The Australian Government has released a timetable for the introduction of emissions trading.
The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, announced the following target dates last week:

• March to June 2008: preliminary consultations on technical issues with industry and non-government groups
• July 2008: public release of a Green Paper on emissions trading design, drawing on preliminary consultations
• December 2008: public release of exposure draft legislation
• March – Mid 2009: Bill considered by Parliament
• 2009: Consultation on emissions trading regulations
• 3rd quarter 2009: Act enters into force, regulator established
• 2010: Emissions Trading Scheme will commence.

The detailed timetable is available here.
The Minister emphasised the Government’s intention to consult widely with community on the design and implementation of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The current work of the Garnaut Climate Change Review will be one of several key inputs to the design of the ETS. The Garnaut Review team released a discussion paper on the design of an Australian ETS on 20 March; the paper is available here . Submissions on the paper will be received until 18 April.

posing bigger risks for coastal businesses and communities

Two recent studies (published in January 2008) have sounded warning bells about the rate of ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica that suggests sea levels could rise higher and faster than the 0.18 to 0.59 metres by the end of this century estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, posing increased risks for businesses and communities located in coastal regions.

Antarctic
A study of the Antarctic continent by Eric Rignot and his colleagues at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory found that West Antarctic lost 132 billion tonnes of ice in 2006, and the Antarctic Peninsula, which is the section that stretches towards  the southern tip of South America, lost 60 billion tonnes.
The combined loss of 192 billion tonnes of ice raised global  sea levels by approximately 0.5mm, an increase of  nearly 70% over the Antarctic’s contribution of just 0.3mm to sea level rise ten years ago, in 1996.

When projecting sea level rise, the IPCC included estimates based on the then known 1993 – 2003 ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica,  but did not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks, or the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, as not enough is known about how those processes work. 

Rignot’s study shows that the actual contribution was at the upper end of the IPCC’s estimates.

IPPC’s projections are probably underestimated
If that’s not bad enough, the IPCC also stated that the  maximum figure for its worst scenario ‘are not to be considered upper bounds for sea level rise’ and acknowledged that feedback mechanisms in the climate system could cause greater sea level rises than those projected.

A team of scientists from Australia’s CSIRO, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the UK’s Hadley Centre – four of the leading climate research bodies in the world – recently wrote (Science journal Feb 2007) that observed actual sea levels have risen faster than the models had projected, and would be closer to 88cm rise between 1990 and 2100.

Alarmingly, that team scientists agreed that previous projections may have underestimated the rate of change. They found that carbon dioxide concentrations were reasonably accurately projected by scientific modelling, but that global mean surface temperatures were actually in the upper part of the range projected by the IPCC. 

So, it seems that we have a good grasp of the CO2 emissions, but we are underestimating the impact that those emissions have on temperature increases and sea level rise.

There is a higher risk to people, business, animal and plant species and societies in under-estimating impacts than in over-estimating impacts.  If we over-estimate impacts we are likely to over-compensate with mitigation and adaptation strategies. If we under-estimate, we may not act fast enough to mitigate emissions and prevent serious or catastrophic change; or we may leave action too late to adapt economies, health services, infrastructure, social systems etc in time to cope with the change.

Further acceleration of change?
The current figure of 70% decadal sea rise from Antarctic melt should be of considerable concern, because it has occurred with a fairly modest rise in atmospheric and sea temperatures in the Antarctic region.  Although we cannot be absolutely certain, we can probably expect the rate of melt to accelerate in the next few decades as emissions increase, temperatures rise further and faster, and positive climate feedback systems kick in.

A serious problem arises if the globe continues to heat up at present rates (or faster) and if the ice melts also accelerate. Then the sea level rise will follow a similar pattern to compound interest on investments with small increments adding up to large change over a human lifetime.

For example, assuming that the Antarctic contribution to sea level rise continues to accelerate by a steady (current rate) 70% per decade the sea rise from Antarctic melt alone will be

• 2.9 mm in 2040 
• 5.0 mm in 2050
• 14 mm on 2070
• 24 mm in 2080
• 41 mm in 2090
• 72 mm in 2100. 

At that rate, and purely from Antarctic melt, the IPCC’s minimum sea level rise of 18cm will have been achieved  by 2063 instead of 2100, and the IPCC’s maximum sea level rise of 59cm will be reached around 2085, i.e. 15 years ahead of the worst scenario schedule. By 2100 the sea level will have risen by over 1.3 metres just from the Antarctic melt alone, and that would still represent only about 2% of the ice currently covering Antarctica.

