Climate and energy policies fuel fire danger

Following Karen Kissane's piece on Black Saturday, An appetite for revenge, The Age has today published my letter (scroll to "Policies fuel danger") arguing that, amid scrutiny of the chaos of failures during the fires, we should not lose sight of the urgent necessity for better climate and energy policies to reduce long-term bushfire risk.

At present, Christine Nixon appears to be the focal point of blame, when in fact there were so many failures in a range of critical areas. For that reason climate and energy policy are at risk of disappearing from the range of options we have to minimise bushfire risk in Victoria. The Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission has the power, and the moral obligation, to address this in its final report.

Here's the submitted version of my letter that was only very slightly edited in the paper:

Karen Kissane points to such an incoherent dispersal of accountability for the failures on Black Saturday that the blame must chiefly lie with the Victorian Government itself. That conclusion is based not only on the Government being ultimately accountable for emergency management, but on the inclusion of the emergency services minister in the list of those missing when their support and leadership were most needed.

Unfortunately, the same compartmentalised thinking being used to cover backsides is also at play in the broad examination of the causes of the fires. The same Government so sorely lacking in emergency management can blithely continue with energy and climate policies that will fuel more frequent and severe bushfires in Victoria. This has been pointed out by the firefighters themselves, and is supported by research from the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre.

Unless the Victorian Government frames energy and climate policy to reduce long-term bushfire risk, a major driver of future bushfire events will continue to be lost among what should rightfully be seen as a chaos of failures in a multitude of critical areas.

Comments welcome.

Climate spells 'code red' for bushfires

With Bushfire Action Week upon us, it was good to see the Victorian Government announce a range of improved communication measures and finally urge early evacuation in the face of high-level bushfire risk. What they must also admit, however, is that climate inaction by Australia and other developed nations has given us more bushfires we can't defend.

To reduce our long-term risk, our current inadequate climate policies - including the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and those outlined in Victoria's Climate Change Green Paper - must be assessed according to whether they tend to increase, decrease or have no effect on climate impacts such as bushfires - any other approach amounts to climate blindness.

It was also ironic that 'code red' was chosen as the new warning for days of catastrophic bushfire risk when Climate Code Red is one of our leading books on the disastrous impacts of climate change. I commend that book to Premier Brumby, together with Mark Diesendorf's Climate Action, and, as of yesterday, the Greens' Safe Climate Bill (more on that soon).

Finally, The Age has today run my letter capturing some of these thoughts, unfortunately lopping the 'climate code red' bit at the end. Nevermind - it ends appropriately enough with the sad contrast of Bushfire Action Week and our climate inaction years (scroll down to 'Years of doing nothing' on their letters page).

So it's Bushfire Action Week in Victoria. No doubt Premier Brumby, climate minister Gavin Jennings and emergency services minister Bob Cameron will all be scrambling for the phone to tell Kevin Rudd that his emission reductions targets are so pathetic they will do nothing to reduce global bushfire risk even if adopted by all other developed nations.

Maybe they will tell the prime minister that all climate policies should be assessed to see if their broad international adoption would increase, decrease or have no effect on the range of climate impacts we're now facing.

Of course, Rudd may ask why all the fuss now, when the bushfires royal commission didn't bother to make even one recommendation about effective climate policy as a tool of long-term bushfire prevention. Why all the fuss from the State that continues its addiction to the coal-fired electricity that is propelling carbon emissions, global temperatures and climate risks relentlessly upwards?

And of course we now have the new 'code red' for the increasing number of days we'll be facing 'catastrophic' bushfire risk. Sadly, Bushfire Action Week isn't helped by our long stretch of climate inaction years - especially when, in the title of a leading Australian book on the topic, we have already reached climate code red.

Comments welcome.

Read more about the 2009 Victorian bushfires and climate change.

Climate Green Paper closes today

Comments on the Victorian Climate Change Green Paper close today. There's still a chance to have your say, so make your case for stronger climate action by the Victorian Government.

My submission argues that Victorian policy needs to build in stronger advocacy for an effective national approach in the lead-up to Copenhagen. It also highlights the unwillingness of State and Federal Governments to explicitly link their climate measures - such as emissions targets - with the degree of climate impacts we experience.

For example, how will the Australian Government's current weak targets play out for bushfire risk if adopted by other developed nations? Of course, Rudd's targets will increase bushfire risk over time. If, as the Green Paper argues, 'effectiveness' will be one of the measures of climate policies, surely the link between policy and impacts must be explicitly acknowledged at State and Federal level?

Already with the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, we have seen a reticence to speak about climate policy as a means of long-term risk prevention. That must change in the policy discussion about all climate impacts.

2010 is too late for climate debate

Following my recent article for ABC Unleashed on the interim report of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, today's Sunday Age has run my letter responding to Michael Bachelard's excellent piece, 'Smoke and mirrors', published last week. My letter was kindly run without edits as follows:

Michael Bachelard’s tough scrutiny of the Premier’s bushfire spin is most welcome as a call to face up to the challenges looming with the imminent fire season.

