The Conversation

Dingoes are often promoted as a solution to Australia's species conservation problems. Dingo image from www.shutterstock.com

Dingoes have often been hailed as a solution to Australia’s threatened species crisis, particularly the extreme extinction rate of the country’s small mammals.

But are dingoes really the heroes-in-waiting of Australian conservation? The truth is that no one knows, although our recent research casts a shadow over some foundations of this idea.

The notion of dingoes as protectors of Australian ecosystems was inspired largely by the apparently successful reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park in the United States. But Australia’s environments are very different.

Cascading species

To understand the recent excitement about wolves, we need to consider an ecological phenomenon known as “trophic cascades”. The term “trophic” essentially refers to food, and thus trophic interactions involve the transfer of energy between organisms when one eats another.

Within ecosystems, there are different trophic levels. Plants are typically near the base; herbivores (animals that eat plants) are nearer the middle; and predators (animals that eat other animals) are at the top.

The theory of trophic cascades describes what happens when something disrupts populations of top-order predators, such as lions in Africa, tigers in Asia, or Yellowstone’s wolves.

The wolves’ decline allowed herbivores, such as elk, to increase. In turn, the growing elk population ate too much of the shrubby vegetation alongside rivers, which, over time, changed from being mostly willow thickets to grassland. Then another herbivore – beavers – that relies on willows went locally extinct. This in turn affected the ecology of the local streams.

Wolves play a key role in Yellowstone’s ecosystems. Wolf image from www.shutterstock.com

Without beavers to engineer dams, local waterways changed from a series of connected pools to eroded gutters, with huge flow-on effects for smaller aquatic animals and plants.

Now, the reintroduction of wolves appears to have reduced the impact of elk on vegetation, some riparian areas have regenerated, some birds have returned and there are signs of beavers coming back. That said, wolf reintroduction has not yet fully reversed the trophic cascade.

Comparing apples with quandongs

Sturt National Park, in the New South Wales outback, has been nominated as an experimental site for reintroducing dingoes. Recently, we compared the environment of Sturt with Yellowstone to consider how such a reintroduction might play out.

These regions are clearly very different. Both are arid, but that is where the similarity ends. Yellowstone has a stable climate and nutrient-rich soils, sits at high altitude and features diverse landscapes. Precipitation in Yellowstone hasn’t dropped below 200mm per year in more than a century.

Herds of bison in Yellowstone National Park. Helen Morgan

Yellowstone’s precipitation falls largely as heavy winter snow. Each spring the snowmelt flows in huge volumes into rivers, streams and wetlands across the landscape. This underpins a predictable supply of resources which, in turn, triggers herbivores to migrate and reproduce every year.

These predictable conditions support a wide range of carnivores and herbivores, including some of North America’s last-remaining “megafauna”, such as bison, which can tip the scales at over a tonne. Yellowstone also has many large predators – wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, mountain lion, lynx and coyotes all coexist there – along with a range of smaller predators too.

Predators in Yellowstone can be sure that prey will be available at particular times. The environment promotes stable, strong trophic links, allowing individual animals to reach large sizes. This strong relationship between trophic levels means that when the system is perturbed – for instance, when wolves are removed – trophic cascades can occur.

Unlike Yellowstone, arid Australia is dry, flat, nutrient-poor and characterised by one of the most extreme and unpredictable climates on Earth. The yearly rainfall at Sturt reaches 200mm just 50% of the time.

Australia’s Sturt Desert has a highly unpredictable climate. Helen Morgan

Australia’s arid ecosystems have evolved largely in isolation for 45 million years. In response to drought, fire and poor soils, arid Australia has evolved highly specialised ecosystems, made up of species that can survive well-documented “boom and bust” cycles.

Unlike the regular rhythm of Yellowstone life, sporadic pulses of water and fire affect and override the trophic interactions of species, between plants and herbivores, and predators and their prey. Our native herbivores travel in response to patchy and unpredictable food sources in boom times. But however good the boom, the bust is certain to follow.

Unpredictable but inevitable drought weakens trophic links between predators, herbivores and plants. Individuals die due to lack of water, populations are reduced and can only recover when rain comes again.

Our arid wildlife is very different from Yellowstone’s too. Our megafauna are long gone. So too are our medium-sized predators, such as thylacines.

Today, arid Australia’s remaining native wildlife is characterised by birds, reptiles and small mammals, along with macropods that are generally much smaller than the herbivores in Yellowstone.

Our predators are small and mostly introduced species, including dingoes, foxes and cats. None is equivalent to wolves, mountain lions or bears, which can reach more than three times the weight of the largest dingo. Wolves are wolves, and dingoes are dogs.

Wolves in dingo clothes?

What does all this mean for Australia? Yellowstone’s stable climate means that there are strong and reliable links between predators, prey and plants. By comparison, arid Australia’s climate is dramatically unstable.

This raises the question of whether we can reasonably expect to see the same sorts of relationships between species, and whether dingoes are likely to help restore Australia’s ecosystems.

We should conduct experiments to understand the roles of dingoes and the impacts of managing them. How we manage predators, including dingoes, should be informed by robust knowledge of local ecosystems, including predators’ roles within them.

What we shouldn’t do is expect that dingoes will necessarily help Australia’s wildlife, based on what wolves have done in snowy America. The underlying ecosystems are very different.

Many people are inspired by the apparently successful example of wolves returning to Yellowstone, but in Australia we should tread carefully.

Rather than trying to prove that dingoes in Australia are just as beneficial as wolves in Yellowstone, we should seek to understand the roles that dingoes really play here, and work from there.

Helen Morgan receives funding from the Keith and Dorothy Mackay Travelling Scholarship, University of New England, the Holsworth Wildlife Endowment Trust and Invasive Animals CRC

Guy Ballard receives funding from the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, NSW Local Land Services and the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service.

John Thomas Hunter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Some commentators seem to be worried that our electricity networks are facing an impending voltage crisis, citing fears that renewables (rooftop solar panels in particular) will threaten the quality of our power supply.

These concerns hinge on the fact that solar panels and other domestic generators can push up voltages, potentially making it harder for network companies to maintain stability across the grid. But what is less well understood (and far less reported) is the massive potential for local generation to actually improve the quality of our power, rather than hinder it.

A new report from our Networks Renewed project aims to show how technologies such as “smart inverters” can help to manage voltage at the household scale, rather than at substations. This would improve the quality of our power and flip the potential problem of household renewables into a solution.

Why all the fuss about voltage?

Electricity from our power points should be at roughly 230 volts, without deviating too far above or below. It fluctuates throughout the day, depending on how much power is being used.

Here’s an analogy: think of water flowing through pipes. The power lines are the pipes themselves, and the voltage is like the water pressure in the pipes – that is, the amount of force pushing the water (or electricity) along. Using large amounts of power causes the voltage to drop, rather like when the washing machine comes on while you’re having a shower; all of a sudden the pressure drops because other appliances are using the water too.

Pressure is also affected by how close the appliance is to the source. For instance, if your washing machine and shower were connected right at the foot of the dam, instead of at the end of several miles of pipes, you could have them both switched on and not notice a drop in pressure.

For an electrical distribution system, this means that the houses farthest away from the substation are the most susceptible to sagging (lower) voltage when large amounts of power are being used.

Voltage management has always been an issue for grid operators, particularly in rural locations where the power lines are longer. Low voltage on long power lines often means dim and flickering lights for residents at the end of the line.

On the flip side, overvoltages can damage sensitive electronic equipment – a bit like when the water pressure pops your garden hose off the tap.

These fluctuations can become a problem for power companies when the voltage goes outside the allowable range.

How does solar power affect voltage?

Our electricity networks were not originally built for lots of local generation sources like rooftop solar panels or small wind turbines. Until recently, power has generally flowed only in one direction, from a large (usually coal-fired) power station to consumers.

The growing number of household solar panels on the network have changed this landscape and now power flows both ways. Solar panels can make managing the grid more complex, because the voltage rises where they are generating power.

A small voltage increase is not a problem when there is enough demand for electricity. But when nobody is home in the neighbourhood, the solar power might lift the voltage beyond the upper limit.

In this case, the circuit protectors in the generator will probably trip and the solar panels will be cut off, to protect the network. This also means that the household won’t have access to (or get paid for!) the solar power it is generating.

Any customer-owned generator can affect the voltage – including solar, batteries, or diesel generators. But we tend to hear about solar because it is by far the most popular means of local generation; Australia now has more than 1.5 million homes with rooftop solar, and that figure is rising rapidly.

While some people might see this as an issue, sometimes the solution lies in the problem itself. In this case, new solar systems can offer a much more sophisticated way to manage grid voltage.

The innovation: smart inverters can control solar and batteries to help stabilise voltage on the grid. How can solar become the solution?

Traditionally, voltage management solutions are fairly blunt, affecting tens or even hundreds of properties at a time, despite the fact that conditions might be quite different at each property. The equipment used – replete with technical-sounding names such as “on-load tap changers” and “line-drop compensators” – is expensive and is often located within transformers at substations. All of this electrical engineering kit adds to the cost of energy for customers.

However, new solar and battery systems now have the intelligence to manage voltage in a cheaper and more targeted way, through their “smart” inverters. These new technologies may provide the missing link to new renewable and reliable energy sources.

This is how it works: residential solar, batteries and other generators are connected to the grid through inverters that now have embedded IoT (internet of things) communications technology. These smart inverters allow the network to “talk” to the local generator and request support services, including through what’s called reactive power (see graphic below).

Reactive power can help to raise and lower the voltage on the network, improving the quality of our power including the voltage stability. For more technical detail see our newly released report on the potential for smart inverters to help manage the grid.

Smart inverters can export or absorb both real and reactive power.

All this is only possible if network businesses are open to new, proactive ways of operating - as demonstrated by our Networks Renewed project partners United Energy in Victoria and Essential Energy in New South Wales.

This means a shift in thinking from the traditional passive customer model – we deliver energy to you! – to a more dynamic and collaborative one in which customers can actually help to manage the grid as well as using and generating power.

Sure, transitioning an entire energy system is no mean feat, but it offers an opportunity to build a better, more resilient electricity system that includes more renewable energy.

If we are smart, we will not need to trade off our climate impact with the dependability of our electricity system. We just need to be open to the new ways of solving old problems.

The Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney undertakes paid sustainability research for a wide range of government, NGO and corporate clients, including energy businesses. The Networks Renewed project is funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the NSW and Victorian state governments, in partnership with Essential Energy, United Energy, Reposit Power, SMA Australia, and the Australian PV Institute. Lawrence McIntosh is also a partner at PV Lab Australia, a solar panel quality assurance business, and serves as the part time Principal Executive Officer of SolarShare, a community owned solar project in Canberra, ACT.

Dani Alexander is a member of the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF), which undertakes paid sustainability research for a wide range of government, NGO and corporate clients, including energy businesses.

Australia's universities are great at green innovation, but not so good at going low-carbon themselves. PrinceArutha/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Australian universities have a proud tradition in researching, teaching and advocating the science of climate change. The famous statistic that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are altering the climate is courtesy of researchers at the University of Queensland. Nine of the nation’s 43 universities have been ranked “well above world standard” in environmental science, and many of the leading public voices on climate policy – such as Ross Garnaut, Will Steffen and Tim Flannery – are university professors.

The science these universities (and many others around the world) have produced is very clear. Keeping average global temperatures within 2℃ of pre-industrial levels, as per the Paris climate agreement, will require a reduction in carbon (and other long-lived greenhouse gases) of 40-70% from 2010 levels by 2050, and near-zero emissions by 2100 (see section 3.4 here).

What’s less clear is what Australian universities are actually doing about it in practical terms. Universities exist to do three things: teach, research and engage. Climate change permeates all three endeavours, and these days many academics have lost any previous reticence about expressing forthright views on political questions such as the government’s emissions targets or renewable energy policies.

Anyone who followed Australian politics during Tony Abbott’s years as opposition leader and then prime minister will recall the fierce debates over the carbon tax, direct action, and the axing of the Climate Commission. Those with good memories will remember the furious argument that erupted around the Australian National University’s decision to divest from seven resources companies.

Universities clearly know what the science says and what society needs to do about it. But it is evidently easier to say what needs to be done than to do something about it. This contrast between words and actions is shown clearly by Australian universities’ collective response to climate change.

