And for more on the topics we covered today, read the whole of The frontline:
Thanks to my colleagues Marni Cordell and Adam Morton for their help running the blog today, and everybody else who put The frontline together.
It’s a beautiful, affecting multimedia series that looks at real people and the impacts the climate emergency is already having.
Thanks so much for reading, following and asking questions of our experts. It was a great and informative discussion, to mark a stellar project, and I hope to see you all again soon.
Updated
Summary
I’d like to thank all our experts today for their time and incredibly detailed answers. The knowledge you have is astonishing.
Thanks to Assoc Prof Donna Green, Prof Michael Mann, Greg Mullins and Prof Lesley Hughes.
Sorry we couldn’t get to all your reader questions. But we did manage to answer:
Are you optimistic?
Our final question for today, from Emma Coats:
When do you feel optimistic that we can keep this planet in OK shape for our kids and grandkids? Is it when you read that demand for coal will be in freefall within a decade or is it when you read that more and more people are demanding action from governments? What makes you feel optimistic?
Donna Green:
I have a (possibly unrealistic) ability to entertain the notion that people can be simultaneously incredibly smart and incredibly stupid. In the main, I suspect I am optimistic because I choose to be. I want to believe that over the long game, smart might win out over stupid.
An example of this could be seen in Australia where the markets have succeeded despite, not because of, our federal policy. We have witnessed a surge of solar and wind energy installation as a result.
Of course, that leads on to question global politics and economic systems. And, specifically, the broader question of how the capitalist system is able to reduce consumption and increase equity – which is not so easily addressed.
Updated
How many people inhaled bushfire smoke?
Our second-last question for today, and it is a big one.
From Oskar Johnson via email:
Have we quantified the number of people exposed to smoke inhalation as a result of the fires 2019-20? What long-term health effects might there be of this inhalation?
Donna Green:
There are a number of research projects combining census data, hospital admissions, health centre presentations and related data ongoing as we speak. Given the timing and nature of this kind of research, it is very early days to see any research analysis or findings from this ‘summer of hell’ season just passed.
Frustratingly the research timeline for academic researchers does not generally allow for quick responses. Giving a quick example, generally you have to wait for an annual timeline to submit a proposal and then wait about a year to find out whether your proposal (with a success rate of about 10%) has been funded. If it is funded, usually the research budget will get cut about 10-30%. This means research analysis response times can be frustratingly slow.
There have been some ‘targeted research calls’ that have a very tight turnaround. Last month the federal government announced $5m for research projects to respond to the bushfire crisis. This is a good start, however coming off the back of years of cuts to scientific research budgets there is a lot of ground to make up.
We just don’t really know the long-term effects of the exposure that many Australians felt over the last summer. Populations respond differently, for example. We can’t easily extrapolate from studies in, for example, heavily polluted cities in China or India, because Australians in the main are not exposed to high levels of air pollution routinely. That means that our bodies are not used to the pollution and consequently often the health impacts can be more serious.
Updated
Via email from Rose:
How can we protect against exacerbating further health inequities ie only rich people and wealthy workplaces (and well-funded childcare centres) being able to afford high quality air purifiers?
Donna Green:
I wish I had a good answer for this. Just as we are currently seeing an increase in private jets being flown into Asia in response to Covid-19, there will always be inequality in the system.
Reducing the inequality can be carried out through policy, and policies can get encouraged via grassroots pressure, especially at the local level. I would imagine local politicians might respond favourably to requests from a small percentage of their voters demanding reasonable provisions in public buildings including childcare centres, for example. They could perhaps encourage state- or territory-level policy to be reconsidered in this respect. It is tricky though as each building is different in terms of build, age, windows, usage, existing air conditioning etc.
As important (if not more) will be real energy policy change to ensure that the kids currently in childcare centres have the best possible chance to grow up in a less climate-changed world. Given that environmental injustice already exists in Australia for air pollution and human health, attacking both the climate/energy policy angle now (as Michael Mann so eloquently discussed just before) is crucial to address future air pollution inequality.
Updated
Is air pollution affecting mental health?
A question via comment:
Could you tell us the latest yet-to-be-published data on the effects of climate change and air pollution on mental health?
Donna Green:
I’m not privy to unpublished data, but there are good, recently published systematic reviews on this topic. For example, if you search online for ‘Air Pollution (Particulate Matter) Exposure and Associations with Depression, Anxiety, Bipolar, Psychosis and Suicide Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’. The associations between PM2.5 and ultra fines with mental health are identified in this review.
