5 thoughts on “Monday Message Board”

1. 31.10.2024 Age

   Australia climate change: CSIRO, BoM reports 1.5 degree increase in average temperature

   “Global sea level rises vary from year to year, but teams from the CSIRO and the bureau report there has been a global mean sea level rise of more than 22 centimetres since 1900. Half of this increase has taken place since 1970.”

2. Australia is already 1.5 degrees hotter.

   A bit from The Age on CSIRO & BOM State of the Climate report:

   https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-is-already-1-5-degrees-hotter-20241029-p5kmb1.html

   ““It’s looking increasingly unlikely that we’ll be able to stop at 1.5 degrees,” … “So we’re seeing an increased transport of heat from the north to the south through the east Australia current, and that’s associated with quite significant ecosystem changes.” …Global sea level rises vary from year to year, but teams from the CSIRO and the bureau report there has been a global mean sea level rise of more than 22 centimetres since 1900. Half of this increase has taken place since 1970.”

3. Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
   Lancet 2024; 403: 2057–99
   May 18, 2024 Articles
   Published Online March 20, 2024
   https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2824%2900550-6

   Although sustained below-replacement fertility will pose serious potential challenges for much of the world over the course of the century, it also presents opportunities for environmental progress.

   Alongside strong pro-environmental regulations, a smaller global population in the future could alleviate some strain on global food systems, fragile environments, and other finite resources, and also reduce carbon emissions.

   A 2012 study suggests that if global population were to follow a low-growth rather than a medium-growth path, worldwide carbon emissions would be 15% lower by 2050 and 40% lower by 2100.

   The 2023 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report likewise suggests that low population growth (a result of low fertility) is an important factor in limiting global warming.

   However, increasing consumption per capita due to economic development could offset the benefits of smaller populations. – pp 2088-2089

   Pre that, on point, 16 years ago, pre the later white-anted ACF:

   Make skilled migration cut for environment – ABC January 18, 2009
   https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-18/make-skilled-migration-cut-for-environment-acf/269728

   The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has urged the Federal Government to make a “substantial reduction” to its skilled migration program in this year’s Budget.

   In its Budget submission to Treasury, the ACF says that if current migration levels continue they would contribute to a tripling of Australia’s population by the end of the century.

   The ACF argues that the projected population growth would make it more costly for the country to meet its emissions reduction targets, placing a high burden on “already stretched” urban infrastructure and ecological systems.

   The Government has committed to cutting emissions levels by 5 to 15 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020, and 60 per cent by 2050.

   The ACF says the Government must study the environmental implications of a growing population, including growth contributed by its migrant intake.

   “The projected population growth attributable in part to such high migration levels will make it increasingly difficult for Australia to meet sustainability goals,” the submission says. “

   For instance, part of the justification offered by the Government for a 5 to 15 per cent carbon target is the impact that rising population will have on our emissions profile”.

   In a bid to ease a shortage of skilled workers in some industries, the Government increased the number of skilled migration places by 31,000 to a total of 133,500 places in the 2008-2009 Budget.

   The total of the migration program for 2008-2009 is 190,300 places, which is an increase of 37,500 places on 2007-2008 levels.

   However in December, Immigration Minister Chris Evans announced the Government was revising the skilled migration program for the first half of this year in the wake of the global financial crisis.

   “The overwhelming message is that we need to maintain a skilled migration program but one that is more targeted,” Mr Evans said.

   “The existing 133 500 planning target will remain as a ceiling, with the actual number of visas granted to be kept under review for the remainder of 2008-09.”

   Mr Evans has also indicated that the Government would take a more longer-term approach to setting Australia’s migration levels which would also be more holistic.

   The ACF wants the Government to conduct explicit modelling of the impacts of the migration program on carbon pollution in its development of a long-term population policy.

   “To ensure that the migration program truly is in Australia’s interest, a long-term population policy should be established which stabilises Australia’s population in the long term at an ecologically sustainable level,” the submission says.

   “The policy should be formulated in light of the environmental impacts of increasing population and sustainable development, rather than the current focus on short-term industry and economic objectives.”

   The submission also calls for the establishment of a sustainability charter and commission and for funds already allocated to saving the Murray-Darling to be fast tracked.

   More on point remembrance of things past and first passed over in 2007. Ken Henry, former Treasury Secretary, recalled on May 10, 2023, some straight talking to power on environmental impacts of increasing population and sustainable development:

   What size population can Australia sustain? Or should we avoid trying to answer the question?
   By business reporter Gareth Hutchens October 20, 2024
   https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-20/what-size-population-can-australia-sustain-fertility-rates/104492976

   “I was Treasury secretary, certainly at the time, and I remember having a conversation with Kevin Rudd only a few days after the November 2007 election. In fact, it was the first conversation I had with him after he became prime minister.