Promises, promises

Of the 43 Australian universities, three (RMIT, UTS and CSU, of which the latter remains Australia’s only carbon-neutral university) have committed to absolute reductions in carbon emissions. A further 12 have pledged to reduce carbon emissions but have sprinkled their commitments with riders, such as reducing emissions per “gross floor area”, which would allow emissions to grow as the university expands and is inconsistent with the need to cut carbon in absolute terms.

To compile these data, I looked at all Australian universities’ 2015 annual reports, forward-looking corporate strategies, and historic mission-based compacts (performance agreements with the Commonwealth). Clearly, it is possible for universities to have a carbon target that is not mentioned in these reports, but my logic is that these documents give a clear picture of the organisation’s priorities and spending.

Worryingly, 11 universities make no mention at all of carbon-reduction policies anywhere in these documents.

The picture is no rosier for those nine universities (ANU, Griffith, JCU, Macquarie, Canberra, Melbourne, Queensland, UTS and UWA) whose environmental science has received the highest rating. Only Melbourne and Queensland mention carbon in their corporate strategies; the other seven are silent.

The same is true for 10 of the 12 universities whose researchers were involved in compiling the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report. And if it’s not in the strategy it seems unlikely to be a priority for the university.

There are ten Australian universities that consume enough energy to be required to publish their emissions data, under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act (2007). Data from the Clean Energy Regulator show that their emissions increased by 4.6% between 2010-11 and 2014-15.

Lead by example

This poses two tricky questions for universities. First, why don’t universities act more decisively on the implications of their own climate research, while they are urging society to do so? Second, in a networked economy where knowledge is king, how will universities manage to partner with businesses to drive down greenhouse emissions, if they can’t even successfully do it themselves?

Universities are not short of funds to demonstrate how to build a low-carbon future, but they are short of partners. Currently Australian universities are at the bottom of the OECD’s rankings for fostering business partnerships and innovation. Yet the opportunities are there.

My analysis of universities’ 2015 reports shows that universities have committed to spending more than A$1.5 billion in property, plant and equipment capital works during 2016 alone (2016 annual reports have not yet been released). For comparison, the Australian Research Council awarded less than A$100 million between 2011 and 2013 for universities to research the built environment and design, meaning that it would take the ARC 50 years to match what universities spent on their own property in 2016.

Yet in spite of this huge outlay, only eight universities have committed to using their campuses as “living labs” to apply their research or to help deliver teaching and research in this field.

All universities talk of the need to forge external partnerships with government, communities and business. Yet looking at the detail, there are just 17 universities – fewer than half – that have committed themselves to trying to work across the university internally. It should be no surprise that universities are so poor at partnering with external organisations if they can’t manage it within their own organisations.

Evidence-based spending?

All of this suggests that most Australian universities are failing to take proper account of their own climate science in choosing how to run themselves. Remarkably, 25% of universities do not mention greenhouse emissions anywhere in their public reports, corporate strategies or mission-based compacts.

Less than 20% of Australian universities are using their campus development to deliver teaching and research outcomes or as a living lab to innovate. Only one university is committed to doing this in the future.

Yet meanwhile, universities have spent more than A$1.5 billion during 2016 (according to their 2015 annual reports) on their built environments. If this infrastructure spend is not used also to drive teaching and research outcomes, or to showcase how to adopt research, then it is being spent inefficiently.

If this money is being spent in a way that doesn’t help Australia hit its climate targets, and the world to live up to the Paris Agreement, then this spending is not evidenced-based. And if spending and research are not evidence-based, we really do need to worry about what tomorrow brings.

This article is based on a presentation given at the World Renewable Energy Congress in Perth on February 6.

Universities Australia deputy chief executive Catriona Jackson responds:

Australia’s universities have a wide range of energy savings and lower-carbon initiatives.

Actually there are a significant number of projects and programs in place across the Australian university sector towards greater sustainability. Many of those initiatives have also been recognised through programs such as the Green Gowns awards.

But one of the challenges for universities in modernising facilities to meet higher environmental standards is having an ongoing source of infrastructure funding.

That’s yet another reason why we’re strongly against the closure of the $3.7 billion Education Investment Fund, which has funded major building works on Australia’s university campuses.

If we want smarter buildings and cleaner technology – let alone cutting-edge research and teaching facilities – an infrastructure fund is vital.

Mike Burbridge receives a PHD scholarship from Co-operative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living and is currently a PHD student at Curtin University.

Australia: there's a lot of it to look after. Thomas Schoch/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Extinction threatens iconic Australian birds and animals. The regent honeyeater, the orange-bellied parrot, and Leadbeater’s possum have all entered the list of critically endangered species.

It is too late for the more than 50 species that are already extinct, including bettongs, various wallabies, and many others. Despite international commitments, policies and projects, Australia’s biodiversity outcomes remain unsatisfactory.

A 2015 review of Australia’s 2010-2050 Biodiversity Conservation Strategy found that it has failed to “effectively guide the efforts of governments, other organisations or individuals”.

Insufficient resourcing is one cause of biodiversity loss. The challenge is impressive. Australia must tackle degradation and fragmentation of habitat, invasive species, unsustainable use of resources, the deterioration of the aquatic environment and water flows, increased fire events, and climate change.

This all requires money to support private landholders conducting conservation activities, to fund research, to manage public lands, and to support other conservation activities conducted by governments, industry, and individuals.

So where can we find the funds?

How much money is needed?

We have estimated that Australia’s biodiversity protection requires an equivalent investment to defence spending – roughly 2% of gross domestic product.

Of course, such estimates are up for debate given that how much money is required depends on what we want the environment to look like, which methods we use, and how well they work. Other studies (see also here and here point to a similar conclusion: far more money is needed to achieve significantly better outcomes.

Apart from government funding, private landholders, businesses, communities, Indigenous Australians, and non-government organisations contribute significantly to natural resource management. We were unable to quantify their collective cash and in-kind contributions, as the information is not available. But we do know that farmers spend around A$3 billion each year on natural resource management.

Nonetheless, the erosion of environmental values indicates that the level of spending required to sufficiently meet conservation targets far exceeds the amount currently being spent. The investment required is similar to value of agriculture in Australia.

Conservation doesn’t come cheap. JJ Harrison/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Unfortunately, the concentration of wealth and labour sets a limit to what any given community can pay.

Despite a high GDP per person and very wealthy cities, Australia has fewer than 0.1 people per hectare and a wealth intensity (GDP per hectare) of less than US$2,000 due to the sparse population and income of rural Australia.

Australia’s rural population has declined sharply, from over 18% in 1960 to around 10% today. Other countries (for example in Europe) are not limited to the same degree. Even China has a greater rural resource intensity than Australia.

Rural incomes are often volatile, but environmental investments need to be sustained. The history of Landcare highlights that private landholders have struggled to secure a reliable investment basis for sustainably managing the environment.

Can government pay what is required?

If Australia is serious about the environment, we need to know who will pay for biodiversity protection (a public good). This is especially true given that it is not feasible for rural (particularly Indigenous) landholders and communities to invest the required amount.

Will government be the underpinning investor? The federal government’s current spending program on natural resource management was initiated in 2014 with an allocation of A$2 billion over four years.

This was split between the second National Landcare Program, the (now-defunded) Green Army, the Working on Country program, the Land Sector Package, the Reef 2050 plan, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, and the Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan.

As well as federal funding, the state, territory, and local governments invest in public lands, bushfire mitigation, waste management, water management, environmental research and development, biodiversity programs, and environmental policies. Local and state government departments together spend around A$4.9 billion each year on natural resource management.

The problem is that government spending on natural resource management can not be significantly increased in the near future due to fiscal pressures and the focus on reducing budget deficits.

Show us the money

At a time when Australia is reconsidering many aspects of its environmental policies, we should address the strategy for funding natural resource management.

It should be possible to leverage more private spending on the environment preferably as part of a coordinated strategy. Diverse, market-based approaches are being used around the world.

For example, we could use market instruments such as biodiversity banking to support landholders in protecting biodiversity.

Taxation incentives, such as a generous tax offset for landholders who spend money on improving the environment, can be a very powerful catalyst and could be crucial for meeting environmental investment needs.

Evidence suggests that integrating a variety of mechanisms into a coordinated business model for the environment is likely to be the most efficient and effective approach. But this will not happen unless Australia faces the fiscal challenge of sustainability head-on.

Australia needs an innovative investment plan for the environment. By combining known funding methods and investment innovation, Australia can reduce the gap between what we currently spend and what the environment needs.

Without a more sophisticated investment strategy, it is likely that Australia will continue on the trajectory of decline.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

You’ve probably heard about El Niño, the climate system that brings dry and often hotter weather to Australia over summer.

You might also know that climate change is likely to intensify drought conditions, which is one of the reasons climate scientists keep talking about the desperate need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the damaging consequences if we don’t.

El Niño is driven by changes in the Pacific Ocean, and shifts around with its opposite, La Niña, every 2-7 years, in a cycle known as the El Niño Southern Oscillation or ENSO.

But that’s only part of the story. There’s another important piece of nature’s puzzle in the Pacific Ocean that isn’t often discussed.

It’s called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO, a name coined by a study which examined how Australia’s rainfall, temperature, river flow and crop yields changed over decades.

Since El Niño means “the boy” in Spanish, and La Niña “the girl”, we could call the warm phase of the IPO “El Tío” (the uncle) and the negative phase “La Tía” (the auntie).

These erratic relatives are hard to predict. El Tío and La Tía phases have been compared to a stumbling drunk. And honestly, can anyone predict what a drunk uncle will say at a family gathering?

What is El Tío?

Like ENSO, the IPO is related to the movement of warm water around the Pacific Ocean. Begrudgingly, it shifts its enormous backside around the great Pacific bathtub every 10-30 years, much longer than the 2-7 years of ENSO.

The IPO’s pattern is similar to ENSO, which has led climate scientists to think that the two are strongly linked. But the IPO operates on much longer timescales.

We don’t yet have conclusive knowledge of whether the IPO is a specific climate mechanism, and there is a strong school of thought which proposes that it is a combination of several different mechanisms in the ocean and the atmosphere.

Despite these mysteries, we know that the IPO had an influence on the global warming “hiatus” - the apparent slowdown in global temperature increases over the early 2000s.

Global temperatures are on the up, but the IPO affects the rate of warming. Author provided, data from NOAA, adapted from England et al. (2014) Nat. Clim. Change Temperamental relatives

When it comes to global temperatures we know that our greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution are the primary driver of the strong warming of the planet. But how do El Tío and La Tía affect our weather and climate from year to year and decade to decade?

Superimposed on top of the familiar long-term rise in global temperatures are some natural bumps in the road. When you’re hiking up a massive mountain, there are a few dips and hills along the way.

Several recent studies have shown that the IPO phases, El Tío and La Tía, have a temporary warming and cooling influence on the planet.

Rainfall around the world is also affected by El Tío and La Tía, including impacts such as floods and drought in the United States, China, Australia and New Zealand.

In the negative phase of the IPO (La Tía) the surface temperatures of the Pacific Ocean are cooler than usual near the equator and warmer than usual away from the equator.

Since about the year 2000, some of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been getting buried in the deep Pacific Ocean, leading to a slowdown in global warming over about the last 15 years. It appears as though we have a kind auntie, La Tía perhaps, who has been cushioning the blow of global warming. For the time being, anyway.

The flip side of our kind auntie is our bad-tempered uncle, El Tío. He is partly responsible for periods of accelerated warming, like the period from the late 1970s to the late 1990s.

The IPO has been in its “kind auntie” phase for well over a decade now. But the IPO could be about to flip over to El Tío. If that happens, it is not good news for global temperatures – they will accelerate upwards.

Models getting better

One of the challenges to climate science is to understand how the next decade, and the next couple of decades, will unravel. The people who look after our water and our environment want to know things like how fast our planet will warm in the next 10 years, and whether we will have major droughts and floods.

To do this we can use computer models of Earth’s climate. In our recently published paper in Environmental Research Letters, we evaluated how well a large number of models from around the world simulate the IPO. We found that the models do surprisingly well on some points, but don’t quite simulate the same degree of slow movement (the stubborn behaviour) of El Tío and La Tía that we observe in the real world.

But some climate models are better at simulating El Tío and La Tía. This is useful because it points the way to better models that could be used to understand the next few decades of El Tío, La Tía and climate change.

