Australia to redirect $500 million in foreign aid to new Pacific projects

Tuvalu: Australia will redirect more than half a billion dollars in foreign aid towards renewable energy projects and disaster relief throughout the Pacific, as Prime Minister Scott Morrison faces direct calls from leaders to "do more" to curb the threat facing the region.

Mr Morrison will unveil a $500 million climate change and oceans package at the Pacific Islands Forum on Wednesday, promising Australia will be a "champion" of the environment and ensure the Pacific remained economically stable and "sovereign politically".

Pacific Island leaders held a climate roundtable ahead of the forum in Funafuti, the capital of Tuvalu, on Monday, highlighting the need for Australia play a bigger role to address the issues many low-lying nations face through climate change.

The historic meeting took place amid growing concern by Western nations over China's influence in the region as Beijing attempts to buy favour with massive foreign aid projects in return for bolstering its military presence.

Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama appealed directly to Australia on Monday to transition away from coal-powered energy and said the Coalition must “more fully appreciate” the threat facing Pacific nations.

But he warned other nations about lecturing the Morrison government about emissions over the coming days, recognising coal had helped build a strong economy which in turn supported the region.

He said it was not for Fiji nor any other nation "to be prescriptive" as to how Australia ran its affairs, but added as a leader in the region it should do everything possible to achieve a fast transition to low-emission energy sources.

“That transition should be just for your own people and just for us here in the Pacific, where we face an existential threat that you don’t face and challenges we expect your governments and people to more fully appreciate," Mr Bainimarama said.

Mr Morrison said Australia recognised the climate change challenges the Pacific faced.
He said he would detail a new package from existing aid funds to help Pacific nations invest in renewable energy and climate and disaster resilience.

“The Pacific is our home, which we share as a family of nations. We’re here to work with our Pacific partners to confront the potential challenges they face in the years ahead,” Mr Morrison said.

“This highlights our commitment to not just meeting our emissions reduction obligations at home but supporting our neighbours and friends."

Mr Morrison said Australia was doing it part to cut global emissions and had set out "to the last tonne" how it would meet its 2030 target under the Paris Agreement.

The additional $500 million will be used to invest in renewable energy, ensure new infrastructure can withstand disasters and better equip health services to adapt to changing needs.

He said the federal government had already contributed to funding new roads and bridges that were more resilient to extreme weather in Papua New Guinea, the Tina River Hydropower project in the Solomon Islands and building climate resilient schools in Kiribati.

The government has also set aside $140 million from the aid budget for the Australian Private Sector Mobilisation Climate Fund to harness private sector investments in low emissions technology for the Pacific and South-East Asia.

Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga told the forum on Monday he had concerns about Australia’s coal policy - which he had previously expressed to Mr Morrison - and warned the positive relationship could change if the future of his people was not taken seriously.

“I hope we can be more understanding that the people of Tuvalu and small island countries are already submerged, are already going underwater,” Mr Sopoaga said.

“I certainly hope we do not come to that juncture to say we cannot go on talking about partnerships.. while you keep pouring your coal emissions into the atmosphere that is killing my people and drowning my people into the water.”

Typical dumbass Nails and his best mate Bobby nodding in unison. Every dollar spent in foreign aid earns us $7.10 in exports you dopey clown. We actually turn a profit. What a pair of ignorant simpletons.

https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/aid-study-shows-every-1-spent-returns-710-i...

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2019 at 9:55am:


I don't believe I mentioned the actions of the government in any way, shape or form. The only comment is in relation to the sheer ignorance shown by that boofhead Nails and his mate who has been felating him with every post.

All done with borrowed money.

We don't have our own money to give.

Pacific Island leaders held a climate roundtable ahead of the forum in Funafuti, the capital of Tuvalu, on Monday, highlighting the need for Australia play a bigger role to address the issues many low-lying nations face through climate change.

Typical dumbass Nails and his best mate Bobby nodding in unison. Every dollar spent in foreign aid earns us $7.10 in exports you dopey clown. We actually turn a profit. What a pair of ignorant simpletons.

https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/aid-study-shows-every-1-spent-returns-710-i...

crocodile wrote on Aug 14^th, 2019 at 9:50am:


Then why has the Coalition continued to cut foreign aid....Your defense contradicts the reality that the Coalition have reduced foreign aid doesn't it???



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-02/federal-budget-foreign-aid-slashed-by-mor...

Back to the real issue which is the threat of low lying islands and countries being inundated with rising sea level due to climate change and what is Scumo going to do about the LNP's addiction to coal ?

Can't find anything to support your claim.

This quote is not true....

Quote:
And yet most of the islands have increased in size. Try doing some research.