Yet, as fires in California and Athens cluster around the commission’s release of its interim report, there is a glaring absence in its findings regarding the contribution of climate change to the Black Saturday bushfires, and how stronger climate policy - including science-based emissions targets - might help to address bushfire risk over time.

True, any such analysis would not result in a reduction of fire risk this coming season, but there was a crucial window of opportunity that makes the slated consideration of climate change in the commission's July 2010 final report far too late. That window was the lead-up to the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

Bachelard’s comment on the stay or go policy, that ‘It’s crucial to get this right at the time this issue is the centre of attention’, applies equally to climate change. Australia is in the midst of its climate change legislative debate, and at Copenhagen will help frame an international agreement on climate that will succeed the Kyoto protocol.

If not now, when is the time that climate policy should be viewed and assessed through the lens of long-term bushfire prevention? That the interim report has not addressed this issue in its official findings before Copenhagen is testament to the political manipulation of the royal commission, and to the climate cowardice of our state and federal leaders.

Essentially, my argument here and in ABC Unleashed is that the inquiry should have made interim recommendations within a timeframe that best allowed action to implement them. With effective climate policy that should have meant the August interim report in the lead-up to December's international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, not July 2010 when the final report will be published.

Everyone concerned for our climate should now follow the second round of public hearings of the royal commission now underway. The hearings are webcast live and transcripts are available the following day. Since the first round, the website has introduced the improvement of listing witnesses for each day, which should make it easier to see when climate evidence has been heard.

Though any climate recommendations will come too late in the July 2010 final report, I am hopeful the media will highlight the clear relationship between climate change and long-term bushfire risk that should emerge in this second round of hearings if the inquiry does its job.

If state and federal governments are thereby forced to explicitly address bushfires in their climate policies, there's a better chance that Australia will show the kind of leadership in Copenhagen that might contribute to a stronger international climate that would help reduce global bushfire risk over time.

On the failure of the terms of reference of the royal commission to explicitly address climate change, see my March article for ABC Unleashed. For the kinds of climate policy recommendations I would like to have seen the inquiry consider, see my submission to the royal commission from May.

Comments welcome.

Climate blindness at the bushfires royal commission

My response to the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission interim report was published today on ABC Unleashed. In the article I argue that the interim report was a missed opportunity to consider stronger climate policy as a means of long-term bushfire prevention. Had the Royal Commission recommended that Australia's climate policies be assessed for the impact on global bushfire risk, it might well have influenced the policy position we take to Copenhagen and show leadership towards a stronger post-Kyoto climate treaty. That in turn would reduce Australian bushfire risk over time.

While the Royal Commission will look at climate change in the next phase of the inquiry, any recommendations in its July 2010 final report will be well and truly too late for Copenhagen. An analysis of climate policy and recommendations to strengthen it were therefore urgent tasks for the royal commission before the next fire season, and should have been accommodated within the terms of reference. While such action would not influence that fire season, it may well have impacted on fire seasons to come. Unfortunately the opportunity to consider climate in a timely and urgent manner has been squandered through climate blindness.

For more on climate change and the 2009 Victorian bushfires, click on the links under the masthead of this page. Comments are welcome.

Weak climate law won't help us in Copenhagen

Today's edition of The Age carries my letter responding to a report that Al Gore thinks passing Australia's weak climate law might help achieve an international climate agreement in Copenhagen in December.

Gore's suggestion seems to reflect the kind of incrementalist view currently dividing environment groups in Australia. The argument is that we should support any step forward in the hope that further improvements will be possible down the track.

The trouble is, the timeframe for achieving such intermediate steps to a safe climate will see us run foul of climate tipping points that science shows are being approached far more rapidly than anticipated. Better to acknowledge the science and aim for an effective (and fair) agreement now.

An inferior international agreement will likely be sold politically as mission accomplished on climate, even though it sets us on a collision course with further severe climate impacts such as the Black Saturday bushfires.

Consequently, I think Gore, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Climate Institute are wrong in their endorsement of Australia's current climate policy. They are dealing themselves into a losing game and fragmenting the climate campaign for strong policy based on the only yardstick that matters - science.

Here's my letter, as submitted:

Despite the contribution of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, to raising awareness of the climate threat, I cannot agree with Gore's suggestion that passing inadequate Australian legislation will help frame an effective international climate treaty in Copenhagen this December. On the contrary, an emissions trading system with weak targets can only serve to curtail the ambition of these crucial negotiations.

It would be a different story if our legislation set strong science-based targets, including a 2020 reduction of at least 40% on 1990 greenhouse levels. That is not the case, however, and it is difficult to see how the proposed legislation's weak targets, once made law, could influence, or indeed be strengthened by, anything that played out in Denmark.

By the yardstick of the Coalition, Fielding and the climate denialists, Gore, Rudd and Wong look like climate progressives. The trouble is, that's the wrong yardstick. Targets can now be very specifically linked to levels of warming, and in turn to severe impacts such as the Black Saturday bushfires. We must heed the science and acknowledge the link between the targets we set and the impacts we will suffer. Only then will there be hope of returning to a safe climate.