However, more work needs to be done to predict the next shift in the IPO and climate change. This is the topic of a new set of experiments that are going to be part the next round of climate model comparisons.

With further model development and new observations of the deep ocean available since 2005, scientists will be able to more easily answer some of these important questions.

Whatever the case, cranky old El Tío is waiting just around the corner. His big stick is poised, ready to give us a massive hiding: a swift rise in global temperatures over the coming decades.

And like a big smack, that would be no laughing matter.

Ben Henley receives funding from an ARC Linkage Project and is an associate investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

Chris Folland receives funding from the UK Met Office via contract the Joint. BEIS/Defra contract GA1101.

David Karoly receives funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and and ARC Linkage grant. He is a member of the Climate Change Authority and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

Mandy Freund receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

Jaci Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Here in Perth, a battle is raging over a 5km stretch of road known as Roe 8. Work on the project, part of the proposed Perth Freight Link, began late in 2016 and as legal avenues to halt construction were exhausted, opponents resorted to non-violent direct action. Some protest “mass actions” have attracted more than 1,000 people from all walks of life and by the end of January, as bulldozers tore through the Coolbellup bushland under costly police protection, well over 100 had been arrested.

Clearing machinery arrives on site under heavy police protection, January 2017. Gnangarra

Proponents say the road is necessary to improve the safety and efficiency of freight traffic to and from the Port of Fremantle. Opponents point to freight alternatives that will avoid Roe 8’s destruction of Aboriginal heritage, endangered banksia woodland, and important wetlands. Critics have also decried the government’s lack of transparency and prudence in decision-making, and highlighted serious shortcomings in environmental policies and laws.

The state’s Labor opposition has promised to scrap the project if it wins government at the state election on March 11, yet to the shock and dismay of many, bulldozing continues.

How will the conflict end? While history provides no sure guide to the future, it does reveal that successful environmental campaigns have tended to share several key features that unsuccessful campaigns have lacked. What are they?

1. Elections

Some of the biggest environmentalist victories have been won at the ballot box. This was the case for the proposed Franklin River dam, which became a federal election issue and helped to bring Bob Hawke’s Labor government to power.

By-elections have also decided the fate of environmentally contentious developments. Wayne Goss’s proposed “Koala tollway” between Brisbane and the Gold Coast cost Labor nine seats in the 1995 state election; a by-election in February 1996 saw the end of both Goss’s majority and the toll road.

Similarly, the campaign against a proposal for agricultural development in Victoria’s Little Desert delivered a shock metropolitan by-election result that, along with sustained public pressure, quashed the proposal.

More recently, the East-West Link toll road in Melbourne was, like Roe 8, hurried into the construction phase before an election with no full business case available for public scrutiny. The campaign against the Link, which united public transport advocates and local councils, ran for more than a year and attracted A$1.6 million in policing costs. Labor promised to halt construction and following his electoral success in November 2015, the incoming premier Daniel Andrews tore up the contracts, setting what might turn out to be a crucial precedent for WA Labor’s Mark McGowan.

Even electoral failures can help environmental causes in the long run. Advocates for Lake Pedder in Tasmania didn’t attract political support for their cause from either major party, so they formed their own: the United Tasmania Group. It narrowly failed to win a seat at the 1972 state election, and Lake Pedder was lost.

But those who were galvanised by this failure were instrumental in the victory 10 years later over the Franklin dam, which transformed federal-state relations and launched the Australian Greens as a political force.

2. Unions

Many past environmental campaigns have succeeded only through union involvement. In the 1970s and ‘80s, almost 50% of the Australian workforce was unionised, giving the unions significant power to shut down contentious projects.

The 1970 campaign against oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef claimed success when the Transport Workers Union and affiliates placed a black ban on drilling vessels in the region. The 1970s “Green bans”, led by Jack Mundey and the NSW Builders’ Labourers Federation, blocked a range of threats to heritage sites and bushland, including urban bushland at Kelly’s Bush on Sydney’s lower North Shore.

With union membership today at only around 15%, and the environment a low priority for some key unions, this opportunity for intervention has all but vanished.

3. Alternatives

Campaigns are more likely to be successful where environmentalists can point to viable alternatives for the projects they oppose. For example, opponents of woodchipping in East Gippsland in the 1980s produced a report showing how developing agriculture and tourism in parallel with a restructured and modernised timber industry would produce 450 extra jobs in the region.

This material was then used in political lobbying, as well as campaigning in marginal seats, leading to the declaration of the Errinundra Plateau and Rodger River National Parks in 1987. Logging continues, however, in adjacent areas.

Similarly, Citizens Against Route Twenty achieved success in 1990 with an intense media campaign that included an alternative vision for Brisbane’s urban transport.

Back to Roe 8

In sprawling suburban Perth, the track record of opposition to new roads does not inspire much hope for those campaigning against Roe 8. Previous protests against the Kwinana Freeway, the Graham Farmer Freeway and the Farrington Road extension were all more or less futile.

In each case the opponents were deemed to be “anti-progress”, with progress implicitly represented by the construction of new road infrastructure. Similar language pervades the current rhetoric around Roe 8, which is portrayed by supporters as a solution to all the traffic problems of Perth’s southern suburbs.

Sustainable transport advocates take a longer view; for instance, in the alternative plan laid out by Curtin University’s Peter Newman and Cole Hendrigan. This, however, has been rejected by the Barnett government in favour of the Roe Highway extension, which was originally planned for different purposes in the 1950s.

The protest against Roe 8 has two of the three key historical ingredients for success (an election, and a clearly outlined alternative plan). It has also harnessed the new power of social media and drone footage.

Opponents of Roe 8 at the end of an hour-long silent protest in Forrest Place, central Perth, January 2017.

Rarely has direct action clinched an environmental campaign, although there are precedents: protesters’ destruction of felled timber at Terania Creek in 1979 brought an end to logging. Tree-sitting and human barricades bought enough time for political change to halt the Cape Tribulation-Bloomfield Road in Queensland’s Wet Tropics. In Coolbellup numerous lock-ons and tree-sits have delayed works, but time is running out for the wetlands in the path of Roe 8.

After the March 11 election we will know whether the already bulldozed area will be restored, or whether the road will be built. Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: pressure is building on resources and urban spaces, and the indicators of environmental health are continuing to decline.

This trend makes it ever more likely that our economic and political priorities will find themselves on a collision course with communities seeking to protect their local environments. It seems safe to say that we will see plenty more protests like this in coming years.

Andrea Gaynor is affiliated with The Beeliar Group: Professors for Environmental Responsibility.

Even the cleanest coal plants add millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere each year. Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

Following a campaign by the coal industry, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has argued for new coal-fired power stations in Australia. But these plants would be more expensive than renewables and carry a huge liability through the carbon emissions they produce.

Major Australian energy companies have ruled out building new coal plants. The Australian Energy Council sees them as “uninvestable”. Banks and investment funds would not touch them with a barge pole. Only government subsidies could do it.

It may seem absurd to spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money on last century’s technology that will be more costly than renewable power and would lock Australia into a high-carbon trajectory.

But the government is raising the possibility of government funding for new coal plants, with statements by Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, Treasurer Scott Morrison and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg. The suggestion is to use funding from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. For this to happen, presumably the CEFC’s investment mandate would need to be changed, or the meaning of “low-emissions technologies” interpreted in a radical way.

It should come to nothing, if minimum standards of sensible policy prevailed.

But an ill wind is blowing in Australia’s energy and climate policy debate. The situation in parliament is difficult, and the Trump presidency is giving the right wing in the Coalition a boost.

Definitely not ‘clean’

Proponents of new coal plants call them “clean coal”. They have appropriated a term that normally means burning coal in power stations with carbon capture and storage, a technology that filters out most of the carbon dioxide. But this is expensive and has made little progress.

Turnbull and others are simply suggesting Australia build the latest generation of conventional coal-burning plants. They are not clean – merely marginally less polluting than the old plants running now.

A new high-efficiency coal plant run on black coal would produce about 80% of the emissions of an equivalent old plant. An ultra-supercritical coal plant running on black coal emits about 0.7 tonnes of CO₂ per megawatt hour of electricity, or about 0.85 tonnes using brown coal. That is anything but clean.

For comparison, typical old “dirty” black coal plants in operation now emit around 0.9 tonnes, so the improvement from replacing them with the latest technology is not large. Gas plants produce between 0.4-0.6 tonnes, much less than the suggested new coal plants. Gas has the added benefit of being able to respond flexibly to demand. A plant with carbon capture and storage might emit around 0.05 tonnes, and renewables zero.

The Australian grid average right now is around 0.8 tonnes and gradually falling. New coal would tend to keep that average higher over the long term.

A single typically sized new coal plant could blow out in the order of 5 million tonnes of CO₂ each year – about 1% of Australia’s current annual emissions – and would have an expected lifetime of 40-60 years. It would also pollute the air locally, as all coal plants do, causing damage to people’s health.

If we wanted to make up for the extra coal emissions by doing more in industry, transport or agriculture, then this would come at a cost in those parts of the economy. In-depth research has shown that decarbonisation of Australia’s economy needs to have zero-carbon electricity supply at its core.

What if we don’t care about the climate?

Building coal power plants is expensive. The average lifetime cost of producing power with ultra-super critical plants in Australia is estimated at around A$80 per megawatt-hour. This assumes financing is available at standard interest rates and that the plant runs at high capacity.

Given the risk that the plants will be liable under stricter carbon limits in the future, the financing costs are bound to be higher, probably north of A$100 – and may be as much as A$160. If the plant is not fully utilised, as is already the case for existing coal plants, average costs will be even higher.

By comparison, wind farms now get built at an average cost of A$75 per megawatt-hour, and solar parks at around A$110. Both are expected to come down to perhaps A$50 by 2025. New coal plants take many years to prepare and build, so 2025 is the relevant comparison.

In fact, the overall comparison costs for renewables are even lower. This is because wind and solar built in 2025 would be replaced in the 2050s with even cheaper systems.

There are extra costs associated with wind and solar – for instance, through pumped-hydro storage or more gas-fired power plants to balance supply. But these costs are far less than the underlying cost of renewables.

So renewables including system integration costs will be cheaper than new coal plants, perhaps by quite a margin. Let’s say, very conservatively, that renewables are A$20 per megawatt-hour cheaper. For the coal plant that’d be an extra cost of A$150 million per year, or A$6 billion over 40 years. The extra cost could be much higher if the plant was retired before the 2060s or not run at full capacity.

The subsidy required would be potentially billions of dollars for each plant. That’s billions of dollars from the taxpayer or electricity user, in order to supply power with high carbon emissions that are then locked in for half a century. It should not happen in a country that prides itself on rational economic policy.

Instead, government should set its sights on the long-term economic opportunities for Australia in a low-carbon world, and chart a path for the transition of the energy system.

Turnbull referred to Australia’s position as a coal exporter. But a revolution is under way in energy technologies. While coal will continue to be used in existing plants, the times of growing coal use are over. Already more than 70% of the world’s annual power sector investment goes to renewables.

Australia is lucky in that there are no limits to the amount of renewable energy that could be produced. New industries can be built around it. We should invest in the industries of the future, not sink more money into the technologies of last century.

Frank Jotzo has received research grant funding from a number of sources, mostly government and the Australian Research Council.

With the right mix, the grid can go fully renewable for the same cost and reliability as fossil fuels. Pixabay/Wikimedia Commons

In a speech to the National Press Club yesterday, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared that the key requirements for Australia’s electricity system are that it should be affordable, reliable, and able to help meet national emissions-reduction targets. He also stressed that efforts to pursue these goals should be “technology agnostic” – that is, the best solutions should be chosen on merit, regardless of whether they are based on fossil fuels, renewable energy or other technologies.

As it happens, modern wind, solar photovoltaics (PV) and off-river pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) can meet these requirements without heroic assumptions, at a cost that is competitive with fossil fuel power stations.

Turnbull and his government have also correctly identified energy storage as key to supporting high system reliability. Wind and solar are intermittent sources of generation, and while we are getting better at forecasting wind and sunshine on time scales from seconds to weeks, storage is nevertheless necessary to deliver the right balance between supply and demand for high penetration of wind and PV.