Of Tuvalu's individual islands, 73 had increased in land area while 28 had decreased.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2019 at 1:44pm:



lee wrote on Aug 15^th, 2019 at 12:42pm:


Most.

islands will always disappear. They are a part of a dynamic environment. Storm surge etc will do that.

Now if most increase and some decrease - it can't be Sea Level Rise. It is also along the Pacific Plate which causes subsidence in some areas. Again not SLR.

University of NSW Professor John Church, who is an IPCC lead contributor on rising seas, told Fact Check that sea levels did not rise uniformly but varied depending on factors such as ocean currents, surface winds and water temperature.

"There is a tendency for sea level rise to be less than the global average near regions of mass loss," Professor Church said, explaining that rises were greater in places further from melting glaciers and ice sheets.

Professor Kench's study reported that the seas around Tuvalu rose by about 3.9mm per year between 1971 and 2014 — roughly twice the global average over the same period

University of China from 2005???

The University of China from 2005 and the references cited are from Google Scholar..

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2019 at 5:01pm:



Poor petal. Doesn't know the first thing about attribution.

"Baines, G.B.K., and R. F. McLean, 1976. Sequential studies of hurricane deposit evolution at Funafuti Atoll. Marine Geology, 21: M1-M8."

So the reference is to the publication .

"Baines, G. B. K., P. J. Beveridge, and J. E. Maragos, 1974. Storm and island building at Funafuti Atoll, Ellice Islands. Proceeding of the Second International Coral Reef Symposium. Brisbane, 485–495."

Citing a paper from a seminar on

"Baliunas, S., and W. Soon, 2001. Is Tuvalu really sinking? Pacific Magazine, (8): 44."

From a paper that appeared in

You get the drift?

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2019 at 9:22pm:



Poor petal. The seas have been increasing since the last ice age.

https://1121352.v1.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/clip_image004-2.j...

And it still hasn't drowned the islands.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2019 at 9:38pm:


You mean the one that cited mainstream journals?

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2019 at 9:38pm:


Unfortunately for you petal they are using the results of satellite altimetry. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

Jason1, 2, 3 had a native accuracy of about 34mm. And somehow they extrapolated the data and came up with an accuracy an order of magnitude greater (3.4mm).

"Jason-2 flies in a low-Earth orbit at an altitude of 1336 km. With global coverage between 66°N and 66°S latitude and a 10-day repeat of the ground track, Jason maps 95% of the world's ice-free oceans every ten days. Sea surface height accuracy is currently 3.4 centimetres, with 2.5 expected in the future."

https://www.eumetsat.int/jason/print.htm

And all that with an earth that is ellipsoid, has storms, swell and tides.

Oh noes. National Geographic - another Readers Digest type publication.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2019 at 9:38pm:


I did say that petal. Now all you have to is show it was caused by SLR and not storms etc.

Back on topic - The $500 million is quite a significant amount of money on offer to these Islands....However they should not be made to stay silent and Australia still needs to address their concerns with real action not bullshit!!!

googling for selective information again are you ?

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2019 at 5:45pm:


Poor petal. The first link, which I gave, was to "https://www.eumetsat.int/jason/print.htm " which was about the accuracy of the satellite altimeters generally and Jason 2 specifically.

It is a table of contents you snowflake!!!

The second which I also, gave was to NASA about the accuracy of Jason 3 specifically.

I had previously said the accuracy was about 34mm.

But perhaps phil doesn't realise the link is the URL. But perhaps he merely didn't know that. Edit: i just read back and both were linked correctly.

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2019 at 5:45pm:


It proves the accuracy of the altimeters, should you care to look. Or you can do a "Control F" and search for the accuracy or even the phrase provided.

Now seeing that the claimed SLR is in the vicinity of 3mm per/year perhaps you can show how it can possibly be derived when the native accuracy of the alitmeters is of about 34mm (3.4cm).

We know the level of your scientific understanding when you can't even cite references properly. 

Lee posted (without URL)
https://www.eumetsat.int/jason/print.htm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2019 at 6:19pm:



Poor petal deleted this post. How embarrassing for me

Look at what NASA says about global warming snowflake and educate yourself!!!

Where have I said any such thing snowflake???

So you do not deny the planet is warming and you do not deny sea levels are rising..

Do you believe it is being caused by CO2???

Because NASA believes the planet is warming and explains it's findings in the link provided with URL!!!

But the altimeter readings are pure bunkum. Because the accuracy is not as fine as the SLR.

So now the question remains how much warming and SLR is due to CO2?