Comments are welcome.

Brumby should 'pre-empt' on climate

Victorian State Premier John Brumby got into hot water today over comments from counsel assisting the Bushfires Royal Commission that he may have pre-empted the inquiry's preliminary report, which is due to be published mid-August.

As the ABC has reported (see link above), Jack Rush QC views the Premier's comments on changes to the 'stay or go' policy, plans for 'neighbourhood safer places' and 'township protection plans' as 'fundamental' to the inquiry's own investigations and therefore as risking pre-emption of the royal commission's preliminary findings.

The ABC has reported Premier Brumby's response as follows:

Isn't it the government's job to try and protect the state? To take actions and decisions now, to ensure we don't see a repeat of February 7th? And that's exactly what we're doing.

On ABC Radio National's 6.00pm news he also said it was the government's 'obligation to adopt policies that protect the community'.

If that's the case, then the Premier should consider 'pre-empting' the royal commission on climate.

That's because, judging from the inquiry's shyness on climate change from anything but an adaptation perspective, it seems unlikely its interim report will make any recommendations on how stronger Australian climate policy could serve long-term bushfire prevention.

In my view stronger policy could do this by offering Australian leadership to December's Copenhagen talks on a new international climate agreement. A more effective agreement would better limit the global warming that is clearly linked to increased bushfire risk. In my submission to the royal commission, I set out six recommendations the royal commission could consider to prompt a climate policy rethink following the fires, which took the lives of 173 people.

If, as seems likely, there is little or nothing in the royal commission's interim report to this end, the inquiry will have missed the boat, as its final report falls after the crucial Copenhagen negotiations. If Premier Brumby truly wants to 'protect the state' by supporting a safe global climate, he should be making sure that we heed the climate warning of the tragic Black Saturday bushfires by pushing for a stronger Australian position when it really counts.

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely there will be any kind of 'pre-emption' on this matter, because the terms of reference were clearly constructed by the Victorian State Government to avoid a politically awkward focus on climate change.

That's a pity, because the problem of severe bushfires is only set to worsen dramatically without climate action. Perhaps what Brumby needs to pre-empt is climate change itself, and not the proceedings of an inquiry he has seemingly formed to ignore it.

Bushfire submissions badly handled

When I visited the 2009 Bushfires Royal Commission submissions page today I noted some progress. After prodding the staff over the past month or so regarding the publication of submissions and related matters, I saw that my own - submitted way back on 15 May - was finally up there.

Though there has been some progress - 472 submissions appear to be up as of this writing, compared with 432 yesterday - where does that leave the balance of the 1300 or so received by the 18 May deadline according to telephone advice I received yesterday from one of the inquiry's solicitors?

There is also the curious fact that I was told yesterday that submissions were being published in order, and that mine came in in the high 700s, yet it is mysteriously there today, apparently ahead in the queue. The squeaky wheel, perhaps, but it raises questions about the transparency of the whole process.

Added to this is the fact that the published cover sheet for my submission failed to acknowledge the main topics I indicated in making my submission via the web. Concerned about this when I received initial email confirmation, I emailed the inquiry on the day of submission seeking an assurance that all the areas I had indicated would be included with my submission and considered accordingly. This email was acknowledged on 18 May, yet the submission as published only acknowledges climate change.

The other areas I had nominated on the inquiry's web submission form (all of which clearly relate to climate change) included:

Causes and circumstances of the bushfires
Policy, preparation and planning of governments, emergency services
Response to the bushfires

This is far from a trivial point, because the degree to which submissions relate to the terms of reference determines how they will be considered in the process - submissions that are not explicitly related to the terms are unlikely to feature in the inquiry's findings. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there.

Apart from the lengthy delay in publication (2 July following 15 May submission), my light-weight PDF document had blown out to an inaccessible 3MB, all the live links to references within the document had been killed, and a blog address included in the submission was deleted, despite having no implications for my privacy. In fact, my submission was prepared in accordance with the guidelines in a way that should have allowed its almost instant publication.

The fact that the vast majority of submissions are unavailable - including any by major climate groups - at a time when the interim August recommendations are already being talked about in the media is symptomatic of the obscurity of public information surrounding this royal commission.

For those without the privileged access of the media, try finding a list of witnesses, or searching across the transcripts for mention of climate change. Try merely linking to individual submissions from the public - good luck.

With the interim report due on 17 August the only opportunity to influence the climate debate in the lead-up to Copenhagen, the lack of transparency and the general failure to acknowledge climate change policy as an instrument of bushfire prevention should concern us all.

Read more coverage about the 2009 Victorian bushfires

Bushfires should be remembered in Copenhagen

With the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission gearing up to deliver its interim report next month, it will be interesting to see what recommendations are made regarding climate policy as a means of addressing future bushfire risk in the broadest sense.

So far, the inquiry has been reticent even to utter the words 'climate change', yet the interim report is the only real opportunity for it to influence the position Australia takes to international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

The Copenhagen negotiations will underpin world climate action post-Kyoto, and will be a big factor in determining whether countries such as Australia encounter ever more severe climate impacts like the Black Saturday fires, or whether the world turns the corner and heads back towards a safer climate.