Storage becomes important once the variable renewable energy component of electricity production rises above 50%. Australia currently sources about 18% of its electricity from renewables – hydroelectricity in the Snowy Mountains and Tasmania, wind energy and the ever-growing number of rooftop PV installations.

Meanwhile, in South Australia renewable energy is already at around 50% - mostly wind and PV – and so this state now has a potential economic opportunity to add energy storage to the grid.

Pushing storage

To help realise this potential, in South Australia and elsewhere, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) will spend A$20 million of public funds on helping flexible capacity and large-scale energy storage projects become commercially viable, including pumped hydro and batteries.

PHES constitutes 97% of worldwide electricity storage. The retail market for household storage batteries such as Tesla’s Powerwall is growing, but large-scale storage batteries are still much more expensive than PHES. “Off-river” pumped hydro has a bright future in Australia and many other countries, because there are very many suitable sites.

Wind and PV are the overwhelming winners in terms of new low-emissions electricity generation because they cost less than the alternatives. Indeed, PV and wind constituted half of the world’s new generation capacity installed in 2015 and nearly all new generation capacity installed in Australia.

Recently, we modelled the National Electricity Market (NEM) for a 100% renewable energy scenario. In this scenario wind and PV provide 90% of annual electricity, with existing hydro and bioenergy providing the balance. In our modelling, we avoid heroic assumptions about future technology development, by only including technology that has already been deployed in quantities greater than 100 gigawatts – namely wind, PV and PHES.

Reliable, up-to-date pricing is available for these technologies, and our cost estimates are more robust than for models that utilise technology deployment and cost reduction projections that are far different from today’s reality.

In our modelling, we use historical data for wind, sun and demand for every hour of the years 2006-10. Very wide distribution of PV and wind across the network reduces supply shortfalls by taking advantage of different weather systems. Energy balance between supply and demand is maintained by adding sufficient PHES, high-voltage transmission capacity and excess wind and PV capacity.

Not an expensive job

The key outcome of our work is that the extra cost of balancing renewable energy supply with demand on an hourly, rather than annual, basis is modest: A$25-30 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Importantly, this cost is an upper bound, because we have not factored in the use of demand management or batteries to smooth out supply and demand even more.

What’s more, a large fraction of this estimated cost relates to periods of several successive days of overcast and windless weather, which occur only once every few years. We could make substantial further reductions through contractual load shedding, the occasional use of legacy coal and gas generators to charge PHES reservoirs, and managing the charging times of batteries in electric cars.

Using 2016 prices prevailing in Australia, we estimate that the levelised cost of energy in a 100% renewable energy future, including the cost of hourly balancing, is A$93 per MWh. The cost of wind and PV continues to fall rapidly, and so after 2020 this price is likely to be around AU$75 per MWh.

Crucially, this is comparable with the corresponding estimated figure for a new supercritical black coal power station in Australia, which has been put at A$80 per MWh.

Meanwhile, a system developed around wind, PV and PHES and existing hydro can deliver the same reliability as today’s network. PHES can also deliver many of the services that enable a reliable energy system today: excellent inertial energy, spinning reserve, rapid start, black start capability, voltage regulation and frequency control.

Ageing system

Australia’s fossil fuel fleet is ageing. A good example is the pending closure of the 49-year-old Hazelwood brown coal power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley. An ACIL Allen report to the Australian Government lists the technical lifetime of each power station, and shows that two-thirds of Australia’s fossil fuel generation capacity will reach the end of its technical lifetime over the next two decades.

The practical choices for replacing these plants are fossil fuels (coal and gas) or existing large-scale renewables (wind and PV). Renewables are already economically competitive, and will be clearly cheaper by 2030.

Energy-related greenhouse gas emissions constitute about 84% of Australia’s total. Electricity generation, land transport, and heating in urban areas comprise 55% of total emissions. Conversion of these three energy functions to renewable energy is easier than for other components of the energy system.

Transport and urban heating can be electrified by deploying electric vehicles and heat pumps, respectively. Electric heat pumps are already providing strong competition for natural gas in the space and water heating markets. Importantly, these devices have large-scale storage in the form of batteries in vehicles, and thermal inertia in water and buildings. Well-integrated adoption of these technology changes will help reduce electricity prices further.

So wind, PV and PHES together yield reliability and affordability to match the current electricity system. In addition, they facilitate deep cuts to emissions at low cost that can go far beyond Australia’s existing climate target.

Andrew Blakers receives funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

Matthew Stocks receives funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

Bin Lu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Better managing how we use electricity in our homes will reduce pressure on the grid, and reduce the need for more power stations. Power line image from www.shutterstock.com

As Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull noted in his National Press Club address yesterday, energy policy is all about balancing the trifecta of affordability, reliability and sustainability. More commonly known as the “energy tri-lemma”, it can often seem impossible to achieve all three objectives at the same time.

For instance, in Australia’s current energy debate, fossil fuel advocates claim that only coal and natural gas can deliver reliable and affordable power.

In the opposite corner, renewable power is synonymous with sustainability, but many governments remain unconvinced that it can also guarantee reliable, low-cost energy. Until renewable energy overcomes this scepticism, calls from the likes of former prime minister Tony Abbott to limit its growth will find a receptive audience.

However, there is a powerful solution to the energy tri-lemma and, after decades of neglect, Australia may be about to give it a serious try.

The missing link

The missing link is “demand management”. This is where energy utilities support consumers to save energy and shift demand, instead of building expensive new energy supply.

The greatest volatility in the current electricity system is not solar and wind generation, but the peaks and troughs in demand. And it is generally peak demand that drives investment in expensive new electricity infrastructure like poles, wires and power stations. Managing the amount of electricity we use and when we use it can save money, for both utilities and consumers, and reduce our impact on the environment.

Demand management has long been a smart strategy, but recent developments mean its value is increasing. For instance, the rapid growth in rooftop solar generation has led to a reduction in net power demand in the middle of the day, followed by a rapid spike in demand in the early evening, particularly in summer as we come home and turn on our air conditioners.

The emergence of this solar-driven “duck-shaped” demand curve has led to calls for us to “behead the duck” or, in more humane symbolism, teach the duck to fly.

We’re already using it

While unfamiliar to many, demand management has been around for decades. It includes off-peak water heating, which started here in the 1930s. It is already reducing peak electricity demand by hundreds of megawatts. That’s a saving to Australian electricity consumers of hundreds of millions of dollars in avoided electricity supply costs.

If you have an off-peak water heater or pool pump, or a time-of-use power tariff, you are already part of a demand-management program. If you are saving money with efficient LED lights or a five-star refrigerator, you are benefiting from technology developed by demand-management efforts overseas.

As the controversy raged in 2012 about skyrocketing power prices, the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) concluded that demand management could save between A$4.3 billion and A$11.8 billion over the next ten years.

One of the key reforms the AEMC proposed to unlock these savings was incentives for poles and wires businesses to encourage demand management that would save consumers money.

Better late than never

After much to-ing and fro-ing, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) is preparing to implement this recommendation.

It recently published a consultation paper on a new Demand Management Incentive Scheme to apply in New South Wales and the ACT in 2019, and then roll out across the National Electricity Market.

The paper focuses on the distribution networks, such as United Energy in Victoria and Ausgrid in NSW, which connect our homes to the electricity grid. It suggests a range of incentives for these businesses to help their customers reduce and shift electricity demand.

An example of the sort of project that would be stimulated is the recently announced Community Grids Project between United Energy and the smart energy startup GreenSync (supported by the Victorian government). This project will encourage households, businesses and community organisations on the lower Mornington Peninsula to voluntarily reduce and/or shift their electricity usage by using solar PV and battery storage systems. In the process, this will defer the need for around A$30 million of investment in new poles and wires.

Network businesses have long been supposed to choose demand management when it costs less than network upgrades, but regulations have discouraged them from doing so. Recent reforms have reduced this bias, but without an effective incentive scheme, demand management is very unlikely to fulfil its potential to cut costs and facilitate renewable energy.

At the Institute for Sustainable Futures (with support from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency) we’re undertaking a detailed study of the regulatory bias against demand management.

It’s not just about networks

While the focus of the scheme is on saving networks money by avoiding or delaying spending on infrastructure, its impact will likely be much more profound.

Network costs make up just under half of total electricity supply costs.

The network demand management incentives will bring forth energy efficiency, load management and local storage and generation resources. These resources can also then be tapped at low extra cost to help balance variations in generation output (for instance, from wind and solar generators) and consumer demand across the whole electricity market.

This will also reduce wholesale energy charges, the need for gas-fired power stations and new transmission links to back up variable wind and solar generators. And by encouraging energy efficiency, demand management will save money while cutting carbon emissions.

Clean energy’s quiet achiever

As global temperature records topple on a monthly basis and the Paris climate agreement bites, the demand for sustainable power becomes irresistible. But as the share of renewable energy rises, the need for flexible resources to balance the variable output of solar and wind power increases.

Even with dramatically falling battery costs, energy storage alone is unlikely to be a viable solution (as highlighted in our study of 100% renewable energy for Kangaroo Island).

It is a little ironic that the missing link for cheap and reliable electricity, which has been staring us in the face for so long, may ultimately also be the key to achieving sustainable power.

Submissions on the AER’s Demand Management Incentive Scheme Consultation Paper close on February 24 2017.

Chris Dunstan is a Research Director at the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney. ISF undertakes paid sustainability research for various government, corporate and NGO clients. The Demand Management Incentives Review study was is funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), with in kind support from a range of other stakeholders.

Turnbull highlighted problems with the intermittency of renewable energy. David Clarke/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Malcolm Turnbull has set a high bar for his government’s national energy policy. But in his speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, the prime minister provided little by way of the clear policy direction that is so desperately needed if the bar is to be cleared.

Turnbull devoted almost a quarter of the speech to Australia’s energy challenge: delivering secure and affordable power while meeting our emission reduction targets.

His political opponents and environmentalists will reject as too low Australia’s current target of 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030. Yet few can credibly reject his framing of the challenge.

Security concerns

Given the events of the last half of 2016, including the state-wide blackout in South Australia in September, it was appropriate that Turnbull began with the issue of security of supply.

Subsidised wind power in South Australia provided more than 40% of supply, and the market responded by driving down prices. The closure of existing coal plants and the mothballing of some gas plants followed. The state’s consumers were left exposed to power outages and high prices due to a high dependence on transmission from Victoria and a few gas generators with considerable market power.

Yet it was the Renewable Energy Target, a policy supported by both Coalition and Labor governments since 2002, that provided the subsidy. This policy had scant regard for the security consequences of high levels of intermittent supply.

Turnbull was justified in his criticism of uncoordinated state-based renewable energy targets and their potential for adverse price and security consequences. Yet he chose to ignore the argument that a key driver for the states’ action is the failure of the federal government to deliver a credible, scalable climate change policy.

Storage solution

The critical need to manage high levels of intermittent supply was a major theme of Turnbull’s speech and he identified several technology approaches that could address this need.

Storing energy in a form that is available as electricity to match supply and demand has enormous attraction. However, large scale, flexible energy storage as heat, electricity in batteries or as pumped water in dams, is very expensive today.

Applying the resources of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to develop projects, as energy minister Josh Frydenberg announced following the speech, makes a lot of sense. This could drive down the costs in Australia.

Gas supply is a major issue on the Australian east coast, and one where federal/state differences have led to a real mess.

Inconsistencies between states on project development regulations and few levers of influence in the hands of Canberra. Turnbull suggested he is willing to explore incentives in an effort to break the impasse. Let’s hope the states take up his offer.

Coal in the mix?

Over the past few weeks, Frydenberg and resources minister Matthew Canavan have raised the question of a future for coal power in our energy mix. It was therefore not surprising that Turnbull proposed that new coal power technologies could offer both reliability and low emissions. However, on this front, there are big challenges.

The current cost of these technologies is considerably higher than that of existing plants. And the scale of the required investment, combined with climate change policy uncertainty, makes it highly unlikely that such plants could be financed without government backing. There were no hints from Turnbull as to how this might be provided.

In summary, the prime minister‘s vision of an integrated energy and climate change policy is, at a high level, coherent and convincing. His suggestion that the next incarnation of national energy policy should be technology agnostic should be applauded.

Yet, there remain three areas for criticism. First, he sought to draw “battlelines” on energy policy. In a policy area where long-term investments are so critical, it is hugely disappointing that Turnbull appears unwilling to seek bipartisan support.

