Australia cannot shirk ‘moral obligation’ to tackle climate change: Brian Schmidt

January 23, 2021
Sydney Morning Herald

Australian Nobel laureate scientist Brian Schmidt has told a summit of global leaders that Australia is duty bound to take a lead on climate action and called for an international effort to combat an anti-science agenda and climate change denial.   :)

“For Australia, which is such a large per capita contributor to global emissions and which has
such abundance of natural renewable resources, the answer lies in scaling up clean energy
generation ASAP,” Professor Schmidt, vice-chancellor of the Australian National University, said in a speech on Friday night.



“This is an urgent moral obligation which Australia must not shirk.”

Professor Schmidt, who won the Nobel prize for physics in 2011, made his comments to the Climate Adaptation Summit, hosted by the Netherlands but being conducted online.



Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley is representing Australia at the summit, which is also being attended by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chinese Vice-Premier Han Zheng, French President Emmanuel Macron and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

RELATED ARTICLE 
President-elect Joe Biden speaks from Wilmington, Delaware.
Climate policy
Biden's climate goals turn up heat on Morrison   :)
Professor Schmidt said the coronavirus pandemic had reinforced the importance of science in policy making, and he was hopeful this trend would help drive greater efforts to curb climate change.

“The purveyors of doubt have tried to devalue these powerful weapons in the fight against climate change. We can’t let them succeed,” he said. “Things, though, are starting to swing back. Medical science has brilliantly come to the rescue in the gravest crisis the people of the world have faced for generations.”

Australia trails China, Japan, Britain, South Korea and now the US, which have net zero emissions targets for 2050 or 2060.

The Climate Adaptation Summit is an international collaboration to build momentum ahead of the UN’s major climate summit in November. It aims to form an international agenda for adaptation and resilience in tackling the effects of climate change, such as increasing extreme weather.


Last December Mr Johnson convened another summit as a prelude to November’s major event. Australia was not invited to speak after a diplomatic push among attending countries resolved to reserve places for countries making “ambitious” new commitments including pledges from developed countries to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Mr Morrison planned to use his speech to announce Australia had abandoned its internationally controversial plan to use credits earned under the Kyoto treaty to achieve its emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement.

The Morrison government has said it can meet its Paris commitment by reaching net zero emissions some time in the second half of this century, but it has not set a more ambitious deadline.

OOOH an astronomer. Shirley he should be an astrologer?

Australia is a carbon sink. We want climate reparations now. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2021 at 6:35pm:

OOOH an astronomer. Shirley he should be an astrologer? Australia is a carbon sink. We want climate reparations now. ;)

Not funny, not true and just downright stupid.

Ayn Marx wrote on Jan 24^th, 2021 at 1:22pm:

Not funny, not true and just downright stupid.

Not true?

"Australia has 149 million hectares of forest. Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii]."

"The amount of carbon taken up every year by dry forests in Australia depends on the weather conditions and age of the trees. Science tells us that the range for forests with continuous canopies is about 0.5-2 tonnes of carbon per year for each hectare. Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake[i], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees."

https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses

To convert C to CO2 multiply by 3.667

Now Australia's emissions are about 530 Mt CO2e

So at the minimum 0.5t/Ha of CO2 that would be 1.8335t of CO2/ha.
We add the 149 and the 440 we get 589 million Ha. We multiply that by 1.8335 we get about 1,079Mt CO2. That is larger than 530 Mt.

Or alternatively you could read the paper of Barrett DJ (2002) published by the CSIRO.

https://www.publish.csiro.au/BT/BT04106

He estimates 700Mt CO2 sequestration - which is still more than 530 Mt CO2.

Perhaps you might learn something instead of shooting from the lip.

Edit: This has been posted many times. But people ignore it. I sometimes think some people need to be treated like computers.... and punch the information in. ;)

Yes, Australia is a high per capita CO₂ emitter.

However, Australia contributes only about 1% of Global emissions.

The real arseholes Globally are:

CHINA
USA
INDIA

They should be doing much much more to reduce emissions.  >:(

Captain Nemo wrote on Jan 24^th, 2021 at 2:42pm:

Yes, Australia is a high per capita CO2 emitter.