It would be likely that at the end of this year you would also start to see some more research published in this area for Australia specifically given that there was a targeted funding call of $2m to support analysis of the effect of bushfire smoke and mental health last month.
Other potentially useful places to look for this research include: Understanding how climate change and floods affect mental health and community wellbeing via Sydney University, or some of the work of Prof Helen Berry.
Updated
How can we cope with heat?
From Kirsty Harris:
What can citizens do in their streets and suburbs to reduce the impact of heat on their health? If part of the answer is to plant trees, what kind should we be planting, and where do we get lists of trees that will be more suitable for surviving a hotter, drier climate?
Donna Green:
Local councils are a good place to start asking about which trees are good for planting in your neighbourhood. Many have lists they can give you and they would be taking into consideration your local area and the ecosystem that the tree will (hopefully) grow up in.
Soft landscaping which has permeable surfaces and the use of native small grasses and shrubs instead of lawns is better during droughts due to the lower water needs, and the support of local birds and other critters. As we’ve also seen in many places recently, lots of hard surfaces increase run-off, especially during extreme rainfall, which increases flooding. To reduce these problems, now and for the near future, if you have a choice about upgrading gardens, these sorts of things could be kept in mind.
Updated
A question from Nicola Harvey:
I’m a farmer who strongly believes in climate change and I really struggle in arguments with reactionaries (other farmers). What are the most important points to use in an argument about climate change, to really substantiate my argument on the reality of climate change as I end up very frustrated. Thank you.
Donna Green:
You are not alone! Fortunately there are a range of good websites that can provide answers to some of the more frustrating climate denier arguments. See John Cook’s site or Real Climate. It’s also important to realise that there are lots of similar farmers who share your frustrations and who can tailor responses appropriately. Anika Molesworth, if you don’t already know her, provides excellent commentary.
Updated
Via email from Tim:
What effect will all the bushfire smoke have on a foetus? I’ve heard that there is some disturbing evidence on this from fires in the US.
Donna Green:
Researchers have found that some of the smallest pollution particles (PM2.5 and ultrafines) can cross into the bloodstream (unlike larger PM10 particles that can get trapped in your nose hairs or mucus). These smaller particles, among others, are found in bushfire smoke. Because your blood circulates everywhere throughout all your body’s systems, and in this case potentially crossing the placenta, there is concern that there would be impacts on foetuses.
Moreover, if the mother’s health is compromised by inhaling bushfire smoke, that could of course indirectly affect the health and wellbeing of the baby. Research examining the associations between exposure to pollution and stillbirths, miscarriages and pre-term delivery has been ongoing worldwide. Australian researchers are currently looking for these relationships over the past summer period to see if they can see similar relationships.
Updated
Did our health departments make any mistakes with bushfire smoke?
From Josh via email:
Did the NSW and ACT health departments respond appropriately to minimise the effects of exposure to bushfire smoke during the summer? Or should they have issued a directive that, for example, childcare centres keep children inside during the worst days?
Prof Donna Green:
We do know that there is ‘no safe level’ of air pollution, and that children are more susceptible than adults to air pollution, so your concerns are well founded.
Many of Australia’s buildings are quite ‘leaky’ so staying inside can be better than outside – but not necessarily the best place to be on the very worst pollution days. This is especially true for vulnerable populations (children, for instance). In these cases, the childcare centres and schools may not have been the best places for the kids, even if they were kept inside.
It would be great if, as was recently called for, an independent national expert committee on air pollution and health was set up to develop evidence-based, accurate, practical and consistent advice on health protection against bushfire smoke. The Medical Journal of Australia has a very timely article on the need for this to happen, and quickly. See ‘Bushfire smoke: urgent need for a national health protection strategy’.
Updated
Another video answer from Michael Mann:
If you had the opportunity or power to change our behaviour, what would you impose as our first steps?
Watch @MichaelEMann's answer to the #FrontlineLive blog question: If you had the opportunity/power to change our behaviour, what would you impose as our first steps? https://t.co/BKFqyIYT1N pic.twitter.com/wMGPVqyxnP
— Guardian Australia (@GuardianAus) March 3, 2020
Our first question Prof Donna Green is from Ilya via email:
Don’t you think that the coronavirus pandemic is a much more serious and immediate problem than climate change, considering that it can kill millions in the near future?