Global Temperature Rise
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

Pacific nations better off threatening to selling/integrate themselves with China.  Would other nations let that through or would they be forced to step up?

stunspore wrote on Aug 16^th, 2019 at 11:12pm:


well you'd have to be stark raving mad to do a deal with scumo. That prick would back door you as quick as look at you

Lets not forget all the other recent climate changes that have occurred.

And CO2 was stable......?!?!

What does that tell you.......??

Hear any bells......?!

https://i.ibb.co/XkkyTGr/iceage-01.jpg

And CO2 was stable......?!?!

What does that tell you.......??

Ajax wrote on Aug 17^th, 2019 at 10:51am:



Quote:


That other variables can also impact climate ?

Your not a rocket surgeon are you ?

hose who maintain CO2 is not a driver of Climate Change are either stupid or deliberately misleading themselves (lying)!!!

Links have been provided that explain the drivers of climate change..

Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."

Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include:

Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate. Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation, making these some of the most important feedback mechanisms to the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.

Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications, but now largely regulated in production and release to the atmosphere by international agreement for their ability to contribute to destruction of the ozone layer. They are also greenhouse gases.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

"The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.

I provide links to support my opinions....It is always best to fact check people's claims who do not supply links and make false claims!!!

These links explains the scientific consensus on Climate Change in detail!!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-...

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/sa...

Particularly important is CO2. Enormous amounts of it are continually exchanged between the atmosphere, land and oceans, as land and marine plants grow, die and decay, and as carbon-rich waters circulate in the ocean. For several thousand years until around 200 years ago, this ‘carbon cycle’ was approximately in balance and steady. Since the 19th century, human-induced CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement manufacture and deforestation have disturbed the balance, adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than it can be taken up by the land biosphere and the oceans (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). On average over the last 50 years, about 25% of total CO2 emissions were absorbed by the ocean making sea water more acidic and 30% was taken up on land, largely by increased plant growth stimulated by rising atmospheric CO2, increased nutrient availability, and responses to warming and rainfall changes (though the mix of these mechanisms remains unclear). The other 45% of emissions accumulated in the atmosphere. These changes to the carbon cycle are known from measurements in the atmosphere, on land and in the ocean, and from modelling studies.

Science Publishing Group

Science Publishing Group is a publisher of academic journals and books. It has an address in New York, USA, but is based in Pakistan

Criticism of publishing practices

The company has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing. In an experiment, university professor Fiona McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons).

Although the article had been generated by the SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication. Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, in 2014 pseudonymously published a nonsensical article in American Journal of Applied Mathematics. The article contained an alleged proof of Buddhist Karma

Most of us wish that Ed Berry’s denials of climate science are correct. Certainly, I do. None of us want to change how we get the energy to run our civilization. Unfortunately, we must change and Berry’s climate denials aren’t credible, never will be, and are extremely dangerous for the planet.

Predatory publishers: the journals that churn out fake science

A vast ecosystem of predatory publishers is churning out “fake science” for profit, an investigation by the Guardian in collaboration with German publishers NDR, WDR and Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin has found.

More than 175,000 scientific articles have been produced by five of the largest “predatory open-access publishers”, including India-based Omics publishing group and the Turkish World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, or Waset.

But the vast majority of those articles skip almost all of the traditional checks and balances of scientific publishing, from peer review to an editorial board. Instead, most journals run by those companies will publish anything submitted to them – provided the required fee is paid.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

5 Key Tactics Climate Change Deniers Use and How to Counter Climate Change Denial

Technique #1: Frequent use of so-called “experts.”
When you read any claim about climate change, the first thing you should do is check the source. Who is making all these claims on climate change? Is this person an expert? Or is he or she a ‘fake ‘expert.

Technique #2: Perfecting the art of cherry-picking.
Climate change deniers are very good at cherry picking or selectively choosing the facts or details that can support their claims.

Technique #3: Use of faulty arguments.
The problem is that sometimes, it is very difficult for regular people to actually understand the science and sift through the arguments. This is an important arena that climate scientists are trying to address. But as individuals, we have a responsibility to be analytical and discerning.

Technique #4: Reducing climate change warnings to conspiracies or money-making efforts.
In recent times, there has been a lot of claims, by politicians mostly (who, it should be noted, often have suspicious motivations and vested interests), that the issue of climate change is a hoax. More alarmingly, Trump and his aides in the current administration say that it is a money-making effort to promote China and undermine the competitiveness of the United States.

Technique #5: Manipulation through the “keystone domino” strategy.
In late 2017, The Guardian reported on a new strategy of climate change deniers which it referred to as the “keystone domino.” Climate change deniers relentlessly attack and discredit specific issues, with the thinking that if these keystone dominoes fall, then it creates a chain reaction, toppling the entire case for climate change.

Quote:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


Link provided....
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/