters in the public's mind regarding climate science. I don't know how else to put it. Just dwell on that statement (the former, not the latter). The site was established first and foremost to misinform. The track record of the kind of articles, posts, etc on there and how often these are shown to be incorrect and deliberately misleading.
I'll be honest, to say they lie a lot would itself be a lie. Because their most common tactic is to cherry pick things, whether that's taking a bit of data (e.g. a handful of location outlier from a dataset of thousands) or put up a statement from a single physicist (that contradicts what 500 other physicists have agreed upon), or take things out of context (again, a datapoint or a statement someone has made), or continue to push questions (e.g. role of volcanoes) that were legitimate questions to the science....back in the 1980s....but have long been shown to be negligible causes, or talk about research supposedly shows there's nothing to worry about - research that has since been discredited because it's riddled with flaws or shonky methods. In my view, they're very careful to avoid making statements that are 100% lies. What they do is present things in a way that makes it almost certain that a reader would conclude something - that is, that the rest of the climate science world is wrong, etc etc. I hope the distinction I am making is clear.
If I'm honest....yes, there is a very small proportion of what goes up on that site that is actually genuinely on the money. This almost universally pertains to statements made by "greeny politicians", who have a habit of themselves of engaging in hyperbole and factually incorrect statements about what the science is telling us, the state of the climate, and what it all means for the near-medium future. Though, sometimes the site again will misrepresent what these people say.
Lefty hyperventilators have implied the world as we know it will end in 2030....Climate science haters have stated/implied that the scientific community has said much the same thing.....Ugh....No....our society will not end....What they're all misrepresenting is the IPCC's report from 2018 which actually said that our capacity (aka chances) to avoid enormous disruptions across the food, water, economic, geopolitical, etc spheres as a result of climate change is almost certain to decrease rapidly from around 2030 onwards without significant reductions in emissions of around 45% by then....
Ok so let's breakdown what the science is actually said, and please ignore everything else that fits the climate hater/lefty hyperventilator rhetoric you may have heard/read....
- On disruption.... every social and economic system you can think of, whether it's where we build our towns and cities, grow our food, surf our waves, fight our wars, and the economy and all the rest....has been establish during a period in the climate that's been pretty stable..... start changing those climate regimes, and a lot of things get disrupted to the point those things become very dysfunctional and can fail/collapse beyond repair. Disruptions are already occurring, but if the global mean temp goes above 2 degrees celsius, that's when shit will really start to go wrong.
- on 2030... they're saying that if we try really hard, and reduce emissions by at least around 45% by 2030, and we keep reducing it beyond that, we have a 66% chance of keeping global mean temp rises below 2 degrees celsius...
- if we don't do that....then it's pretty unlikely that without some insane reduction in emissions (i.e. to the point it leads to social and economic chaos and anarchy....basically permanent corona-level economic shutdown) or extreeeeeemely risky geo-engineering/hail marys...we will be able to ramp up existing methods to reduce emissions in time to avoid all the disruption.
Hopefully that all makes sense. Basically what I'm saying, half of what the Greens say about climate change (and a lot of other things) is hyperbole, but 95% of what's on WattsUpWithThat is there to make you think there's nothing to worry about/there's no need to reduce emissions/have clean energy.
“Life is a long lesson in humility.”
To give you just one example where Mr Schellenberger is wrong....lying? You be the judge...
"Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture"
Most zoonotic viruses have resulted from livestock farming methods where there is a lot of one species densely grouped, the conditions they are kept in are favourable to bacteria and virus procreation (warm, moist, low air movement, lots of dirty, grime and faeces around), and there is interaction with humans. Sound like industrial farming to you? This isn't a new thing, it goes back centuries. In more recent times, we've seen a different pathway emerge as another major source....encroachment of development onto "wild places" where the species in those places increasingly come into contact with humans or their livestock.
To say nothing about the consequences of the sheer scale and strength of antibiotic use in industrial agriculture (just think about why they need to do that...re-read the above paragraph if it's not obvious...) and what this means for "super bugs".
I chose that statement of his because it's more in the realm of epidemiology and virology and animal husbandry, compared to climate change (though there are linkages).
Ignoring the waste part of it. It's a great low emissions, high output source of energy. However...
It doesn't stack up financially, and takes a loooong time to build, there's a lot more NIMBYism associated with it, and you have to keep on mining the key ingredient (and all the enviro impacts that go with it).
Yes, you need to mine things for renewables. But let's say you had two 20 year scenarios, one with a planet run solely on nuclear, and another on solar. With nuclear, you still need to mine uranium each year for that 20 years, with solar, you're basically mining zilch (with exception of repair a tiny, tiny % of modules) over that 20 year period (at which point a small but increasing % will need replacement).
Over that 20 year period, the solar tech would get more efficient and have a longer shelf-life.
The thing that would help nuclear become financially feasible, is a carbon price. But the irony with that is it would make renewables even more attractive, meaning they'd take over for the most part. So the whole nuclear discussion is really just a distraction until someone can make one that's small, can re-use it's own waste, and is cost-effective.... which is very unlikely if you ask a physicist.