So how might the Royal Commission seek to contribute to fire-proofing Australia through its interim recommendations? In my May submission to the inquiry, yet to appear on its official website, I concluded with the following specific recommendations:

1. Granting that human-caused climate change falls within an appropriate construction of the terms of reference, I call on the Commissioners to acknowledge its contribution to the 2009 Victorian bushfires, especially with regard to the influence of climate change in pushing the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) to unprecedented levels during Black Saturday.


2. To satisfy themselves of the above, the Commissioners should call such expert scientific witnesses, and avail themselves of such peer-reviewed scientific research as deemed necessary.


3. The Commissioners should call for current State, Territory and Federal climate and energy policies to be assessed as a matter of urgency for their effect on bushfire mitigation in the broadest sense. The timing of such assessment must enable Australia's strengthening of its climate policy leading into international climate talks at Copenhagen in December 2009 (COP 15).


4. The Commissioners should call on the Australian Government to adopt an unconditional emissions target as a parts-per-million measure of atmospheric carbon dioxide that would maximise the chances of bushfire mitigation if adopted universally via the international agreement to be considered at COP 15.
   
   The target set must consider the most recent science indicating a level of the order of 300ppm CO2 is now considered necessary to offer a good chance of achieving a safe climate. It should also include the aspiration to achieve a zero carbon emissions economy at the earliest opportunity.


5. The Commissioners should call for the publication by the Australian Government of the target it adopts for the Copenhagen negotiations, explicitly detailing the corresponding level of global warming related to international agreement at that level, together with the consequent reduction or increase in Australian fire danger according to the Forest Fire Danger Index.


6. The Commissioners should acknowledge the Copenhagen negotiations as the key remaining opportunity for Australian action to influence international climate measures before tipping points are crossed, rendering further human intervention ineffective, and entering an inexorable trend of more frequent and extreme bushfires in Australia.

At a community climate event back in April, Kelvin Thomson, the Federal Labor Member for Wills, said he considered the connection between climate change and the fires to be 'blindingly obvious'. It would be a great pity if the Australian Government were then to develop a case of policy blindness, and the Black Saturday bushfires were not remembered in Copenhagen.

Read more about the 2009 Victorian bushfires.

Government spins letter threat against all greenies

Following coverage of the letter threat to the CEO of the Hazelwood power station, The Age published my letter today arguing that the Victorian Government is trying to spin this unfortunate incident against environmental activism as such (See 'Don't fall for this spin on greenies' on The Age Letters page).

Here's the letter, with a small grammatical correction that didn't make it into the published version:

Threatening the boss of the heavily polluting Hazelwood power station does nothing to advance the campaign for action on climate, and such measures are rightly condemned (The Age, 15/6). However, media reports of Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's call for environmental groups to denounce such measures indicate a ham-fisted attempt to tie all environmental activism with this extreme.

The tactic is underlined by Treasurer John Lenders' reference to 'green extremists' in radio reports about the incident.

Contrary to the perception these politicians wish to create, the vast majority of environmental groups legitimately campaign against the huge contribution coal-fired power stations make to global warming and its consequent impacts on the planet. Following the Black Saturday bushfires, the Queensland floods and other impacts arriving much sooner than expected, global warming is a much bigger threat that the Government would do well to take seriously.

Since I wrote the letter, the article I was responding to has been expanded from the original AAP story that appeared yesterday, with text now including Peter Batchelor's reported view that

...the credibility of the whole of the environmental movement would be jeopardised unless the people involved were identified.

This further underlines the Government's tactic, and seems to borrow from the ignorant practice of blaming all Muslims for instances of Islamist terrorism should they fail to identify terrorists whose identities are completely unknown to them. We reject outright the latter, and must therefore reject Batchelor's cheap PR ploy against environmental activism.

Kelvin Thomson gets the climate-bushfire link

A submission to the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission by Kelvin Thomson MP shows the Federal Member for the Victorian seat of Wills has a firm grasp of the connection between climate change and the 7 February Black Saturday bushfires.

The submission is well written and researched. Thomson states that 'We need to consider stronger action on climate change to help minimise the risk of more intense fires in the future' (p. 2) and that '...prudent risk management requires that we reduce the risk of fire in Australia by addressing climate change' (p. 5). His conclusion states that: 'By 2020 fires of the ferocity of Black Saturday may be a regular occurrence. At a national and international level this requires mitigation policies that reduce our carbon emissions'.

While I am impressed by Thomson's obvious grasp of the problem, his marshalling of research evidence to substantiate the climate-bushfire link, and the coherence of his arguments, his efforts fall short by recommending no specific climate policy action to address bushfire risk beyond repeating an inadequate Treaties Committee proposal of an 80% cut on current emissions by 2050 (as Senator Christine Milne noted in The Age), and stabilisation of greenhouse gases at 450ppm.