Donna Green:
Climate change has already shortened the life of – and increased the sickness of – many hundreds of thousands of people over recent years. The increase in extreme weather we have locked in to our climate system is very likely to cause many more cases of sickness and death in the future from direct and indirect impacts. A great way to visualise some of these impacts to our health can be seen in this BMJ infographic.
The Covid-19 advice does suggest that this is a serious international issue and concern. It is important to keep this response in perspective, however, and rely on factually correct sources of information, for example the WHO, to know the scale and nature of the problem and the appropriate response.
Updated
Watch @MichaelEMann's video answer to the #FrontlineLive blog question: How far are we from a tipping point (point of no return) in #globalwarming and #climatechange? https://t.co/BKFqyIYT1N pic.twitter.com/Ai19PG10Jk
— Guardian Australia (@GuardianAus) March 3, 2020
Millions of Australians have spent the summer in smoke but, as our Frontline story on this explored, nobody knows the impact of medium- to long-term exposure to bushfire smoke.
“It can affect every system in your body,” Prof Donna Green told us in February. “You’re not only talking about respiratory-related and heart-related problems, people are linking it to diabetes [and] dementia.”
She will be online from 2pm to 3pm to answer more of your questions. Email frontline.live@theguardian.com or tweet #frontlinelive
Updated
The air
Assoc Prof Donna Green will be answering your questions from 2pm, and we’ve already received a few.
Prof Green is an expert on the health effects of climate change and air pollution.
When it comes to air quality, you know a day is bad when you can see the smoke, and smell it. But you may not realise how bad it is until you see the graphs.
The following graphics use the official NSW and ACT measurements of PM2.5 micrograms per cubic metre. On Australia’s worst day, a maximum of 1,798.7 was registered at Wagga Wagga (7pm, 5 January). Beijing that day was 72.5 micrograms.
Updated
The heat
Heat can kill. That is one of the first things that doctors on the climate frontline will tell you. Indigenous communities in central Australia already know it and are feeling the brunt – as Australia heats up higher than the global average. In this chapter of Frontline, doctors told us there’s clear evidence that extreme heat is already killing people prematurely.
You can ask Donna Green about this, and other health impacts.
Updated
What are the tipping points?
Our final text question and answer from Michael Mann – but there are more video questions to come.
From Robert McLachlan:
We’ve heard a lot about tipping points in the climate system. The IPCC says that irreversible destabilisation of west Antarctica has not yet set in, and there are controversies about some others like arctic methane and the Gulf Stream. What do you see as the most urgent potential tipping points to guard against and to know more about?
Michael Mann:
We could be rather close to the tipping point where we commit to the melting of most of the west Antarctic ice sheet, which alone could add another 10 feet of global sea level rise.
The recent observations of a large hole forming in the Thwaites glacier, which is sort of the “linchpin” of the west Antarctic ice sheet, adds to the concern that we are very close to this threshold. Other tipping point responses, like the slowdown of the north Atlantic “conveyor belt” ocean circulation, may already be under way. We’ve done some work in the journal Nature that suggests this possibility (see also this commentary).
Other tipping point responses – like the massive release of permafrost methane – loom with additional warming.
There are many different possible warming thresholds that trigger each of these responses, and so there is no one “tipping point”. I prefer the analogy of a minefield that we are walking out on to, and the further we go the more danger we encounter. The only sensible policy is stop the forward lurch by getting off fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
Updated
Are we saved if we hit net zero in 2050?
Another from Twitter:
#frontlinelive
— Peter Smith (@arnotsmith) March 2, 2020
Assume we have net zero CO2 emissions in 2050.
What mean temperature will it be then?
How much CO2 ppm in atmosphere?
Will the temperature keep rising, and for how long?
What are the realistic chances of reducing CO2 atmos. ppm from then on?
Michael Mann:
Our best scientific understanding suggests that we can keep planetary warming below 1.5C if we follow a trajectory of decarbonisation that reduces carbon emissions by a factor of two by 2030 and achieves net zero emissions by 2050.
There is of course some uncertainty in that number because there are uncertainties in climate model projections, but the uncertainty is probably only about plus or minus 0.2 degrees. CO2 levels in this scenario would probably peak at about 430 parts per million in the atmosphere (current levels are about 415 ppm) and slowly decline as the oceans and biosphere absorb some of the atmospheric CO2. Our best scientific understanding also suggests that temperatures will stabilise at roughly 1.5C and not rise further if we achieve these targets. That would probably prevent the worst climate change impacts from being realised.