Just for arguments sake
I dont think its that simple, firstly solar cant work alone it needs another backup energy source, or storage for about 12hrs of 24hrs sometimes more.
So you need to calculate minerals to make solar panels and their life span and also need to calculate everything for batteries (yeah pumped hydro can work in certain situations too) or you need to also factor in the back up energy source (say gas etc)
Anyway this is a good non bias video on Nuclear economics.
Anyway it's never going to happen in Australia, i don't even bother trying to push the idea.
But that said i think it's very important to acknowledge that not building nuclear in Australia in the past was a major fuck up and is a big reason why we are so reliant on coal, its also important to acknowledge that the same people that complain about our reliance on coal are the same people that opposed nuclear.
Imagine if we had say 30% of our energy produced from Nuclear that we had built in the 70s or 80s even if long term we planned to close them down, we would still currently be way ahead in carbon free energy and have a much easier transition to 100% renewables.
Anyway i wouldn't completely write the future of Nuclear off Nuclear Fusion (not Fission) kind of is a long shot but it still could one day happen, it would be the perfect energy source if it every does.
Again this is a good non bias video on it and its development
Yeah it does. But I think this whole "solar/wind still need a battery thing" can limit ones perceptions about how doable this all really is. Some people maliciously play off that and use it as a reason to do nothing...ever. Just to be clear (as clear as one can be on a net forum!) I'm not saying the latter is you.
It seems obvious (well, maybe not to all), but in energy circles they simply talk about stored energy (not energy potential, that's a different thing). That is, coal, water sitting in a hydro dam, liquid nitrogen, and a charged lithium battery. These are all just different forms of stored energy.
Coal as you probably already know, is just solar energy stored in the form of plant fossils. So our attempt to mimic that process is simply solar radiation converted to electricity stored in a battery of some form (and there a quite a few forms, including lifting stacks of concrete blocks and slowly letting them descend when needed).
When I've got a bit of brain power this weekend (if I remember) I'll jump back on and link to a heap of material that shows this whole notion that we can't shift our economy to a majority clean energy within 1-2 decades isn't founded on reality nor facts (by those I mean engineering and economics). The positive upsides of doing so are enormous, the downsides of doing so can be managed in such a way as to be virtually zero, but the downsides of NOT doing so far outweigh the rest combined.
Comes as no surprise that Australia is the 1st nation to be sued by bond investors.
Australia has failed to disclose how climate change impacts on Government Bonds.
23 year old Vic' Katta O'Donnell says Govt must stop keeping us in the dark.
Notes: Lack of transparency in lending Govt her money to protect her future
We allege that the Govt is misleading & deceiving investors by not telling them about the risks.(Notes Bush Fires)
There is no disclosure to investors about the risks Climate change poses to bonds & to society as a whole.
Case does not seek damages but declaration of official breach by officials.
Also an injunction forcing Govt to cease promoting bonds without said disclosure.
tbb feels it's better the crew takes up the evolving case from here...
This is a first & one off so requires legal wigs & volumes of precedent
Check ABC TV news teaser...here's the print version.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-22/student-sues-australian-governmen...
Episode 1: "Bond [ *KATTA* ] Bond" ('Go Girl Power!')https://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/tvbanners/9114440/p9114440_b_v8_aa.jpg
TTB, saw this tonight. Nice approach I thought. The RBA and ASIC have already issued warnings to business on such matters. Plus superannuation funds have also started divesting out of fossil fuels given the very clear fiduciary legal requirements dictating they must always act in the fund members best interests.
“Under our current emissions trajectories, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will likely double between 2060 and 2080, relative to concentrations before the industrial revolution. Before that, they had changed little for millennia.”
“A major new assessment has now calculated a range of 2.6–3.9℃. This implies that alarmingly high estimates from some recent climate models are unlikely, but also that comfortingly low estimates from other studies are even less likely.”
It’s an interesting case. I had a chat to a fancypants suit person about this (albeit, she’s in commercial/contracts law, so not really their forte as this topic is a pretty specific skillset).
The case rests on (1) should the Commonwealth know what the risks are to this particular investment instrument (and thus, Australia more broadly); (2a) Do they have this information, and if so why should/shouldn’t they disclose it; (2b) if they don’t have the information, should they have gotten it by now; (3a) Should they be disclosing that information once they get it if they don’t have it; and (3b) Irrespective of whether the Commonwealth discloses the information, does that mean the purchaser of these instruments (in this case, the young woman/female/person of X gender/sex/whatever/pleasedon’tcancelculturemeIamjustsomeinternetnoob) is absolved of any responsibility for finding out this information themselves (i.e. is it reasonable to conclude that based on existing publicly available information, whether from the Govt or elsewhere, they have the means to assess the risks themselves) – basically, are purchasers of government bonds even in a position to do the kind of due diligence that would inform them of the risk of climate change to those bonds?
Those are probably going to be looked at in a different orders to how I’ve listed it, and I’m guessing (3b) will be first up because it kind of frames the rest of it (though not totally). I’m guessing one of the first tests is if APRA and ASIC regs apply to the Commonwealth? I have no idea if they do. If they don’t then this whole thing will probably fall over. Buuuuuut I guess that would’ve been the first thing those bringing the case would have checked.