16 March 2016, The Conversation, Hot cities: the ‘smart’ response to urban heat threats. Significant urban policy and planning efforts have been directed at the problem of rising heat in cities. “Smart” cities create new relationships and interdependencies between people, technology and urban environments. The concept rests on the efficient, responsive and adaptive capacities of urban infrastructure. But how well does the smart city respond to the devastating scale and impact of urban heat threats such as bushfires and heatwaves? The Australian Medical Association has warned heat is a “silent killer”. It notes that more Australians die each year due to heat than on the roads. Heatwaves have contributed to more deaths in Australia than any other natural disaster. Bushfires are also expected to increase, with significant impacts on Australian cities and urban communities such as the greater Melbourne region. This is a pressing issue for Australian cities and urban regions, at a time when Australian climatologists are warning of the increasing frequency, severity and duration of heatwaves and bushfires. Smart urban infrastructure New digital technology is entering cities, homes and workplaces. These are performing complex tasks. Self-driving cars and cashless payment systems are examples of significant change. But they also increase a city’s vulnerability in the event of a system breakdown or failure. The ways that these dependencies make cities highly vulnerable during a crisis are poorly understood. For example, smartphone-enabled bushfire and heatwave warning systems are one of the key policy responses proposed and trialled as part of the smart city. But, the benefits and challenges of such responses are still largely unknown. While the invisibility of smart city technology and infrastructure may rise to the surface and become exposed in the face of urban heat-related threats and crises, an array of important considerations lurk in the shadows. Read More here
hmcadmin
15 March 2016, Renew Economy, Hunt caught out on “peak emissions”, but he may have a cheap solution. As new NASA data reveals global temperature records were smashed by a “stunning” margin in the month of February, new research from carbon market analysts RepuTex has found that Australia’s contribution to curbing global warming could be easier and cheaper than we thought. The study, published on Tuesday has found more than half of Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target able to be met using “cheap and abundant” domestic abatement – debunking the well established policy myth that the lowest-cost path for Australia was to buy cheap international offsets. The conclusion was reached in a new approach to modelling based on what RepuTex has dubbed the “real world supply cost curve”. It found that more than 300 million credits could be created by local Australian companies over the next seven years at around $1-$4 per credit, while more than 500 million credits could be supplied at less than $20. As RepuTex executive director Hugh Grossman told RenewEconomy in a telephone interview on Tuesday, “that’s a lot” – particularly when you consider the government’s calculations that it needs 900 million tonnes of abatement to meet its emissions reduction 2030 target. And it’s significant, he notes, in that it changes the game for how Australian policy might be designed to achieve emissions cuts: using local emissions reductions, at low cost, without relying on international offsets, all while keeping the cost of compliance low for industry……. Indeed, far from encouraging business and industry to cut emissions, federal environment minister Greg Hunt is busy reassuring us all that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions actually “peaked” 10 years ago. “I believe that we have reached what is sometimes known as peak emissions,” Hunt told ABC Radio’s AM program. “My best estimate is that we are unlikely as a nation ever to surpass [2005 levels] … In my best judgment, the advice, the information from the department, we reached peak emissions in 2005-06 … and the course of history to come for Australia is that we will continue to be below that figure.” The comments – described by Climate Institute CEO John Connor as “extraordinary”, particularly in light of “the enormous credibility gap in the government’s current policies” – were quickly dismissed by Grossman, who says his company’s analysis of the government’s own data shows Australia’s emissions will continue to grow, with “no peak in sight”. Read More here
18 March 2016, ECOS, Building disaster resilience systematically. The cost of replacing essential infrastructure damaged by disasters in the next 35 years is estimated to reach $17bn according to the latest set of reports from the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities. The reports, Building Resilient Infrastructure and the Economic Costs of Social Impact of Disasters, outline the costs associated with replacing essential infrastructure damaged by disasters and provide an overview of the direct costs of physical damage with the total economic cost of disasters. In 2015, the total economic costs of disasters exceeded $9bn, a figure that is projected to double by 2030 and reach $33bn per year by 2050 – funds that could be apportioned elsewhere on other major national projects. And as Heinrich Eder, CEO of reinsurer Munich Re, noted, these projections are based only on economic and population growth; they do not even include the increasingly detectable effects of climate change. These are big, and socially traumatic, numbers. Long-term they have the same sort of potential to create holes in national and state budgets as our ageing population does—the subject of repeated Intergenerational Reports and eventual decisions about adjusting retirement age. It is clear to us, based on our work, that investing much more in disaster resilience as a nation will reduce physical damage, avoid social disruption and trauma, and lessen this capricious burden on state and national budgets. In fact, estimates suggest that well-targeted investments in resilience could result in significant savings for the government. Read More here
14 March 2016, The Guardian, Severe coral bleaching worsens in most pristine parts of Great Barrier Reef. Expert blames global warming, as coral bleaches when water temperatures go above a certain threshold for an extended period of time. Damage to parts of the Great Barrier Reef has worsened, leading authorities to raise the alert to the second-highest level, indicating severe local coral bleaching. The bleaching is worst in the most pristine and remote parts of the reef north of Cairns, according to Terry Hughes, convenor of the National Coral Taskforce. “It’s the jewel in the crown of the Great Barrier Reef and it’s now getting a quite a serious impact from this bleaching event,” he said. “The northern reefs are bleaching quite badly now.” Hughes said it appeared there was some coral death occurring in northern reefs. Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority said the area around Lizard Island, 250km north of Cairns, and sites further north, had fared the worst. The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration predicts bleaching conditions to worsen over the coming weeks. The world is currently in the grips of the third global coral bleaching event. Coral bleaches when water temperatures are raised above a certain threshold for an extended period of time. Hughes, director of the ARC centre of excellence for coral reef studies at James Cook University, said although the strong El Niño occurring now is partly to blame for the bleaching event, the real culprit is global warming caused by carbon emissions. Read More here