While I am far from certain that the former is consistent with the latter, I'm pretty confident that 450ppm is nothing like what we need to return us to the safe climate zone.

David Spratt, a climate campaigner, and co-author of Climate Code Red, who spoke with Thomson at a Moreland climate event back in April, has posted on the sorts of targets we need to achieve climate safety in light of the current science, and an atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in the order of 300ppm seems to be indicated (See under 'A safe-climate target').

That Thomson fails to follow through on his obvious conviction by proposing scientifically adequate climate measures is symptomatic of the current climate inertia of the Rudd Government. A key problem is the Government's seeming perception that it need only position itself relative to a climate-ignorant Coalition rather than subjecting itself to the objective measure of climate science. Unfortunately, that just won't be good enough to avoid dangerous climate impacts such as the 7 February Black Saturday bushfires.

With regard to the Royal Commission, I would have liked to see Thomson push for specific recommendations to shape the outcome of this inquiry (see my submission). If this royal commission merely nods its head at climate change - so far it has been virtually unable to utter the words - we will have missed a vital opportunity to acknowledge the bushfires as a climate impact in a way that might positively influence the position we take to international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

Australian climate leadership could help shape a stronger post-Kyoto agreement that would reduce our bushfire risk over time.

Finally, I encourage you to read Thomson's submission. Despite the criticisms made here, it is well worth the time, and has important things to say not only about the climate-bushfire link, but also on renewable energy, the need to address land-clearing, and the design of homes in bushfire-prone areas.

Read more on the 2009 Victorian bushfires. Comments welcome.

Letter on climate silence in bushfire inquiry

The Sunday Age today published my letter on the failure of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission to even utter the words 'climate change' in public hearings so far.

The letter (scroll down) was commenting on a piece in last week's edition by Michael Bachelard, which reported on public hearings of the inquiry, and in particular the quiet departure of the 'stay or go' policy as a response to bushfire. Yet, despite the questioning of this policy given increasingly frequent and severe fires, there has been no acknowledgment that this has come about because climate change is clearly contributing to unprecedented levels of the Forest Fire Danger Index.

As I say in the letter, bushfire prevention should be seen through the lens of climate change. It is open to the Royal Commission to recommend that effective climate policy - including a stronger Australian position at December's Copenhagen negotiation - be framed with future fire prevention in mind.

Here's the letter as published, then as it was submitted.

IF 'STAY or go' has quietly departed, there's one reality that has not even quietly entered the Bushfires Royal Commission. That reality is climate change, which is fuelling bushfires beyond levels able to be defended or, tragically, survived by those who choose to stay and fight.

Scientists will say, correctly, that there isn't a simple causal link between climate change and the Black Saturday fires. They will also say, however, that climate change has contributed to the elements, such as extreme temperatures and dryness through lack of rainfall, that comprise the fire danger index, which reached unprecedented levels on February 7.

Addressing climate change through better policy and international leadership will help control these elements of fire over time. For that reason, the Bushfires Royal Commission must look at bushfire prevention through the lens of effective climate policy. Yet a search of the transcripts of public hearings to date reveals not a single mention of 'climate change'.

Within the supposedly all-encompassing terms of reference for this inquiry, there should not be room for such deadly silence.

Now, as submitted:

If 'stay or go' has quietly departed as the policy of choice for residents facing bushfire, there's one reality that has not even quietly entered Room 4.3 at the County Court of Victoria, venue for the Bushfires Royal Commission. That reality is climate change, which is fuelling bushfires beyond levels able to be defended or, tragically, survived by those who choose to stay and fight.

Scientists will say, correctly, that there isn't a simple causal connection between climate change and the Black Saturday fires. They will also say, however, that climate change has clearly contributed to the elements, such as extreme temperatures and dryness through lack of rainfall, that together comprise the Forest Fire Danger Index, which reached unprecedented levels on 7 February 2009.

Addressing climate change through better policy and international leadership will help control these elements of fire over time. For that reason the Bushfires Royal Commission must look at bushfire prevention through the lens of effective climate policy.

Yet, despite expert testimony from the Bureau of Meteorology detailing preceding and prevailing extreme and anomalous weather, a search of the transcripts of public hearings to-date reveals not a single mention of 'climate change'. Within the supposedly all-encompassing terms of reference for this inquiry, there should not be room for such deadly silence.

Politically sensitive truth is truth nonetheless. The Royal Commission must have the courage to call the evidence on which our governments will either act or stand condemned.

Comments welcome. Read more on the 2009 Victorian bushfires.

Bushfires Royal Commission should be more open

Back on 19 May, I emailed the Bushfires Royal Commission with the following:

Your website appears to have no public information about who is to appear before the commission and when they are to appear. Can you advise whether this information is publicly available, and when it is likely to be published on the Royal Commission website?

I got two replies on 25 May. There was the following:

Unfortunately there is no publicly available advance scheduling for evidence or witnesses. Given the dynamic nature of the witness list, which is being updated constantly, we cannot offer such a service.

and

Thank you for your email. We will not be publishing this information as I have been advised it could change considerably during the course of the week, however you are more than welcome to call the Commission at the beginning of the week and enquire.