Second, while arguing that his government’s policies could deliver emissions reduction more cheaply than Labor and without threatening security, he chose to let pass an opportunity to explain to the Australian people the economic cost of the energy transition he has embraced.

Finally, he has left for others the hard task of framing the energy policy framework that will clear his high bar. Let us hope his colleagues, specifically minister Frydenberg, are up to the task.

Tony Wood owns shares in energy and resources companies via his superannuation fund

The Simien mountains in Ethiopia are one of the world's most threatened natural heritage sites. Simien mountains image from www.shutterstock.com

Would we knock down the pyramids or flatten the Acropolis to make way for housing estates, roads or farms? You would hope not. Such an indictment would deprive future generations of the joy and marvel we all experience when visiting or learning about such historic places.

Yet right now, across our planet, many of the United Nations’ World Heritage sites that have been designated for natural reasons are being rapidly destroyed in the pursuit of short-term economic goals.

In our paper published in Biological Conservation, we found that expanding human activity has damaged more than 50 of the 203 natural sites, and 120 have lost parts of their forests over the past 20 years. Up to 20 sites risk being damaged beyond repair.

So how can we better look after these precious sites?

Jewels in the crown

Globally recognised areas that contain the Earth’s most beautiful and important natural places are granted natural World Heritage status by UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). Each natural World Heritage site is unique and therefore irreplaceable.

Current sites include iconic landscapes such as Yosemite National Park in the United States, and important biodiversity conservation areas such as Serengeti National Park in Tanzania.

Wildebeest gather at the river’s edge on migration in Serengeti National Park. Wildebeest image from www.shutterstock.com

The World Heritage Convention strives to protect natural World Heritage sites and keep their condition as close to pristine as possible. As with those hundreds of cultural World Heritage sites such as Petra and Masada, no human modification or damage is acceptable. These sites are the natural world’s crown jewels.

We examined the degree of human pressure (including roads, agriculture, urbanisation and industrial infrastructure) and direct forest loss across areas with natural World Heritage status.

These changes are not compatible with maintaining the natural heritage of these places. And should sites be damaged beyond repair, we will have lost some of the common heritage of humankind forever.

Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Rhino image from www.shutterstock.com Which sites fared worst?

We found that human pressure within sites has increased in every continent except Europe over the last two decades. Asia is home to the worst-affected sites, including Manas Wildlife Sanctuary in India, Komodo National Park in Indonesia, and Chitwan National Park in Nepal. Development has also badly affected Simien National Park in Ethiopia and it has been listed as World Heritage “in danger”. European sites, such as St Kilda, were already highly modified 20 years ago and have largely remained as such since then.

Change in human footprint between 1993 and 2009 across natural World Heritage sites inscribed prior to 1993. Sites that experienced an increase (which may threaten their unique values) are shown in red, while sites that experienced a decrease are shown in green. Site boundaries are not to scale and have been enlarged for clarity. Allan et al. 2017

A majority of the sites have lost areas of forest. Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada lost 2,581 square kilometres (11.7%) and Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve in Honduras lost 365 square km (8.5%) of forest since 2000.

The processes behind why the sites lost forest cover are diverse. In the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve, also “in danger”, illegal drug trafficking created insecurity and instability in the region, which allowed widespread illegal deforestation and illegal settlement to occur.

Deforestation in Patuca National Park in Honduras. J.Polisar

In North America, even celebrated places like Yellowstone have been affected, losing some 6% of forest cover. This, and the losses in Wood Buffalo National Park, is almost certainly due to the largest pine beetle outbreaks on record. These are stripping trees of foliage and making them more susceptible to fire.

Although pine beetle damage is a semi-natural phenomenon, it is being assisted by human-caused climate change, as winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the beetles. This is notoriously hard to manage on the ground, but instead requires the United States and Canada to strengthen their efforts to fight climate change nationally and on the global stage.

Time to stop paving paradise

The 192 signatories to the World Heritage Convention need to respond to these findings. The World Heritage Committee must use information like this to immediately assess these highly threatened sites and work with nations to try to halt the erosion.

The UNESCO World Heritage Committee meets again this July in Poland. It is not too late; with urgent intervention most sites can still be retained.

A mining site in Kahuzi Biega Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo. A K Plumptre WCS

The method we have used makes it much easier to identify natural World Heritage sites that may need to be added to the “in danger” list so extra attention and resources are channelled towards saving them.

Sites such as Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve, which have lost so much forest in such a short time, need to be identified and those nations supported in averting further decline. Ultimately, World Heritage status can be retracted if the values a site is listed for are undermined. This would be an international embarrassment for the host nation.

The global community can play a role by holding governments to account so that they take the conservation of natural World Heritage sites seriously. We already do this for many of our cultural sites, and it is time to give natural sites the equal recognition and support they deserve.

Just as we would defend the Colosseum in Rome, Petra in Jordan, or Mont St Michel in France, we must fight against the planned highway across the Serengeti in Tanzania, uranium mining in Kakadu and logging of the Styx Valley in Australia, and forests being cleared for agriculture in Sumatra, Indonesia. This work is a call to action to save our natural world heritage.

James Watson receives funding from The Australian Research Council. He is the Director of Science and Research Initiative at the Wildlife Conservation Society,

James Allan receives a stipend from The Australian Research Council

Sean Maxwell receives a stipend from The Australian Research Council.

The rise of renewable energy is one reason the world is shifting away from coal. Wind turbine image from www.shutterstock.com

Last year we found that the growth in global fossil fuel emissions have stalled over the past three years. But does this mean we are on track to keep global warming below 2℃, as agreed under the 2015 Paris Agreement?

In our study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change today, we looked at how global and national energy sectors are progressing towards global climate targets.

We found that we can still keep global warming below 2℃ largely thanks to increasing use of clean energy, a global decline in coal use, improvements in energy efficiency, and a consequent stalling of emissions from fossil fuels over the past three years.

Nations need to accelerate deployment of existing technologies to lock in and build on the gains of the last three years. More challenging, is the needed investment to develop new technologies and behaviours necessary to get to net-zero global emissions by mid-century.

World moving away from fossil fuels

We looked at several key measures, including carbon emissions from fossil fuels, the carbon intensity of the energy system (how much carbon is produced for each unit of energy) and the amount of carbon emitted to produce one dollar of wealth.

The world share of energy from fossil fuels is starting to decline. There has been no growth in coal consumption and strong growth in energy from wind, biomass, solar and hydro power. The emerging trend is therefore towards lower carbon emissions from energy production.

Energy efficiency has also improved globally in recent years, reversing the trends of the 2000s. These improvements are reducing the amount of carbon emissions to produce new wealth.

From all these changes, global fossil fuel emissions have not grown over the past three years. Remarkably, this has occurred while the global economy has continued to grow.

As the global economy grows, it is using less energy to produce each unit of wealth as economies become more efficient and shift towards services.

These promising results show that, globally, we are broadly in the right starting position to keep warming below 2℃.

But modelling suggests that stringent climate policy will only slightly accelerate this historical trend of improvements in energy intensity. And to keep warming below 2℃ will require deep and sustained reductions in the carbon intensity of how energy is produced.

China leading the charge

We also looked at the countries that will have the greatest global impact.

The slowdown in global emissions in the past three years is due in large part to the reduced growth in coal consumption in China. Fossil fuel emissions in China grew at 10% per year over most of the 2000s, but have not grown since 2013. This signals a possible peak in emissions more than a decade earlier than predicted.

China is showing a significant decline in the share of fossil fuels in its energy sector. This has been driven by the decline in coal and the growth of renewable energies. The carbon intensity of fossil fuels has also been falling, for instance by burning coal more efficiently.

The United States has also reduced emissions in the last decade, with significant declines in coal consumption, particularly in the last few years. These declines have several causes, including a weaker economy in the last decade and continued improvements in energy efficiency, which have led to lower energy demand.

Emissions in the US have further declined due to a decline in carbon intensity of fossil fuels driven by the shift from coal to natural gas and the growth in renewables.

Emissions have declined in the European Union for several decades, most notably in the past 10 years as a weaker economy, along with continual improvements in energy efficiency, has led to declines in emissions. These declines are speeding up with the growing share of renewables in the energy sector.

India has sustained an emissions growth of 5-6% per year and is expected to continue growing, with little change in the underlying drivers of emissions growth.

Australia’s fossil fuel emissions have been stable or declining since 2009 as a result of the combined decline in the energy intensity of the economy and the carbon intensity of energy. However, fossil fuel emissions have grown since 2015.

The devil is in the detail

There is one big “but” in our analysis. We found that current fossil fuel trends are consistent with keeping warming below 2℃ because the future climate scenarios we use – assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – allow for relatively large amounts of fossil fuels use in the future.

These scenarios assume that large amounts of the carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels will be removed using carbon capture and storage (CCS).

CCS is also widely used together with bioenergy to produce a technology that in effect removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In this process, plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, burning these plants produces bioenergy, and the resulting CO₂ emissions are captured and stored underground. The plants grow again and the cycle is repeated.

Most scenarios rely on large-scale deployment of CCS, in the order of thousands of CCS facilities by 2030, to keep warming under 2℃. At present, just a few tens of facilities are being planned. There is also a lack of commitment to CCS in most pledges under the Paris Agreement for 2030.

Although many of the current indicators are consistent with limiting warming to 2℃, there is now an urgent need for deployment of CCS to avoid the divergence from those pathways. That is unless technological alternatives can be deployed to cover the mitigation gap that is quickly emerging.

Many emissions scenarios also include removing large amounts of CO₂ from the atmosphere. Although bioenergy with CCS is the preferred technology in those scenarios, there is an equally urgent need to invest in the research and development of alternative negative emission technologies, potentially with a smaller environmental footprint.

Turning the slowdown into a decline

It is significant that emissions growth has slowed in the last three years. This is necessary to move onto an emission pathway consistent with keeping global average temperatures below 2℃ above pre-industrial levels.

The short-term challenge is to lock in this slowdown from declining coal use, switching coal for gas, and the increasing share of clean energy. This will reduce the risk of emissions rebounding if the global economy grows more strongly in the short term.

However, our research shows that for emissions to move onto a downward trend at the required speed will require emission reductions in a broader range of sectors and more rapid deployment of existing low-carbon technologies.

Ultimately, reaching zero emissions this century will require a rapid program of research and development to support a wide range of low-carbon technologies, including systems to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Pep Canadell receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program of the Australian Department of the Environment.

Corinne Le Quéré is affiliated with the UK Committee on Climate Change.

Glen Peters receives funding from the Research Council of Norway.

Cities are facing more heatwaves, but not all strategies to keep us cool are equal. Sydney image from www.shuttrstock.com

The recent spate of heatwaves through eastern Australia has reminded us we’re in an Australian summer. On top of another record hot year globally, and as heatwaves become more frequent and intense, our cities are making us even hotter.

This is the urban heat island, where city temperatures can be significantly warmer than the surrounding rural regions.

The question, then, is what we can do to keep our cities cooler.

Why are cities hotter?

The temperature difference is caused by a range of factors, including dense building materials absorbing more of the sun’s energy, fewer trees to provide shade, and less soil to cool by evaporation.

Buildings can also act like the hairs on a husky, reducing wind speeds and blocking thermal radiation up to the night sky. On top of that, waste heat from car engines, air-conditioners and other energy use adds to overall air temperatures.

Why does this matter? Even a small increase in air temperature pushes up overall energy demand, and about 25% of our energy bills are for only 40 hours per year when the grid is most heavily used.

The most extreme heat events can buckle train lines, cause rolling blackouts and cost billions in lost productivity. And it’s not just bad for our wallets.

Heat stress can cause organ failure or exascerbate heart or breathing problems. Since 1900, extreme heat events have killed more Australians than bushfires, cyclones, earthquakes, floods and severe storms combined.

So, what can we do?

There are a number of things individuals can do to reduce the impact of heat in their homes, such as installing light coloured roofing material, insulation or an air-conditioner.

But it gets more complicated when considering the city as a whole, and how these small actions interact with each other and with the climate.

Air-conditioners

In heatwaves, air-conditioners save lives, allowing stressed bodies time to cool. But our homes can only be made cooler by blowing heat outside, along with the extra energy to run the system.

