8 February 2016, Climate Home, US military to war game climate change threats. US military planners have been ordered to war game climate change scenarios, focusing on “geopolitical and socioeconomic instability” linked to extreme weather. A new directive says forces need to undertake joint training exercises with allies to “enhance capacity” and “improve tactics” for tackling impacts linked to global warming. “Mission planning and execution must include identification and assessment of the effects of climate change on the DoD [department of defence] mission,” it reads. Under DOD DIRECTIVE 4715.21 chiefs of staff, equipment buyers and health advisers will need to integrate climate change into any new purchases, missions or infrastructure plans. The document, which is signed off by Robert Work, deputy secretary of Defense, calls for greater work with climate scientists to “reduce risk and promote mission execution.” Planners must “integrate climate change considerations into mission area analyses and acquisition strategies across the life cycle of weapons systems, platforms, and equipment.” Medical staff will need to update training to “address effects on personnel, including changes in extreme temperatures, precipitation patterns, and disease vector distribution.” Despite stiff opposition from many Republicans, the Pentagon has released a stream of climate-related warnings, research and adopted new clean energy policies in the past eight years. In 2014 chiefs of staff said it was “overwhelmingly clear” that climate change posed a security risk to the country. Last year the NATO military alliance war-gamed the use of wind and solar energy systems, while the US Navy recently launched a ‘Green Fleet’ partly powered by biofuels. Read More here
hmcadmin
8 February 2016, The Conversation, In a heatwave, the leafy suburbs are even more advantaged. Summer brings out the heliophobe in many of us. It’s manageable if you live in a house that stays cool when shut up tight. It helps if you’re physically capable of crossing to the shadier side of a hot street. It’s even better if you can work from home or use public transport stops that enjoy the cover of buildings or trees. We have reason to think a lot about shade these days, especially as the heatwaves roll in. At such times, shade is our friend. On top of the existing urban heat island effect, the incidence of extreme heat events is rising. These events are also lasting longer and getting hotter. Coverage for all is a wonderful ideal, and the federal government has announced plans to set “urban canopy” targets. But, in the meantime, some communities and areas need trees more urgently than others. Shade is not only a matter of public health; it is a social equity issue. In a warming city like Melbourne, some of the most socially vulnerable people are in areas that are most exposed to extreme heat. Our pilot research in Melbourne suggests that integrated social and ecological data sets should be used to develop programs that reduce socioecological vulnerability. Shade can be a life-saver More than twice as many people perished in Melbourne during the 2009 heatwave leading up to Black Saturday than died in the devastating fires on that day. Extreme heat is a slow-motion disaster. The tendency to respond to heat as an emergency rather than planning for an ongoing chronic stress can have deadly consequences, as Annie Bolitho and Fiona Miller argue in a forthcoming paper. Extreme heat events are increasing in duration and intensity, and some parts of cities are more vulnerable than others. AAP/Bureau of MeteorologySocial and geographic isolation, age, disability and existing health conditions all play a role in vulnerability to heat. Vulnerability to urban heat also has a geography: vulnerability is compounded by where people live and whether trees live there with them. Urban authorities are using vegetation to help fight extreme heat in susceptible areas. In large sprawling cities like Melbourne, local councils are working to increase canopy cover in their jurisdictions. Urban forests can mitigate the urban heat island effect and significantly lower surface and ambient air temperatures. Read More here
8 February 2016, The Guardian, Queensland miners’ call for tax relief to save jobs is ‘outrageous’, say opponents. Queensland’s resources industry has called on the state and federal governments for help to save thousands of jobs after a study showed that a third of the state’s coalmines are running at a loss. The report, commissioned by the Queensland Resources Council (QRC), also found that more than half of the mines producing thermal coal for power stations were losing money. “It’s really time for government to sit down with the industry and see what we can do to hang onto the jobs we’ve got,” the chief executive of QRC, Michael Roche, told ABC radio. Roche said governments must consider what support could be given to the industry, such as tax relief. He said conditions were some of the worst faced in decades. But the anti-mining group Lock the Gate said it was “outrageous” for miners to claim more help from the state government, which he said already gave $3bn a year in various subsidies to the industry. “The industry is inherently cyclical and there is no case for industry relief. The industry should have been prepared for the inevitable downturn,” said spokesman Drew Hutton. “Mining is a long-term business and it obviously did a very poor job in managing its cashflow. The Queensland government must resist subsidising mining and rewarding them for poorly managing their businesses.” Roche estimated that 21,000 jobs had been lost in the industry in Queensland in the past two years as demand from China has slowed and commodity prices have plunged. “We would like government to think about what we need to do to protect the remaining 60,000 jobs in the Queensland resources sector,” Roche said. But Lock The Gate said the industry provided less than 3% of jobs in Queensland and that rehabilitating the landscape from the impact of open-cut coal mining in particular would create far more employment than financial relief for existing operations. Read More here
7 February 2016, Reuters U.N. agency seeks to end rift on new aircraft emission rules. Europe and the United States tried to bridge differences over emissions standards for aircraft on Sunday as global aviation leaders prepared to adopt new rules that could affect Boeing Co and Airbus Group’s production of the largest jetliners and freighters. Proposals being debated in Montreal by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations’ aviation agency, would force makers of the world’s largest passenger jets to upgrade or stop producing certain models as early as 2023, according to sources close to the negotiations and documents seen by Reuters. U.S. and European negotiators are trying to come up with the world’s first carbon dioxide emissions standards for aircraft as part of the industry’s contribution to efforts to combat climate change. Aviation was not included in the global climate deal agreed by a UN conference in Paris in December, but ICAO is trying to nail down the first of its two-part strategy as soon as Monday after six years of talks. It is due to finalize a market-based mechanism for all airlines later this year. Differences remain on where to place the bar on efficiency, with the United States and Canada pushing for more stringent targets than the European Union, while environmental groups have accused Europe of dragging its feet. “The CO2 standard will push industry to be as fuel-efficient as possible in all market conditions to reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and the impact of aviation on climate change,” stated the Canadian paper presented at ICAO last week. Read More here