I replied to the first (and along the same lines to the second) that that's what the web's for (i.e. to publish changing information).

This seemed to irk Commission media staff somewhat, resulting in the following reply:

Not quite sure what you meant by your response.

First and foremost our commitment has been to make the hearings as open and transparent as possible by web-streaming and allowing pool cameras and stills photographers in the hearing room and most people feel the Commission has done a good job in this respect.

Given the dynamic and ever-changing nature of the witness list, and given all our other priorities, we would struggle to keep it up to date on our website. So we have chosen to concentrate our activities on making sure the streaming happens and the media is well catered for so they can inform the public through TV, radio and the print media.

The public has access to transcripts the next day and the submissions are there for anyone to read. We are happy with the service we are providing but we will continue to look at ways to improve it.

I thought this deserved some elaboration, and sent off the following:

There are certainly some good aspects to your coverage. However, I find it difficult to believe you don't know quite what I mean. There are lots of aspects that aren't sufficiently transparent about this inquiry. They include:

1. Publication of who will appear and when - that information might be provisional but should not preclude its publication on the web with an appropriate disclaimer that the list might change and should be confirmed by phone if necessary. You could easily and almost instantly publish changes via a Royal Commission Twitter account, for example.

2. Whether the commission has any plans whatsoever to call evidence on climate change with a view to framing appropriate recommendations for more effective climate policy that might support the long-term prevention of bushfire.

3. How many parties applied for leave to appear compared to parties granted conditional or unconditional leave. I'd be interested to know, for example, what climate scientists or climate advocacy groups applied for leave and were refused.

4. The tardy online publication of submissions.

5. The number of confidential submissions that have been received by the commission, and whether these were from individuals or organisations.

6. The fact that terms can be searched across submissions, but not across hearing transcripts, which would be useful for the public, and for journalists.

Those are just a few points, but there may be others.

Is the web-streaming and provision of transcripts a good thing? Certainly. But the Royal Commission could do a lot more to make the process even more transparent - particularly with regard to signalling the broad directions of the inquiry, together with an indication of which witnesses will or will not be called. There can then be better public debate as to whether the inquiry was ever intending to look at such politically incovenient realities as climate change.

Bushfire evidence silent on climate change

Yesterday's evidence at the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission heard much fascinating evidence from the Bureau of Meteorology's Dr Mark Williams. Dr Williams did a very thorough job of setting out the extreme weather conditions that factor into the Forest Fire Danger Index, especially the highly anomalous and extreme temperatures prevailing in the January heatwave and during the fires.

Yet a search of the transcript reveals no mention of 'climate' and only two mentions of 'warming' in all the evidence for that day. The first, at lines 20-25 on page 728, has Dr Williams remarking on the potential contribution of the warming trend he clearly acknowledges to anti-cyclone wind patterns.

The second, at lines 20ff. from Commissioner Susan Pascoe, says warming 'projections seem to be toward an extension of these weather patterns'. Leaving aside the indications that the trend is likely to worsen, not proceed in a merely linear fashion, if there continues to be inadequate action on climate change, my question is this: How is it that the Commissioners could not bring themselves to ask any questions regarding climate change of an obviously expert witness?

My submission makes the point that recommendations from this Royal Commission urging a reconsideration of climate policy from the perspective of bushfire prevention might well be influential in the climate position Australia takes to international talks in Copenhagen. If this influenced other nations to adopt a stronger climate agreement, that would have clear benefits for prevention of bushfire in Australia over time.

Conversely, a failure by the Royal Commission to contribute in this manner might well cut across any recommendations it makes regarding better warning, emergency response and bushfire mitigation. If climate change goes unchecked, whatever adaptation measures they recommend will be increasingly ineffective and perhaps even useless.

Maybe the inquiry is yet to hear further climate evidence, but it's hard to know given that there is no publicly available schedule of witnesses or topics for consideration. The Preliminary Directions Media Release issued by the Royal Commission on 20 April shows that no climate groups have been given either leave to appear, or conditional leave to appear. Of course, the Royal Commission may call expert climate witnesses, but the signs are not good for climate change getting appropriate air-time in this inquiry.

Submission to the Bushfires Royal Commission

This afternoon I sent off my submission to the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. To be considered for the inquiry's August 2009 interim report, your submission needs to be in by 4.00pm next Monday 18 May 2009. See the website for details on how to submit.

My submission focuses on the circumstances and causes of the fires, and strategies for future bushfire prevention from the perspective of effective climate policy, and the benefits this might have in promoting the chances of a stronger international agreement at the Copenhagen negotiations in December this year.

In my view, there is a strong argument that recommendations from the Royal Commission could well be influential in strengthening the policy Australia takes to the talks.

You can download my submission in PDF format, or view it as a web page via Google Docs. They're starting to publish the submissions on the Royal Commission website, so visit the submissions page if you'd like to read some others as well.

Comments welcome.

Update: I had a bit of trouble with the electronic submission form at the Bushfires Royal Commission website, which in the generated confirmation email was not showing all the areas I had selected as being covered in my submission.