We’re nearing the end of our questions for Michael Mann. A reminder that our final expert, Assoc Prof Donna Green, a specialist in the health effects of climate change and air pollution, will be here from 2pm. Get your questions in early.
Updated
From Kate Ryan via email:
As large corporations drive the economy and governments are more concerned with being popular, is it up to the individual to make the hard changes required? I understand ecology and the effects of our lifestyle on the natural environment but it would seem a large part of the population has no idea of the damage caused by deforestation, acidification, pollution etc. What is the best way to deliver the message?
Michael Mann:
Individual actions are certainly important. There are things we can all do in our daily lives that decrease our environmental footprint, and save us money, make us healthier, make us feel better about ourselves and set a good example for others. But any meaningful solution to the climate crisis involves systemic change – policies that incentivise a mass shift away from fossil fuel burning and other activities that generate carbon pollution. Such policies include carbon pricing, incentives for renewables, etc. That in turn requires electing politicians who will support those policies rather than politicians who will simply do the bidding of fossil fuel interests.
Updated
Another video answer from Greg Mullins.
On our #FrontlineLive blog, watch former NSW Fire & Rescue commissioner Greg Mullins talk about the truth of hazard reduction burns https://t.co/BKFqyIYT1N
— Guardian Australia (@GuardianAus) March 3, 2020
He, along with 22 other former fire chiefs, tried to warn PM in April 2019 about the looming #AustralianBushfires disaster pic.twitter.com/Z9Jg3iFmqy
Does gas emit less than coal?
From Alice Kelly via email:
Does gas have half the greenhouse emissions of coal, from extraction to use?
Michael Mann’s answer:
Technically yes but this is rather misleading statistic. While natural gas (methane) produces about half as much carbon dioxide as coal per watt of power generated, there are legitimate concerns about ‘fugitive emissions’. Methane is itself a potent greenhouse gas and during the process of methane recovery (often called “fracking” – hydraulic fracturing) some of the methane escapes into the atmosphere.
Since methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide on timescales of a decade or two, the leaked methane could easily offset the lower carbon dioxide emissions. Recent studies have shown both that there is a spike in the concentration of methane in the atmosphere over the past two decades (responsible for about 25% of the warming of the planet over that timeframe) and that this methane is indeed coming from natural gas extraction. Finally, investments and subsidies for natural gas crowd out investment for the true solution: renewable energy. Australia could lead the world in clean energy. It’s got sun, wind, geothermal energy, etc. It’s a no-brainer for Australia to move in that direction. And it’s important for Australians to vote for politicians who will support the shift to renewable energy, and vote out those politicians who are instead simply doing the bidding of fossil fuel interests.
Updated
And here’s a video answer we recorded earlier today from Greg Mullins.
A question from Joshua Alexander: is there a general consensus across Australia’s firefighting services that climate change is making the fire season worse?
The answer:
Watch Greg Mullins's answer to this #FrontlineLive blog qs from Joshua Alexander, who has friends who are volunteer firefighters: Is there a general consensus across Australia's firefighter services that #climatechange is making the fire season worse?https://t.co/BKFqyIYT1N pic.twitter.com/crvvain6Zi
— Guardian Australia (@GuardianAus) March 3, 2020
Updated
Has the time for 'centrist' policy passed?
A question now from Twitter:
@AlboMP on #insiders recently ruled out a carbon tax. And Wayne Swan in an address to the party called for centrist climate policy. Is the time for centrist climate policy passed, and is a carbon tax the best tool to initiate change? #frontlinelive
— 💧Michael Sackier 🔥 (@MSackier) March 3, 2020
Michael Mann:
A price on carbon is an essential tool in levelling the playing field in the energy marketplace so that renewable energy – which doesn’t have the same detrimental impact on our climate and environment – can compete fairly against fossil fuel energy. Subsidies for renewable energy and removing subsidies for fossil fuels (the Australian government subsidies the fossi- fuel industry to the tune of $1,000 a person) are also key tools here.
Ironically, a carbon tax is a centrist climate policy. It embraces market economics as a means of dealing with an environmental externality, and in the past conservative governments have embraced such market-based tools. It is only recently that conservatives have opposed carbon pricing.