As well as increasing outside air temperatures in the short term, the fossil fuels burned add to global warming. A world cooled by air-conditioning probably isn’t the answer.

Trees and parks

Trees provide shade, but also cool the air, because evaporating water from leaves takes energy, reducing peak temperatures by 1-5° C.

Most city planners agree on the broad benefits of urban vegetation, with some metropolitan councils developing urban greening strategies.

However, urban trees can be a vexed issue for some councils; they use water, can be costly to maintain, can damage utilities and property, and can worsen air quality instead of improving it. Larger cities are often made up of dozens of councils; getting them to agree is a major challenge.

White roofs

We know that black surfaces get hotter in the sun, but demand for dark roof tiles still far outweighs demand for light colours. More reflective roofs can reduce a household’s energy bill, as well as the overall temperature of a city.

White roofs are most effective in warmer climates, because in cold climates, the cost savings in summer must be balanced with additional heating costs in winter.

Green roofs and walls

Green roofs and walls are building structures with integrated vegetation. They provide cooling benefits by shading buildings and through evaporation from leaves. They generally show less cooling benefit than white roofs, cost more to install and maintain, and use additional water and energy.

But they do look nice, improve biodiversity and make people happier.

Pavement watering

Prior to an extreme heatwave, it may be possible to reduce temperatures by wetting down building and road surfaces. It’s a traditional practice in Japan, and is now being considered in major cities like Paris.

But temperature and humidity are important factors in heat stress, so pavement watering should only be undertaken if the extra humidity does not increase heat stress.

Large scale rooftop solar

Solar panels convert energy from the sun into electricity, so less energy is required from the network overall. If enough roofs were covered with solar panels, could that lower air temperatures?

Probably a little. Other benefits include a reduction in the energy required for cooling (because the roofs are shaded by panels), and a stable, lower cost, decentralised renewable energy system.

Building density

A building with lots of thermal mass (think sturdy, double-brick home) can be an effective way to keep inside temperatures more stable. Heat is absorbed during the day and released at night. The same idea can work for an entire city.

An urban cool island can form in high-density cities like Hong Kong because tall buildings provide extra heat capacity and shade.

For similar reasons, the tight street layout of traditional Arabian and Mediterranean cities keep those streets cooler.

Shading structures

Installing light shading structures over streets, pavements and roofs can reduce the surface temperature of materials, and reduce the heat absorbed and radiated back into streets. Shading structures need to be designed so that they do not limit airflow, trapping heat and air pollution in streets.

Which is best?

To figure out what works best, we need to be able to model the physics of different strategies, in different types of cities and in different climates. We can then assess the economic and health impacts and decide on appropriate and plans that give us the biggest bang for our buck.

Here we have focused on heat in cities, but there are other important concerns like air quality or flooding.

In colder cities, an urban heat island could actually be a good thing. Each city is different; each requires a tailored and integrated plan developed over the entire metropolitan region, and then implemented locally by councils, businesses and households.

Mathew Lipson receives funding through an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship, UNSW Sydney and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

Melissa Hart receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, the NSW Environmental Trust and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

Monstrous, or just misunderstood? National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Fans of the movie Finding Nemo may remember the terrifying fish that scares Dory (a blue tang) and Marlin (a clown fish) at the bottom of a trench.

But in reality this “monster”, a black seadevil, is only about 9 cm long, which would make it about a third of the size of Dory and potentially smaller than Marlin or Nemo.

In 2014, researchers at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute began studying a single black sea devil. It was caught and moved to a special darkroom laboratory designed to simulate its dark and cold natural habitat.

While this misconception or inaccuracy may seem harmless, it could pose problems for future conservation efforts, as people are more likely to support conservation of cute rather than creepy-looking animals.

While the angler fish is easily turned into a scary monster, the similar-sized tiny Pac-Man looking octopus is cute and popular with the public.

Deep sea commercial fishing nothing to celebrate

From 2000-2010, scientists described about 1,200 new species in the Census of Marine Life Program. While this figure may seem astounding, a further 5,000 individual dead creatures are in specimen jars, waiting to be described. The scientific process of describing new species is slow.

Specimens must be methodically collected, identified, and then the identity of new deep-water species must be confirmed.

People have always had a fascination for unusual creatures that they may never see. Many exotic land animals can be seen in zoos around the world, but few deep sea species are on display in aquaria. In the meantime, people on social media are hungry for images of strange and exotic animals of the sea.

As a result, a Russian fisherman working on deep sea commercial trawlers last year gained huge numbers of social media followers after posting photos and videos of some of the deep sea creatures caught on his ship, with some even stuffed by craftsmen on board.

Presumably, many of these specimens are bycatch, accidentally caught in nets trawling for other species popular with consumers. Sometimes bycatch, which includes marine mammals, is thrown back into the sea but it may end up on consumer plates.

If images are posted on social media by laypeople in a way that appears sensational and even heartless, and without any accurate information about the animals, then there is no resulting respect for these sea creatures or educational value. Simply viewing these creatures as freaks, ignores the importance of their role in keeping our oceans healthy.

A tripod fish deep below the Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Ocean Exploration & Research/Flickr, CC BY-SA Deep in danger

Most people will never spend time on a trawler fishing in deep oceans, but marine conservation and management policy depends on all of us being aware of the risks that human activities pose to marine ecosystems, such as deep water fishing, off shore mining and pollution.

If we call unusual deep sea animals monsters or demons or freaks, then we may harm their conservation as people are unlikely to connect with them or care about saving them.

On the other hand, their rarity clearly makes them popular on social media sites. For other species, this has resulted in increases in illegal trafficking for exotic pets, and aquariums. Deep sea species may potentially become illegally sourced taxidermy curiosities or food. Humans may end up eating these animals of the deep to extinction before their species are even known to science.

Rhinochimaera. NOAA Ocean Exploration & Research/Flickr, CC BY-SA Saving our ‘blue heart’

We still have so much to learn about deep marine ecosystems and their inhabitants, which have special adaptations for living in these typically cold and dark waters. With new submarines and technology, scientists are able to explore the ocean more easily.

The deepest part of any ocean is the Challenger Deep valley in the Mariana Trench, part of the Pacific Ocean, which is about 11,000 metres deep. By comparison, Mount Everest is about 8,550 metres tall.

The cold water of the North Atlantic, down to depths of about 1,800m, is home to the Greenland Shark, which can live for as long as 400 years!

A new species of beaked whale has also been discovered recently. It is smaller and darker than other beaked whales, perhaps because it forages for deep sea fish and giant squid at depths of up to 3,000m below sea level.

The public’s perceptions are often based on how ‘cute’ an animal is. NOAA Ocean Exploration & Research/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Every habitat on earth is interconnected, and whatever we as humans do on the ground, or in the oceans has an impact on marine ecosystems. Removing deep sea predators and prey, and disturbing deep sea habitats, will change marine ecosystems in ways that we do not yet understand.

Some experts have compared the rapid global spread of unsustainable fishing technologies and practices to a pathological disease outbreak. Oceans are sometimes called the lifeblood of our planet, while rainforests are its lungs.

In reality, about 80% of our oxygen is produced by microorganisms in the oceans. This makes our oceans both the lungs and lifeblood of our planet. In fact, oceans are the blue heart of our planet and we must all try harder to save them.

Carla Litchfield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

And not a steak in sight. Veggie BBQ image from www.shutterstock.com

Sausages, hamburger patties, lamb chops and T-bone steak. There is nothing like the traditional barbecue on Australia Day.

But like a piece of bone inconveniently lodged between our teeth, a small but growing segment of our society – vegans – question the ethical side of the Aussie BBQ tradition.

They ask: why is it that we continue to eat meat and animal products (such as milk and eggs), when we know (no matter how much we try not to know) how many of these products arrive on our table?

While there have been many improvements in farm animal welfare and food labelling, there are still many concerns.

Why vegan?

Veganism is a response to the ethical problems created by these industries, which treat animals as nothing more than raw material to be processed into food. The principles of veganism advocate the exclusion of “…flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey and animals’ milk, butter, and cheese” from our diet, and aim to “abolish man’s dependence on animals – and to create - a more reasonable and humane order of society”.

Despite the clear moral appeal to veganism, however, the number of vegans in Western societies remains low. Vegans constitute only 1-2% of Americans, 5% of Israelis, 2% of British and 1% of Australians. Why is this so?

In her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows (2011) Melanie Joy, a US psychologist and vegan activist, provides an answer to this question.

Joy claims that despite having an affection for animals, people consume meat because they have a mental disconnect between eating meat and killing animals; an ingrained belief that meat consumption is normal, natural and necessary; and cognitive distortions that perceive animals as lacking any individuality or personality.

Melanie Joy’s TED Talk on veganism. You don’t have to go vegan to save the planet

So how can we break down these cognitive distortions and engage in more ethical consumption practices?

In her recent TED Talk, Joy suggests that the solution ultimately lies in normalising veganism.

We agree with this, and additionally suggest that partial solutions can help many people gradually reach this goal over time. Here are four practical strategies that people can adopt to become more ethical consumers in their journey towards veganism:

Reduce the volume of all foods we consume daily. Although this strategy is not about directly cutting meat and dairy intake, it offers a way we can indirectly reduce intake by simply consuming less food.

This might seem like a trivial solution, but with over 60% of Australians found to be obese or overweight, it is clear that most of us consume more food than we need.

Ironically, some of us even consume extra food to fuel intense workout programs or exercise boot camps. Why not achieve similar health outcomes by simply having a lighter lunch or following a simpler exercise regime?

In fact, research suggests that the benefits of calorie restriction diets partially parallel those of intense fitness programs, in terms of muscle function, life extension and general health.

Choose ethical food. There has been a marked increase in the availability of “credence foods”. This includes plant-based, vegan options, but also animal-based products with higher welfare standards.

The strategy of choosing credence food decreases our demand from factory farms and moves us to a more ethical position.

For instance, we can select pastured eggs over battery or barn eggs, or organic, free-range meat products over cheaper, factory-farmed products. While credence products are more expensive, they become more affordable when we reduce animal products in our diets.

Become a vegetarian. Vegetarianism is essentially the midway point on the veganism journey – excluding meat consumption, but allowing dairy and eggs. This is a particularly good option for many people who still struggle to find worthy cheese substitutes.

Nevertheless, vegetarianism alone will not solve our environmental concerns, nor alleviate animal suffering.

Fortunately, innovation is lifting the game of vegan cheese, and providing a more compelling reason to gradually stop using dairy products altogether.

Bring some vegan into your life. Some of us associate adopting veganism with a leap of faith, and need more confidence before committing fully to its doctrine. We can shift toward a vegan diet by weaving it partially into our lives – in other words, becoming “part-time vegans”.

For instance, we can choose one or two of our daily meals to be vegan and then eat whatever we want for the rest (aligning with Mark Bittman’s “vegan before 6pm” idea), or participate in the “veganuary” or “Meatless Monday” programs.

No matter which strategy we choose, the act of opting for a strategy is in itself a huge step forward. Why not start by throwing a veggie pattie on the barbie this Australia Day?

Ozgur Dedehayir works for QUT. He receives funding from the Institute for Future Environments (QUT).

Carol Richards receives funding from the Institute for Future Environments (QUT), the Australian Research Council and The Norwegian Research Council.

Peter O'Connor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

New coal power technology can't meet Australia's climate targets alone. Coal power image from www.shutterstock.com

As Australia’s energy debate heats up, some politicians are calling for cleaner and more efficient coal power stations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg told ABC radio on Tuesday that “ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants actually drive down the carbon footprint by up to 40%”.

And last week Resources Minister Matt Canavan referenced a report, as yet not released by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, which claims that Australia can meet its carbon emission targets by replacing existing coal generators with ultra-supercritical coal generation.

So, is this a reasonable strategy to reduce Australia’s emissions?

Cleaner coal

Australia’s coal generation fleet is ageing and needs replacing. Two-thirds of the 25 gigawatts in operation (after Victoria’s Hazelwood power station is retired this year) is more than 30 years old, according to ACIL Allen’s generator report. By 2025 a further 18% of the fleet will be more than 30 years old.

That means that in 2025 a mere 4GW of our existing coal power will still be considered adequately efficient. This is important because efficient generation affects not only how much generators are paying for fuel, but also carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

Modern coal power plants feed pulverised coal into a boiler to combust. Tubes in the boiler walls then absorb the heat and the steam generated in these boiler tubes turns the steam turbine and generates electricity.