That would expose many vital areas of major cities to inundation from storm surges as storms intensify and become more frequent with more warming.

 If sea levels rose even slightly faster through thermal expansion and melts from other ice sources, such as Greenland, and sea levels rose just 2 metres, cities like New York, London, and large parts of Sydney would become uninhabitable.  Whenever I walk along the beach at the Kurnell Peninsula in southern Sydney I wonder whether the narrow barrier sand dunes on the ocean side will withstand even a 0.5 metre sea rise with increased storm surges.  The entire peninsula (plus the oil refinery and forthcoming desalination plant) could be at risk, not to mention the Toyota factory, golf course and high school.

And driving towards Sydney airport, located on Botany Bay, it’s easy to see that 1 to 2 metre sea level rise will put the airport and homes along the Bay and inland for 1 – 2 kms inland at risk, as well as the Port Botany shipping freight depot and many inner city suburbs with all their associated infrastructure.

2 metres rise would make Macquarie Bank’s commercial rights at Sydney airport worthless.

Global acceleration of ice melt
The acceleration of ice melt is a  global phenomenon, not just in Antarctica.

The IPCC estimated that between 1960 and 1990, global ice loss from glaciers and ice caps averaged 136Gt (136 billion tonnes) per year.

Over the next 13 years to 2003 that figure doubled to an average 280Gt per year.

The estimated annual average sea level rise between 1961 and 2003 from the combination of glaciers and ice caps, the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet was 0.69mm.

In the last decade of that period, the sea level contribution from those sources increased 174% to 1.2mm per year.
 
And in the same week that Rignot’s study was published in Nature Geoscience,  Edward Hanna, of the UK’s University of Sheffield, reported in the Journal of Climate that the Greenland ice melt from 1998 – 2007 was the biggest decadal melt since records began in the 1950’s. The top 6 melt years for Greenland are all since 1995.

You can see the trend.

But that’s not all. An even bigger influence is at play that may dwarf the ice melts.

Thermal expansion
The figures given above for sea level rise from Antarctic ice melt do not include thermal expansion of oceans caused by rising ocean temperatures.

Water volume expands as the water is heated. Global average ocean temperatures rose 0.1 degrees Centigrade (upper 700 metres of ocean) from 1961 – 2003, but that incremental increase was sufficient to cause approximately 17.2mm  (22%) of the actual 77.4mm sea level rise during that period, simply by thermal expansion. That’s an average of average 0.4mm rise per year as a result of the oceans warming up.

The average annual sea level rise over that period was approximately 1.8mm.

However, in just  the last 11 years of that period – from 1993 to 2003 – the sea level rose by 34.1 mm, an annual average sea level rise of 3.1mm per year (172% up on the 1963 – 2003 average). Thermal expansion accounted for 17.6 mm of that rise in global sea level – an average 1.6mm per year, a substantial 400% increase in the average annual thermal expansion rate over the previous 43 year period. 

The percentage of sea level rise attributable to thermal expansion has more than doubled from 22% over the period 1963 – 2003, to 51% in the period 1993 – 2003.

Implications
No-one knows for certain what will happen with sea levels over the next decades and century. However, on current trends and emission trajectories, and with the slow pace of global policy development and additional climate feedbacks, it seems pretty certain that the IPCC’s upper estimates are likely to be substantially exceeded.

As climate science becomes more refined, and with improved data and understanding of climate change processes, the uncertainties that currently exist will be reduced to provide greater certainty.  However, recent improvements in data and understanding suggest that, if anything, we are underestimating the pace, power and extent of climate change and its impacts.

Is 2 metres sea level rise possible this century?
Is a 2 metre sea level rise this century  an outrageous suggestion?

No. There is precedent.

20,000 years ago the last ice age began to thaw. Over the next 10,000 years  the earth’s temperature warmed by 5 degrees C, or an average 1 degree C every 2,000 years. That is one of the quickest rises in the earth’s history – until now. 

Approximately 19,000 years ago, just after that thaw began, sea levels rose  by 10 – 15 metres over a period ranging from as little as 100 years to 500 years, as a result of the collapse of a large ice sheet. 

If business and lifestyles continue as usual, pumping out greenhouse gases at an ever increasing rate, there is little doubt that our planet will get hotter by at least 3 degrees C, and perhaps as much as 6 degrees C, by the end of this century (based on IPCC projections).