And the reason that Australia is a high per capita emitter? Large distances, large land mass and small population.

lee wrote on Jan 24^th, 2021 at 2:01pm:

Ayn Marx wrote on Jan 24th, 2021 at 1:22pm: Not funny, not true and just downright stupid. Not true? "Australia has 149 million hectares of forest. Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii]." "The amount of carbon taken up every year by dry forests in Australia depends on the weather conditions and age of the trees. Science tells us that the range for forests with continuous canopies is about 0.5-2 tonnes of carbon per year for each hectare. Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake[i], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees." https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses To convert C to CO2 multiply by 3.667 Now Australia's emissions are about 530 Mt CO2e So at the minimum 0.5t/Ha of CO2 that would be 1.8335t of CO2/ha. We add the 149 and the 440 we get 589 million Ha. We multiply that by 1.8335 we get about 1,079Mt CO2. That is larger than 530 Mt. Or alternatively you could read the paper of Barrett DJ (2002) published by the CSIRO. https://www.publish.csiro.au/BT/BT04106 He estimates 700Mt CO2 sequestration - which is still more than 530 Mt CO2. Perhaps you might learn something instead of shooting from the lip. Edit: This has been posted many times. But people ignore it. I sometimes think some people need to be treated like computers.... and punch the information in. ;)

So, nothing’s changed since 2008? Very comforting to know land clearance and bushfires haven’t taken place since then.

Ayn Marx wrote on Jan 24^th, 2021 at 4:46pm:

So, nothing’s changed since 2008? Very comforting to know land clearance and bushfires haven’t taken place since then.

Ok let's look at that.

latest estimates are about 134 million ha of forests. That would reduce CO2 sequestration by  about 27Mt. Still sequestration larger than emissions.

Bushfires? wood burning is deemed to be carbon neutral by the Climate Scientis^TM. That's why they converted DRAX power to woodchips from coal.

But new growth sequesters more than old growth. And with all that forest burned there is more new growth.

But estimates of forests burnt is 18.6 M Ha for 2019-20. That would reduce forests to about 115M Ha.  So if there was no regrowth that would reduce the sequestration by about another 35Mt of CO2. Still over 1000Mt sequestered.


Anything else?

Edit: Even deserts are a carbon sink.

"Greater ecosystem carbon in the Mojave Desert after ten years exposure to elevated CO2"

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2184

lee wrote on Jan 24^th, 2021 at 2:49pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Jan 24th, 2021 at 2:42pm: Yes, Australia is a high per capita CO2 emitter. And the reason that Australia is a high per capita emitter? Large distances, large land mass and small population.

100%............... 8-)

Morals have never been a consideration to Australian politicians of both sides.

Personal gain first, and votes second, are the principal drivers of Australian politician's behavior.

Captain Nemo wrote on Jan 24^th, 2021 at 2:42pm:

Yes, Australia is a high per capita CO2 emitter. However, Australia contributes only about 1% of Global emissions. The real arseholes Globally are: CHINA USA INDIA They should be doing much much more to reduce emissions.  >:(

https://i.ibb.co/17CRWdV/australia-CFP.jpg

The fact Australia has a low population is not a license to do nothing about AGW.

The Australian community is way ahead of the Australian government in it's response.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 26^th, 2021 at 11:57am:

The fact Australia has a low population is not a license to do nothing about AGW. The Australian community is way ahead of the Australian government in it's response.

What do you suggest we do........???

Go and live in caves..................!!!

No matter what we do it will only be 1% because that's all we emit 1% of manmade emissions.

Will that even make a difference......!!!

Australians can't afford caves. Their price is rising.

Lean-tos is about the best that can be achieved with Australian closet pom technology.

The good thing is that such a movement could revive the fortunes of the stump-jump plow and convert it from artifact to valued implement. There are so many stumps from deforestation.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jan 26^th, 2021 at 12:40pm:

Australians can't afford caves. Their price is rising. Lean-tos is about the best that can be achieved with Australian closet pom technology. The good thing is that such a movement could revive the fortunes of the stump-jump plow and convert it from artifact to valued implement. There are so many stumps from deforestation.

If the IPCC were real about mitigating manmade emissions the first thing they should have done is to BAN de-forestation all over the globe.

Instead of trying to creating a trillion dollar carbon derivatives market on the stock exchange.