   “And we were just talking about a whole range of issues, and I think he said something like, ‘Oh, and by the way, what do you think the maximum sustainable population for Australia is?’

   “And I said, ‘Probably 15 million thereabouts.’ And he thought I said 50, and he leant forward and he said, ’50 million? Ah right, good.’

   “I said, ‘No, no, I said 15.’

   ‘How can you say that? The population is already much more than 15.’

   “And I said, ‘I don’t think you can argue that human activity on this continent is sustainable, not in any way I think about it. And so I think we’d have to cut our population quite a bit if that’s all we’re going to do in order to achieve a sustainable population.’

   “And he was obviously shocked and obviously disappointed. He may even have been appalled, I don’t know.

   “And then I said to him, ‘But although that’s my view, it’s also my view that it would be possible to construct a set of policies that would sustain a population of 50 million. 5. 0. That’s possible, but it would mean that we’d have to do a lot of things very differently.’

   “And in that conversation, I said, for example, we might have to build a whole brand new city for 10 million people, one that doesn’t presently exist.

   “So then we subsequently in the [Treasury] department — and it wasn’t just in the department, there were other people involved in this as well — started exploring where you might build, not a whole brand-new city of 10 million, but, say, a number of cities of 1 million, where you’d put them throughout Australia. Ken Henry — An Economic Odyssey (#145)

   Fascinating huh?

   In 2009, two years after that conversation between Henry and the then-prime minister, Rudd announced plans for a “Big Australia” with a desire to increase Australia’s population to 35 million by 2050 — a 60 per cent increase in the size of the population. Interestingly, press reports from the time record that Henry publicly expressed concerns about Australia’s ability to sustain a 60 per cent increase in the population over the next 40 years.

   More of then, and the population ponzi white anting the country now:

   Greens-immigration-hypocrisy.png (684×853)

   Australia’s population ponzi has already grown by an insane 8.5 million people, ~60%, this century and is projected (consistently fallen well short) to grow by another 13 million people, ~50%, by 2063. Nothing has improved for either the people in aggregate or the environment, quite the reverse.

4. The economics of education can leave a lot of people confused. Education is rightly seen as a human right. But providing education for children from the age of three to the age of twenty-one is difficult. Compulsory education covers most of these years. But after more than one hundred years of compulsory education in this country, there is still no universal coverage. A mixture of public institutions and private enterprises now educate the children from five years of age to eighteen years of age. The funding arrangements are also a mixture of federal funding and state funding. All this makes it difficult to maintain national standards.

   My suggestion may seem radical but it may be the only way to lift national standards. I propose that an Australian authority be set up to fund all schools. The funding would come from both federal and state governments. But the centralisation of funding streams may allow for efficient allocation of education services for compulsory education children.

   This only relates to funding matters. It will not impinge on other areas like national curriculum and certification inspections.

5. ICYMI/FYI, per Prof Eliot Jacobson, on Nov 4 the 2-year running global mean surface temperature (GMST) anomaly reached +1.5 °C.

   And Prof Eliot Jacobson tweeted on Nov 7:

   Some benchmarks for the 2-year running mean for the global surface temperature anomaly. First time passing:

   0.25°C – Jan. 23, 1945
   0.50°C – Sept. 25, 1980
   0.75°C – June 23, 1998
   1.00°C – July 11, 2015
   1.25°C – Mar. 3, 2017
   1.50°C – Nov. 4, 2024

   It would be interesting to know how far behind the 5-year running GMST anomaly is.

   Per the website Paris Agreement Temperature Index, as at 1 Oct 2024, relative to the 1850-1900 baseline, using the Copernicus ERA5 temperature dataset, the number of individual days over:

   • +0.50 °C GMST anomaly is: _ 14,909 (first month milestone breached Apr 1940)
   • +0.75 °C GMST anomaly is: _ _9,431 (Feb 1941)
   • +1.00 °C GMST anomaly is: _ _4,933 (Jan 1958)
   • +1.25 °C GMST anomaly is: _ _1,876 (Feb 1995)
   • +1.50 °C GMST anomaly is: _ _ _612 (Dec 2015)
   • +1.75 °C GMST anomaly is: _ _ _100 (Feb 2016)
   • +2.00 °C GMST anomaly is: _ _ _ _ 6 (Nov 2023)