The difference between subcritical, supercritical and ultra-supercritical boilers is in the steam conditions created in the boiler. Supercritical and ultra-supercritical boilers are often referred to as high-efficiency, low-emissions technologies.

Ultra-supercritical power stations are designed to operate at higher steam temperature and pressure. This improves efficiency, and has been made possible by new materials that can cope with higher temperatures.

Ultra-supercritical coal power stations operate under steam conditions above 593-621℃ and 28.4 million pascals (a measure of pressure). You can find further detail in this report.

Using higher temperatures means greater efficiency, producing more electricity using less coal. Australia’s most efficient coal power station, Kogan Creek, is able to convert 37.5% of the gross energy, or calorific value, of coal into electricity. Hazelwood converts only 22%. The remaining energy is lost as heat.

By comparison, ultra-supercritical coal stations are able to convert up to 45% of the gross energy of coal to electricity.

Advanced ultra-supercritical coal generation is expected to convert over 50% of the gross energy of coal to electricity, but the expensive alloys required to accommodate the very high temperature requirements make the plants very expensive. Before advanced ultra-supercritical coal plants can be deployed, new design changes like this will first need to be tested and evaluated in pilot implementations.

Reducing fuel use reduces emissions. Hazelwood’s reported CO₂ emission intensity from 2014-15 was 1,400kg of greenhouse gas for every megawatt-hour of electricity it produced. Kogan Creek emitted 831kg per megawatt-hour.

The greater efficiency of ultra-supercritical generators can reduce emissions intensity to 760kg per megawatt-hour for black coal. Advanced ultra-supercritical generators can reduce emissions even further. Upgrading or replacing Victoria’s brown coal generators to ultra-supercritical would reduce emissions intensity to 928kg per megawatt-hour.

So greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced if ultra-supercritical generators replaced Australia’s old, inefficient coal generators.

But is it enough?

The problem is just how much CO₂ emissions can be reduced. Emissions from coal power are the largest contributors to Australia’s total emissions.

In 2013-4, coal generators emitted 151 million tonnes of greenhouse gas, generating 154 million kilowatt-hours of electricity. Details can be found here. This is 29% of Australia’s total emissions in 2013-14 of around 523 million tonnes. (Transport contributed around 18% to total emissions.)

Let’s assume the current fleet of power stations is operating at 80% capacity, considered to be an economic optimum for coal power. This would generate 176 gigawatt-hours of electricity and 165 million tonnes of emissions. This allows for a 14% increase in consumption of electricity by 2030, which is likely given projections of population and economic growth.

If we then replace the entire 25GW, both black and brown, with ultra-supercritical generation, according to the assumptions included in the Australian Power Generation Technology Report, emissions would total 139 million tonnes. This would represent a 16% reduction in coal emissions, but a mere 5% reduction in Australia’s total emissions in 2013-4.

And then we would have those ultra-supercritical power stations for the next 30-40 years, incapable of reducing our emissions further as global targets tighten.

If Australia were to wait until advanced ultra-supercritical coal power is tested and trialled, then we could speculate that emissions from coal generation could reduce by a further 10% to 124 million tonnes. This would be a more promising 25% reduction in coal emissions, but still only a 7.7% reduction in Australia’s total emissions.

Understanding Australia’s emission reduction target

Australia’s emission reduction target for 2030 is 26-28% below 2005 levels.

Emissions in 2005 were 594 million tonnes. Australia’s climate target would require emissions to reach around 434 million tonnes in 2030, a reduction of 160 million tonnes.

If coal power stations were to reduce emissions by 26-40 million tonnes through a shift to ultra-supercritical generators, then Australia would still be a very long way from meeting its committed targets.

The only way shifting to ultra-supercritical coal power could meet Australia’s 26-28% climate target is if carbon capture and storage (CCS) were applied.

Ultra-supercritical coal plants are expected to generate electricity at A$80 per megawatt-hour, according to the Australian Power Generation Technology Report. This is 45% more expensive than the average wholesale cost of electricity for 2015-16. If CCS is added, then the projected cost swells to A$155 per megawatt-hour, nearly three times last year’s wholesale cost of electricity.

These costs eventually get passed on to electricity bills, and it’s unlikely that consumers will be willing to see electricity prices rise that much.

Until we see more detail underpinning the current enthusiasm for “clean coal”, we’ll have to speculate on the assumptions of the report referenced by minister Canavan.

Lynette Molyneaux does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Fields of gold: Australia's wheat industry contributes more than A$5 billion to the economy each year. Wheat image from www.shutterstock.com

Australia’s wheat yields more than trebled during the first 90 years of the 20th century but have stalled since 1990. In research published today in Global Change Biology, we show that rising temperatures and reduced rainfall, in line with global climate change, are responsible for the shortfall.

This is a major concern for wheat farmers, the Australian economy and global food security as the climate continues to change. The wheat industry is typically worth more than A$5 billion per year – Australia’s most valuable crop. Globally, food production needs to increase by at least 60% by 2050, and Australia is one of the world’s biggest wheat exporters.

There is some good news, though. So far, despite poorer conditions for growing wheat, farmers have managed to improve farming practices and at least stabilise yields. The question is how long they can continue to do so.

Worsening weather

While wheat yields have been largely the same over the 26 years from 1990 to 2015, potential yields have declined by 27% since 1990, from 4.4 tonnes per hectare to 3.2 tonnes per hectare.

Potential yields are the limit on what a wheat field can produce. This is determined by weather, soil type, the genetic potential of the best adapted wheat varieties and sustainable best practice. Farmers’ actual yields are further restricted by economic considerations, attitude to risk, knowledge and other socio-economic factors.

While yield potential has declined overall, the trend has not been evenly distributed. While some areas have not suffered any decline, others have declined by up to 100kg per hectare each year.

We found this decline in yield potential by investigating 50 high-quality weather stations located throughout Australia’s wheat-growing areas.

Analysis of the weather data revealed that, on average, the amount of rain falling on growing crops declined by 2.8mm per season, or 28% over 26 years, while maximum daily temperatures increased by an average of 1.05℃.

To calculate the impact of these climate trends on potential wheat yields we applied a crop simulation model, APSIM, which has been thoroughly validated against field experiments in Australia, to the 50 weather stations.

Climate variability or climate change?

There is strong evidence globally that increasing greenhouse gases are causing rises in temperature.

Recent studies have also attributed observed rainfall trends in our study region to anthropogenic climate change.

Statistically, the chance of observing the decline in yield potential over 50 weather stations and 26 years through random variability is less than one in 100 billion.

We can also separate the individual impacts of rainfall decline, temperature rise and more CO₂ in the atmosphere (all else being equal, rising atmospheric CO₂ means more plant growth).

First, we statistically removed the rising temperature trends from the daily temperature records and re-ran the simulations. This showed that lower rainfall accounted for 83% of the decline in yield potential, while temperature rise alone was responsible for 17% of the decline.

Next we re-ran our simulations with climate records, keeping CO₂ at 1990 levels. The CO₂ enrichment effect, whereby crop growth benefits from higher atmospheric CO₂ levels, prevented a further 4% decline relative to 1990 yields.

So the rising CO₂ levels provided a small benefit compared to the combined impact of rainfall and temperature trends.

Closing the yield gap

Why then have actual yields remained steady when yield potential has declined by 27%? Here it is important to understand the concept of yield gaps, the difference between potential yields and farmers’ actual yields.

An earlier study showed that between 1996 and 2010 Australia’s wheat growers achieved 49% of their yield potential – so there was a 51% “yield gap” between what the fields could potentially produce and what farmers actually harvested.

Averaged out over a number of seasons, Australia’s most productive farmers achieve about 80% of their yield potential. Globally, this is considered to be the ceiling for many crops.

Wheat farmers are closing the yield gap. From harvesting 38% of potential yields in 1990 this increased to 55% by 2015. This is why, despite the decrease in yield potential, actual yields have been stable.

Impressively, wheat growers have adopted advances in technology and adapted them to their needs. They have adopted improved varieties as well as improved practices, including reduced cultivation (or “tillage”) of their land, controlled traffic to reduce soil compaction, integrated weed management and seasonally targeted fertiliser use. This has enabled them to keep pace with an increasingly challenging climate.

What about the future?

Let’s assume that the climate trend observed over the past 26 years continues at the same rate during the next 26 years, and that farmers continue to close the yield gap so that all farmers reach 80% of yield potential.

If this happens, we calculate that the national wheat yield will fall from the recent average of 1.74 tonnes per hectare to 1.55 tonnes per hectare in 2041. Such a future would be challenging for wheat producers, especially in more marginal areas with higher rates of decline in yield potential.

While total wheat production and therefore exports under this scenario will decrease, Australia can continue to contribute to future global food security through its agricultural research and development.

Zvi Hochman receives funding from Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and the National Australia Bank. He is a board director of Birchip Cropping Group Inc. (BCG) a not-for-profit agricultural research and extension organisation led by farmers from the Wimmera and Mallee regions of Victoria.

David Gobbett receives funding from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC), Sugar Research Australia (SRA), and Wine Australia through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Rural R&D for Profit Programme.

Heidi Horan receives funding from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and National Australia Bank.

Will 2017 be the year Australia sorts out its energy policy? Power image from www.shutterstock.com

2017 is the year when many long-festering energy policy problems must be addressed. Our outdated energy market model is falling apart. The gas industry is lining its pockets at the expense of Australian industry. Climate policy is urgent, but controversial among key decision-makers. Our fossil fuel exports are under threat from global forces.

The objectives are clear: provide reliable, affordable and low-carbon energy services to households and business, and build a sustainable energy export sector.

The problem is that there is little agreement on how we interpret and frame these goals, let alone how to achieve them. Some see threat where others see opportunity. Powerful interests are keen to protect their investments. Meanwhile diverse competitors are emerging from many directions and consumers clamour for equity, rights, affordability and choice.

These debates are set in a context of Chief Scientist Alan Finkel’s review of the sector, a federal review of climate policy, and debate about extending the Renewable Energy Target.

Australian business is calling for certainty in energy and climate policy: that’s one thing they can’t be certain they’ll get this year. But there will be some useful groundwork.

Into the jungle

The energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, has criticised state governments for introducing uncoordinated and overly aggressive renewable energy policies.

He is seeking “harmonisation”, which is code for capping growth of renewable energy, as he and his prime minister struggle to satisfy the rampant extreme right within their party.

But state governments know supporting renewable energy is a vote winner. The economics and climate pressures are shifting in favour of renewable energy.

The ACT’s “contracts for difference” auction approach to renewables has reduced risk for project proponents while delivering low-cost renewable energy projects additional to the RET, and delivering ambitious climate targets. Others are copying.

The problem for the minister is that the nature of the energy sector has changed from a centralised, top-down, slowly changing system dominated by big businesses, governments and large investments to a chaotic, decentralised, diverse and rapidly changing jungle.

Even if state governments could be brought into line, local governments, the private sector, households and community groups will pursue their agendas. Competitive democracy is at work.

So we may see a rethink of the design and operation of energy markets in 2017. Governments will focus on reliability, energy security, consumer rights and providing fair access for emerging competitors balanced by higher expectations.

Reliable supply

Debates in the wake of the Basslink failure and South Australia’s blackout suggest that few politicians, industry participants and commentators have a comprehensive understanding of the fundamentals of delivering reliable and secure energy services in a modern world.

But it’s not just about having enough well-maintained energy supply. We can now manage demand by using energy more efficiently, actively managing demand, and storing energy.

We can then use a mix of supply-side options to satisfy this demand. For instance, we can install storage in regional pumped hydro dams and at solar thermal generators. We can transport electricity via batteries in electric vehicles instead of power lines.

We must face new challenges, such as increasingly extreme weather events and bushfire risks from power lines, without disrupting consumers. And consumer rights must be protected when they may have equipment and services provided by multiple energy businesses.

So appliance manufacturers, distributed energy and storage providers will need to incorporate new features into their products and meet tougher performance standards, to play their part in maintaining system reliability and security.

In return, governments will have to open up access to the electricity market and encourage investment in a smarter, distributed energy system.

2017 is the year when a new framework for our electricity service system must be designed.