That is 60+ times faster than in previous history.

It is a recipe for substantial, unpredictable and uncontrollable, and very dangerous positive feedback triggers (enhancers) to begin firing.

And three of Nature’s big guns will be Greenland, Antarctica and thermal expansion of the oceans – and the consequent sea level rise.

I’ll look at the implications of sea rise on business, property, infrastructure and other factors in future blogs.

A note on underestimating climate change
In assessing the extent of risk to business, individuals and society from climate change, a number of factors must be considered in relation to ‘underestimating’, including

• Shortcomings in the models used to project climate change impacts. Climate change science is fairly new and evolving, and there are still many unknowns and uncertainties with climate change science. The climate system is massive and complex, and we have insufficient data on many aspects of climate and especially on feedback systems that can rapidly accelerate the change
• Scientists are generally fairly cautious, erring on the conservative side when expressing degrees of certainty about climate change, and how far they extrapolate the meaning of their findings, especially when their work is peer reviewed and possibly criticised; or when research funding comes under threat if certain strong views are expressed
• The language in the  IPCC’s fourth (2007) report was modified following intense pressure from various government representatives before the report was published. For instance, China, the USA and Saudi Arabia fought ferociously through the night (and succeeeded) to weaken some of the language in the Working Group 1 report. Each of those nations has a direct interest in continued oil or coal usage for economic growth.

The last point above is totally unacceptable in my view, because it runs the risk of slowing the global response to climate change and leaving the world, billions of people, the majority of species of animals and plants, and, of course the global economy exposed to higher risk through slower mitigation and adaptive responses on order to bolster a political agenda.

by Christo Norden-Powers     ©2008 Spandah Pty Ltd

If you haven’t already seen Al Gore’s DVD An Inconvenient Truth, hire it this weekend and listen and watch it carefully. Then discuss it with your family and people at work, and ask ‘What can we do immediately to reduce our carbon footprint?’In that documentary, Al Gore demonstrated in graphic simplicity where we are already headed. The scientific data is no longer reasonably open to disagreement. The UN report on global warming delivered to the world on 2 February 2007 put dissent to rest – we must reign in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 if humanity wants to avoid catastrophic climate change.Al Gore’s slide show contained one particular segment that was inescapable. That was where he juxtaposed global temperature fluctuations over hundreds of thousands of years with CO2 levels for the same period. The temperatures rose and fell in a precise correspondence with CO2 levels. The CO2 and temperature fluctuations meant the difference between a nice sunny day, and a mile of ice over our heads during an ice age.  They were the natural cycles over a very long period of time.Enter the modern age, and the CO2 levels are already double their long term maximum levels, and it has happened within the past hundred years – a fraction of a second in Earth’s life time. The escalation of CO2 in the atmosphere over the next 40 or so years is predicted to be perhaps that much again  – for many of us currently in business, in our great grandchildren’s lifetime – unless we take immediate and decisive action now. That’s around triple the maximum over the past few hundreds of thousands of years. If the normal 300,000 years of fluctuations are equivalent to sunny days versus ice age, imagine what our living environment would be like were the CO2 levels to reach three times their historical maximum levels!You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see and feel what’s happening.

You don’t have to look too far to see who is responsible. 

You don’t have to go too far to recognise who has to do something about it.

I just go and look in a mirror.

Over January, whilst idly contemplating various things that were of interest, I logged on to the Ergon energy web site and did a quick calculation of how much greenhouse gas was produced in supporting my household.

 The calculator represented household energy usage, airline travel and motor vehicle travel.

 I was shocked.

20 tonnes a year just from those sources! That excluded indirect emissions such as from the manufacturing process to build my car or TV, and excludes international air travel, which I didn’t include. The air travel emissions (my share of the aviation fuel) were calculated in economy seating. On international trips I fly business class, which uses around 2 – 3 times the space of an economy seat, and 2 – 3 times the share of greenhouse emissions.

It took only a few minutes to figure out that I could very simply reduce my family’s share of greenhouse emissions by switching from coal generated electricity to green electricity produced by solar and wind power.  The cost? Around $400 p.a. extra, and we’d be producing zero emissions from our use of electricity. (Have a look at www.ergon.com.au).

 That will reduce around 7 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions  a year.