If you also have this problem, I sugest emailing the Royal Commission setting out the areas your submission covers to ensure it is given appropriate consideration.

We don't agree to burn, Mr Rudd

Citing the recession, the protection of jobs, and certainty for business, Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has further undermined the possibility of a strong international climate agreement this year by delaying the start of Australia's emissions trading scheme until 2011. Changes to the proposed scheme also include targets inadequate to secure a safe climate, a reduced carbon price in the first year of the scheme, and additional compensation to heavy polluters.

The changes extend high-emitting business-as-usual for Australia, putting us on track to cross what may well be irreversible climate tipping points. The proposed targets also fail to act with sufficient urgency even when emissions trading is implemented, continuing the government's fudging on a baseline for measurement of emissions (2000 v. 1990) and claiming the consistency of its target with a stabilisation level of 450ppm atmospheric CO2 - itself now frequently deemed inadequate by leading climate scientists.

With a group of eminent Australian scientists having recently written a letter to the coal industry describing its contribution to dangerous climate change, the government must surely also be on notice. It stands to significantly contribute to dangerous climate change through continued ineffective action, and a failure to show the kind of international leadership that would strengthen the chances of effective global solutions being agreed at the Copenhagen climate negotiations this December.

Already with melting of Arctic sea ice, the growth in bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, the Queensland floods, and drought in south-eastern Australia, we are seeing the severe but only beginning impacts of climate change. Among these were February's Victorian bushfires, which have been increasingly related to climate change, with bushfire itself a significant contributor of greenhouse emissions fuelling subsequent warming.

Prime Minister Rudd's scuttling of Australia's international leadership puts transient economic cycles and vested interests ahead of permanent dangerous changes to our climate that are within our capacity to control with effective and concerted national and international measures. The failure of his government will correlate to worsening climate impacts over time, including more frequent and severe bushfires such as those we have seen in Victoria.

As University of Tasmania researcher, David Bowman, recently told Radio National's The World Today program:

We have got to understand increased bushfire activity as a direct consequence of uncontrolled climate change. This is a very good reason for Australia to do everything we possibly can to bring down the global temperature, to control carbon emissions and other gases which are resulting in the warming of the planet.

We don't agree to burn, Mr Rudd.

Update: Disappointingly, major environmental groups such as the Climate Institute and the Australian Conservation Foundation have given qualified support to the changes. While they have both offered more ambitious hopes for Australia's ultimate position, saying that 25% by 2020 in the context of a global agreement is a starting point and that Australia needs to do more, this was all lost in tonight's grabs on ABC Television's The 7.30 Report, which simply noted their support for the package, which will do nothing for Australia's international leadership on climate at December's Copenhagen negotiations.

As Kerry O'Brien did well to note against evasive climate minister, Penny Wong, Australia's unconditional commitment remains a 2020 cut of 5% on 2000 levels, with the still-meagre 25% only kicking in with a global agreement.

While the impulse for consensus is no doubt correct, it is interesting that the climate groups chose to align with the government, rather than unify around the position of the Greens, which is closer to the science in its push for a 40% cut on 1990 levels by 2020.

If we're going to build consensus, shouldn't it be around a position that stands some sort of chance of solving the problem? It seems the politics of compromise, the dangers of which have been well identified in Spratt and Sutton's Climate Code Red, have emerged to significantly weaken Australian climate advocacy - clever politics by Rudd, but the climate will respond by degrees.

See also this article outlining the Greenpeace response that Rudd needs to start again and look at a 50% cut in the next decade. In the article, deputy PM, Julia Gillard, claims to have consulted widely on the delayed start for the scheme. With whom did she consult?

Bushfire museum must record the truth

The proposed Victorian bushfire museum considered in a recent editorial of The Sunday Age is a laudable idea. It would offer a fitting way to remember our catastrophic fires and their victims, but can only be justified if it has permission to tell the truth.

The editorial describes Victoria's February fires as 'popularly blamed on climate change', whereas a more accurate statement would have said that scientists themselves are increasingly drawing this link.

As I have noted elsewhere, the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, the head of Victoria's own climate change reference group, Professor David Karoly, and now US researchers using satellite imaging to study increased fire risk all believe that the February fires were consistent with human-caused climate change.

Yet the same edition of the paper carried a report that the royal commission promises to investigate all aspects of the fires - hard to believe when its terms of reference are silent on climate and there is no obligation on commissioners to investigate the issue or to make recommendations upon it.

How can this politically motivated climate blindness be justified as the Australian Government heads towards international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December?

Finally, as also reported in last Sunday's edition, Liberal MP Greg Hunt may be right when he suggests that youth may be brainwashed by a federal government school promotional campaign about climate change - but only if our kids falsely believe that the prime minister and his government are doing what is needed to avoid climate tipping points that will be irreversible once crossed.

Will the bushfire museum tell the misleading story of one more tragic episode in a long line of bushfires, or will history record that we faced the truth, that the February fires opened our eyes to the impacts of climate change, that, with belated urgency, we started the long but crucial battle to stop more frequent and severe fires through our international leadership on climate?