Reducing demand

Australian policymakers seem to have a blind spot on energy efficiency. Energy efficiency plays a key role in managing electricity demand. For example, energy efficiency didn’t appear to rate a mention following the South Australian blackout. The draft Finkel Review focuses on supplying electricity, mentioning energy efficiency ten times, but only in passing.

Yet the International Energy Agency describes energy efficiency as “the first fuel” – cutting demand is the same as building more supply, and cheaper. It could make the biggest contribution to cutting fossil fuel carbon emissions out to 2030.

Research by many groups such as Climateworks and Beyond Zero Emissions has shown that many energy efficiency measures actually save money while cutting carbon emissions, so have a “negative” carbon cost.

Despite ongoing analysis and adjustment, energy efficiency and demand management have not captured significant roles in the National Electricity Market. The National Electricity Objective, which sets the overall focus of the electricity market, focuses on the price of electricity that consumers pay, not the total cost of delivering energy services (which should include carbon). This undermines focus on actions that reduce the amount of energy needed.

Among the original 1992 draft objectives in the National Grid Management Protocol was:

To provide a framework for long-term least-cost solutions to meet future power supply demands including appropriate use of demand management

Our electricity market could have been a very different creature.

The National Energy Productivity Plan is a positive step forward. But it is poorly funded (A$18 million was allocated by COAG) and has vague governance. Yet it is supposed to deliver a large chunk of our 2030 emissions reduction target.

As with renewable energy, states and territories are filling the vacuum.

There is also emerging support for the concept of energy productivity. This goes beyond energy efficiency and aims to deliver more economic value from each unit of energy consumed. The Australian Association for Energy Productivity and Climateworks have published major reports on doubling energy productivity by 2030, while A2EP has worked with business to develop sector roadmaps and an “innovation scan”.

A much stronger focus on improving energy productivity may well be an outcome of the climate review. If so, it will play a significant role in reshaping our energy future. But it will require strong leadership, cultural change and policy intervention beyond past levels.

Keeping prices under control

Energy markets are failing to deliver on their objective of low prices, reliability and protection of the “long-term interests of consumers”. It is increasingly clear that emerging nimble technologies and business models are outflanking traditional structures. 2017 seems to be the year it is coming to a head.

Gas prices have been driven up by failure to manage impacts of a tripling of east coast gas demand from three Queensland LNG export plants. Industrial gas users are struggling to secure reasonably priced, long-term contracts.

The high gas prices and shortages at winter peak times have driven up electricity prices. In the wholesale electricity market, the highest bidder sets the price for all power stations.

So if that’s an expensive gas generator, all generators are paid handsome prices, regardless of how much it costs them to generate electricity. Over time, these prices flow over into electricity bills.

The solution for gas is not necessarily more gas supply. Decades of low gas prices have meant that Australian industry and households use gas very inefficiently, so there is substantial scope to save gas.

There is increasing potential to switch from gas to electricity and renewable fuels. Regional gas storage (or electricity storage) could reduce peak gas demand, reducing price spikes.

In any case, our gas industry seems to lack a social licence to increase gas production from coal seams, and we will need to cut fossil gas demand to meet our medium-term climate targets.

2017 is looking like a busy and challenging year across the energy sector.

Alan Pears has worked for government, business, industry associations public interest groups and at universities on energy efficiency, climate response and sustainability issues since the late 1970s. He is now an honorary Senior Industry Fellow at RMIT University and a consultant, as well as an adviser to a range of industry associations and public interest groups. His investments in managed funds include firms that benefit from growth in clean energy.

Polluted water and inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene cause around 80% of diseases and one in four deaths in developing countries. The world is recognising that existing strategies simply aren’t working.

We are starting a five-year project early this year to implement an innovative water-sensitive approach to revitalise 24 informal settlements in Fiji and Indonesia.

Funded by the Wellcome Trust, the project aims to turn informal settlements into independent sites that:

• recycle their own wastewater;

• harvest rainwater;

• create green space for water cleansing and food cultivation; and

• restore natural waterways to encourage diversity and deal with flooding.

Working with local slum communities, the project will design and deliver modular and multi-functional water infrastructure. This will be tailored to their settlements. Providing secure and reliable water and sanitation services and flood management should improve public health and create more resilient communities.

This project aims to reduce both environmental contamination itself and the likelihood of human contact with contaminants. In doing so, it will provide some of the first quantitative data on the link between improved environmental health and better community health.

Water management innovations in slums can deliver healthier, more sustainable and environmentally compatible solutions. Time to rethink failed approaches

In 2010, the United Nations recognised that access to safe water and sanitation is a human right. Five years later, the UN acknowledged it had failed to provide 2.4 billion people with improved sanitation, a goal set 15 years earlier.

The conventional hydraulic engineering solution to these challenges has changed little in 150 years. This approach has major financial, environmental and social costs.

The conventional approach is also an unlikely option for informal settlements this century. These are typically found in developing countries with high rates of urbanisation. These countries are struggling with inadequate resources for basic infrastructure for growing national populations, let alone the poor and vulnerable in informal settlements.

Traditional urban upgrading projects generally focus on basic infrastructure such as housing and drainage. This is delivered primarily via one-dimensional technical solutions. The problem is that these typically don’t take account of the existing local and environmental context.

These approaches often fail to allow for the high rates of urbanisation that characterise informal settlements. This, in turn, exacerbates the inextricably linked challenges of sanitation, water supply and public and environmental health.

The benefits of a new approach

Drawing on programs in Australia, China, Singapore and Israel, the project will alter the biophysical landscape to greatly reduce communities’ exposure to faecal and other hazardous contamination in the environment, while also improving biodiversity.

We anticipate multiple benefits. These include better community health, fewer infections with disease-causing bugs resulting in less diarrhoeal disease, and better intestinal health among children leading to improved growth.

The changes in the living environment should also improve wellbeing, increase food production and decrease violence against women and girls who will, for the first time, have access to domestic sanitation facilities and reliable water supplies.

Importantly, the project begins with a two-year baseline data assessment of both environmental and human health. The infrastructure upgrades will be delivered in year three. These will be followed by another two-year assessment of environmental and health impacts.

A local focus to achieve global goals

The recently adopted UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) renewed the commitment to universal delivery of essential water and sanitation services.

This global agenda includes goals such as health and wellbeing (Goal 3), improved water and sanitation (Goal 6) and sustainable cities and communities (Goal 11).

While these goals are clearly important, achieving them demands an integrated and holistic approach. Trying to solve each goal individually is not only inefficient in terms of time and money, it can have unintended consequences as it misses the intrinsic connections and feedback loops between them. Our project aims to avoid these pitfalls.

The project includes a significant capacity-building dimension in Fiji and Indonesia. Through dedicated training programs, we will develop in-country communities of practice around the intervention (design and implementation) and the environmental and public health assessments.

Project personnel will provide training and transfer knowledge on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the technologies.

We will collaborate with local engineers, contractors, governments and community organisations. By building local capabilities around water-sensitive infrastructure, together with our in-country partners, we hope this in-depth engagement will leave a lasting legacy.

An international consortium led by Monash University will deliver the project. It brings together leading researchers in medicine, architecture, engineering, ecology, economics and social sciences, across Monash, CRC for Water Sensitive Cities, Stanford University, Emory University and the University of Melbourne. Other partners include the Asian Development Bank (funding the infrastructure upgrades), Melbourne Water and South East Water, World Health Organisation, Oxfam International and WaterAid.

Our hope is that this project will provide an evidence-based proof of concept that will improve slum upgrading and revitalisation. Providing essential water services and cleaning up the environment should deliver radically enhanced health outcomes for some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

This, we believe, is a real-world solution to achieving what everyone recognises is a global human right: access to clean water and sanitation.

Rebekah Brown receives funding from Australian Research Council.

Karin Leder receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Tony Wong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Zoos, emphasising natural behaviour and conservation, remain more popular than ever. Gabriel Pollard/Flickr, CC BY

The recently announced closure of the Ringling circus in the US, which has been running more than a century, has been heralded as bringing to an end an era when it was seen as entertaining for humans, especially children, to view animals performing tricks: dogs riding bicycles, elephants dancing, and lions jumping through hoops.

At almost the same time the killer whale Tilikum at Seaworld, Orlando, died. His shows will not be replaced, again ending an era of public entertainment by showing them animals doing tricks.

So attitudes must have changed since that time – we’ve become more ethical. Or have we?

Circus popularity waning

People no longer have to visit circuses to see animals perform tricks; videos are available by the thousands that effectively portray the same thing. In these animals are frequently doing unnatural and bizarre acts: dogs riding surfboards, or cats on sledges.

However, there is one important difference. Circuses reportedly use cruel methods to train animals, which are kept in cramped conditions, particularly when travelling from town to town.

This leads to performance of stereotyped behaviours, like weaving in elephants. These persist even after animals are retired from circuses and are evidence of poor welfare of circus animals.

The main reason that circuses such as Ringling Brothers Circus are closing is because of declining attendance, due in part to the many alternative attractions for children today.

Associated with this has been the unrelenting criticism by a wide variety of animal advocacy groups, from the more moderate, such as the RSPCA, to the more radical, such as PETA. Their strong influence on public opinion, through highly efficient use of modern media, is evident.

Circuses have fought back. In a recent review of The Welfare of Performing Animals by David Wilson, animal behaviourist Marthe Kiley-Worthington cites the amazing tasks that animals have been trained to perform as reason to maintain these outmoded forms of entertainment.

She justifies circuses on the grounds that animals don’t know that the tricks are demeaning to them, and that there is cruelty in every animal industry. This is like saying that murdering people is acceptable because people also kill during wars.

Viewing animals being belittled in this way – in particular animals forced to behave like children – is wrong because it damages our relationship with animals. It encourages anthropocentrism, in which humans must dominate and control the animal kingdom.

Zoos keep public support

Zoos have escaped criticism that their displays encourage humans to adopt such an anthropocentric attitude.

Firstly, this is because they attempt to keep animals in as natural a setting as possible. Nothing could be further from nature than a chimp riding a bicycle around a circus arena, but in a zoo chimps will have enrichment that supports their natural behaviour and companionship that replicates their social grouping in the wild.

Second, zoos purport to have both conservation and educational roles.

Third, they do not make extensive use of negative reinforcement, or punishment, when they teach animals tricks, if they do that at all.

Although live demonstrations of tigers, seals and other zoo animals are more popular than ever before, they focus on demonstrating animals’ capabilities in the wild or their physical prowess.

Why are attitudes changing?

This is evidence of a mature and responsible attitude towards animals developing in the public. This is due in no small measure to the public being shown the breadth and depth of the animal kingdom through modern media.

Since Charles Darwin’s day it has become increasingly clear that people want and need to see how the animal kingdom lives and functions. This symbiotic relationship may even be deeply embedded in our genetic makeup. It demonstrates that we are acknowledging and acting on our responsibilities for animals.

In the West, the Christian religion has also shaped our attitudes to animals, but its ancient origins provided an outdated, anthropocentric approach to the animal kingdom. As the Bible tells us in its first chapter:

God …said to them [mankind]… “Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

The decline of Christianity in the West, for all of the problems that this brings, may have one beneficial effect of encouraging a less dominant attitude towards animals. We may increasingly recognise that we all live in a giant ecosystem and are just as dependent on a vibrant natural world for survival as nature is dependent on us.

We need to understand animals better

With growing public acknowledgement of responsibility to animals, there is the danger of false anthropomorphism. Scientists are rapidly trying to discover what animals feel, but in the absence of this knowledge the public increasingly give animals the benefit of the doubt. This is further evidence of a changing attitude to animals.

From Rudyard Kipling to J.K. Rowling, animals have been credited with powers that no scientist can prove they have – which an objective scientist must condemn as false anthropomorphism. A goat is good at being a goat, but if it devoted 20% of its energy intake to cognitive processes as we do it simply would not survive.

Attributing human qualities to animals that they do not possess may make it easier for children, and some adults, to empathise with them, but it does not help us to provide for their needs in the ecological niche to which they are adapted.

We cannot justify the misery that many circus animals endure by their display of tricks, but neither can we justify ignoring the plight of animals suffering from intensive farming, climate change, habitat destruction or pet overpopulation.

Clive Phillips is on the Scientific Council for Voiceless and is a Director of Minding Animals.