When I travel from Sydney to Melbourne for a few days conducting workshops, I usually fly. That delivers 2.5 – 3 times times as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than if I drove there and back.  I love driving long distances. I work the phone in the car, think of new strategies and products, plan our next project, relax with some nice music, and overall it only takes me perhaps  5 – 6 hours longer than if I drove to the airport, checked in, flew to Melbourne, collected my luggage and took a cab or hire car to my destination. On the trip by plane I’d have been lucky to get half an hour of quality time to think and plan.

I won’t scrap domestic flights, as that would be unrealistic in our business, but I’ll certainly consider how I can utilise the time in the car and take the better environmental alternative as part of our corporate (and my personal) responsibility.

I’m sure that we are not alone. Most companies could substitute readily available web conferencing for travel on numerous occasions.

Since January I’ve also started riding my bicycle to our business Post Office early in the morning, instead of driving the 6km return journey. That saves a few kgs of greenhouse gas a year and, I’ve lost 5 kgs of flab. Sometimes I even scoot the long way back home and, thinking like a 12 year old, fly down a long, winding hill around by the bay with the wind in my hair follicles and a few tufts of hair flapping. Its an extra 2 km to do that and it feels good.

Edwina and I sat down and looked at how we could reduce emissions in our business.

The obvious solution was to turn off the lights, computers, printers and other equipment when they weren’t needed, instead of leaving them on standby (which can use up to 40% of the power that they’d suck out of the electricity grid when under normal use).

Then we became more creative and looked at this whole issue of air travel. The idea of web seminars popped up and when we investigated it further, webinars were looking like a very good solution for delivering several of our programs with very little impact on the environment. We also figured that we could deliver the web seminars at a  lower cost to the clients than live workshops and we could also capitalise on our international base and leverage the webinars globally with a lot less effort than our original plan.

So, in the next couple of months we will be delivering webinars globally from our office to yours at a significant discount on the usual $1000 a seat price, which of course makes the  workshop more accessible to all levels of clients’ organisations without them having to leave the office.

The message that I’m trying to deliver here is this: We can all take a few simple steps to do what MUST be done to improve our environment. We can take those steps personally and in business. If you get your team at work to put their heads together for an hour, you will find ways to save money and greenhouse emissions, and even innovative ways to improve your product or service delivery. When you do, tell your clients. You’ll be surprised how many people are now willing to support responsible business.

The other benefit was encapsulated in a comment by Sir Richard Branson  recently. Remember him – he’s build 6 distinctive businesses in the past 40 years, each one worth over $1 billion, so he knows something that most of us would like to know. This is what he said:

“Business should certainly become more responsible and life should not simply be about the bottom line. If you are one of 50,000 people working for a company that is doing good work in Africa, building schools and hospitals, you are likely to work harder for it because it’s not just a money-making machine. I’ve never seen Virgin as a money-making machine. I’ve seen it as a means to change things.”

Over the past 25 years I have included an ‘impact in the community’ element to all of the Cultural Change projects on which I’ve consulted organisations. On average, around 20% of employees in those companies are driven by a desire to make a positive difference in their world. By harnessing that energy, clients have been able to raise morale, productivity, energy and commitment to the benefit of the company and the community. I’ll be writing more about that, and how you can do it for your organisation, in the next few articles under the topic of Cultural Change and Transformation.

I’ll also showcase what some of Spandah’s clients have done to innovate and impact positively on the environment. If you have some stories of your own business’s initiatives (or your personal actions) that we can showcase, please comment.

Here is a list of the things that Al Gore suggests we can all do with little effort:

• reduce your carbon emissions to zero
• buy energy efficient appliances and light bulbs
• change your thermostat and use clock thermostat to reduce energy for heating and cooling
• weatherproof your house
• recycle
• if you can,  buy a hybrid car
• when you can, walk or ride a bicycle
• where you can, use light rail and mass transit
• tell your parents not the ruin the world you will live in
• if you’re a parent, join with their children to preserve the world we live in
• switch to renewable sources of energy
• call your power company to see if they offer green energy
• if they don’t, ask them why not
• vote for leaders who pledge to solve this crisis
• write to your political representative
• plant trees – lots of trees
• speak up in your community
• call radio shows and write to newspapers
• insist that all countries freeze CO2 emissions
• join international efforts to stop global warming
• reduce our dependence on foreign oils
• help farmers grow alcohol fuel
• raise fuel economy standards
• insist on lower emissions from automobiles
• if you believe in prayer,  pray people will find the strength to change
• in the words of the old African proverb: When you pray, move your feet
• encourage everyone you know to see this movie
• learn as much as you can about the climate crisis

Then put your knowledge into action.