Read more about the 2009 Victorian bushfires and climate change.

Fire missing from climate debate US scientists say

A report on the 8 April edition of Radio National's World Today program details US research employing satellite imaging to study increased fire risk from climate change. Scientists interviewed about the research, which features the 2009 Victorian Black Saturday bushfires, say that the increased rate of change of fire risk features in the outcomes, that the Victorian fires are consistent with climate change, and that fire has been missing from the climate debate - in fact, there is no 'fire chapter' in climate reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

One way to bring fire back into the climate debate is to make sure climate change gets the air-time it deserves at the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, the terms of reference for which are silent on this issue, leaving investigation of climate change as a contributor to the Black Saturday bushfires to the discretion of the commissioners when other factors are specifically identified for investigation.

If we can face up to the role of climate change in Victoria's devastating bushfires, then maybe we can look at Australia's proposed emissions reduction targets in a new way - namely, do they contribute to long-term bushfire prevention through international advocacy on a stronger global climate policy? Or are our current, inadequate targets in fact entirely consistent with more frequent occurrences of the fires that burnt so much of Victoria and took so many lives back in February? I fear the answer is 'yes'. If that's not a call to action by the Australian Government, I don't know what is.

Read more coverage on the 2009 Victorian bushfires on this blog.

Climate discretionary at bushfires royal commission?

The bushfire royal commission can deal with climate if the royal commissioner, Mr Bernard Teague, feels it is important. This was the response of Mr Kevin Love, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Sustainability and Environment, speaking at an Environment Week event held last night at the University of Melbourne to discuss the Victorian 2008 State of the Environment Report produced by the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Dr Ian McPhail.

Mr Love was responding to a question from the audience following the presentations about the omission of climate change and climate policy as areas for specific inquiry in the royal commission terms of reference. Other areas - such as fire warnings and emergency responses - are specifically identified.

Prefacing his remarks with concern that he avoid contempt of the royal commission, Mr Love invoked a catch-all in the terms, allowing the commissioners to investigate 'Any other matters that you deem appropriate in relation to the 2009 Bushfires'.

Yet the omission of climate change and climate policy follows 2007 research by the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre commissioned by the Climate Institute linking climate change to a marked increase in bushfire risk, with recent trends matching or exceeding previously projected risk under global warming scenarios.

'The terms of reference are important given they determine what the commission is specifically directed to investigate, and the areas in which it is empowered to make recommendations. The potential contribution of more effective climate policy to international leadership, a stronger global agreement, and therefore long-term bushfire prevention should be rigorously examined in this inquiry,' Darren Lewin-Hill said today. His comments follow his 18 March opinion piece published on ABC Unleashed, making the case for the inquiry to address climate policy.

The wording of the bushfires royal commission website itself underlines why the terms are important, with the following requirement for leave to appear before the commission:

'The notice [to appear] should comprise a brief outline of no more than three pages identifying the term or terms of reference [my emphasis] in which the person or organisation claims an interest, explaining the nature of that interest and giving reasons why they should be given leave to appear before the Royal Commission'.

With no specific terms of reference applicable to climate change and climate policy, their inclusion in the inquiry, and emphasis in the findings, are at the discretion of the commission. Yet the science suggests that the influence of climate change was far from incidental in the Black Saturday fires.

With its preliminary report due in mid-August this year, the royal commission can, if it chooses, acknowledge the scientific evidence and recommend that the influence of climate in the Black Saturday fires be taken into account in framing the position that Australia takes to international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

'While the royal commission is not precluded from considering climate under these terms, it is not directed to do so, and climate scientists and advocates must be clear in their calls to ensure that climate change gets the air-time it deserves. As Quentin Dempster, writing on the fires for the ABC, noted, to openly acknowledge the role of climate change in the fires "would require a coordinated national, state and territory policy response". In essence that means a moral imperative to act,' Mr Lewin-Hill said.

In discussing climate change in the presentation about his 2008 State of the Environment Report, Dr McPhail told the audience that you don't believe in climate change as you do in a religion; you are either persuaded by the scientific evidence or you are not. He declared himself persuaded, and called on targets adopted by the Emissions Trading Scheme to be based on that evidence. He said the targets were currently being seen 'in terms of the politically possible'.

Dr McPhail had earlier noted that the climate responds to absolute reductions in emissions, not gains in efficiency. Victoria had 'translated' such gains into increased production, he said.

Apart from Dr McPhail and Mr Love, presenters at the event included Dr Peter Christoff, Vice President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Ms Kelly O'Shanassy, Chief Executive Officer of Environment Victoria. The event was chaired by Mr Rob Gell. The event was organised by the Office for Environmental Programs at the University of Melbourne, with which the author is not associated.

See further coverage of the 2009 Victorian bushfires.

Bushfires royal commission on ABC Unleashed

The ABC's Unleashed opinion site has just published my article on the need to examine climate policy as part of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.

General submissions to the inquiry are open until 4.00pm on Monday 18 May 2009.