It’s also important to note that there are different ways of pricing carbon, including a carbon tax and emissions trading schemes (eg “cap and trade”). The Gillard government instituted the latter, but the Murdoch media labeled it a “carbon tax” in an effort to reduce its popularity, and the terminology stuck. The critics claimed it would increase prices but there’s no evidence that it did that. It did reduce carbon emissions on the other hand. We know that pricing carbon works, and any meaningful climate policy must include carbon pricing, along with incentives for renewable energy and other policies to help decarbonise all sectors of society.
Updated
Can our animals recover from the fires?
A question now from Shiann Broderick, an 18-year-old school striker who grew up in and lives in Nymboida in NSW and lost her house in the fires.
How long do you think it will take populations of small birds, mammals, reptiles and gastropods like native snail species to recover back into the landscape to their prior numbers after such a catastrophic fire event over such a huge area?
Michael Mann:
We hear the statistic often that a billion animals were killed by this season’s bushfires. But that’s only vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish). When you include other genera, including insects, the number rises into trillions.
This is tragic and will have long-lasting impacts on the viability of these species. Sadly some species will go extinct or become functionally extinct as a result of the bushfires. Koalas in NSW are now endangered as a result of the bushfires. If we continue to see bushfire seasons like this in years to come we will be facing more and more extinctions. This highlights the urgency of climate action, including efforts by Australia to join with, rather than oppose, the larger international efforts to act on climate.
Updated
Another story from our series. A hotter world has a lot of flow-on effects: bushfires, crops, water and smoke. But one of the simplest is also the deadliest. Hotter temperatures kill people. As doctors and Indigenous residents of central Australia told us in our episode on The killer heat, it hits the body at a cellular level.
Updated
From Jenny Nielsen via email:
I’d like to ask Prof Mann about going from a carbon-emitting economy to a carbon-absorbing economy and specifically his thoughts on Prof Tim Flannery’s suggestion that large-scale economically sustainable ocean permaculture would not only address climate change but could feed the world and de-acidify the oceans.
Could he also comment on other methods of ‘drawdown’ to reduce carbon in the atmosphere into the future that they’d support?
Michael Mann:
Tim is a wise man and there is merit in what he is suggesting. Carbon ‘drawdown’ is an important part of the climate solution and there are ways to do this both with regard to the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere.
When it comes to carbon drawdown, there are natural methods like sustainable permaculture, reforestation, regenerative agriculture, etc to do this, and artificial methods (like constructing millions of synthetic ‘trees’ that absorb and bury carbon). In the end, however, any efforts at drawdown are futile if we continue to load the atmosphere with 50bn tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. So any meaningful climate action must focus primarily on the decarbonisation of our economy (ie moving rapidly away from fossil fuel burning to renewable energy), but carbon drawdown can certainly aid the effort.
Updated
And a question from earlier via comment:
Michael Mann:
Unfortunately, the Australian government’s current commitments don’t get us very far.
They involve what some consider a dubious accounting trick (trying to get “carryover credits” for somewhat meagre actions taken by Australia in response to the 1997 Kyoto Accord to reduce their current emissions reduction commitments. Indeed, the Australian negotiator helped sabotage the recent international Madrid climate meeting by insisting on this. The current government is also subsidising coal and natural gas rather than providing incentives for the renewable energy, taking Australia in the wrong direction. This is unfortunate because Australia was once a real leader when it comes to climate action. Australia was the first major industrial nation to put a price on carbon (in the form of the emissions trading scheme passed by the Gillard government) in 2011. Unfortunately it was disbanded when Tony Abbott took over as prime minister a couple years later and the current government has shown no support for pricing carbon, an essential tool in the effort to decarbonise our economy.
They are not in line with efforts to limit warming to below a dangerous 1.5C.
Some thoughts from our readers below the line:
" Climate change has reduced farm profits in Australia".
How about choosing crops that consume less water and are adapted to the region where it grows?
Cotton is a huge consumer of water in the driest continent, it is harming the Murray-Darling that large irrigators take so much to the detriment of small farming and growers.
Thanks Professor Hughes let’s hope our politicians are listening.
Why 2050?
Our first question for Prof Michael Mann is via comment:
Why do we commonly see 2050 as the year to eliminate fossil fuels and transfer to 100% clean energy rather than a more urgent date, say, in the next 10 years? It seems obvious from all the genuine literature I have read that we do not have another three decades to get our collective acts together.
Michael Mann:
If you look at the so-called carbon budget we have left to avoid warming the planet beyond a dangerous 1.5C and do the maths, there are certain benchmarks we need to achieve to stay on target. Achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 is one key benchmark (Zali Stegall, independent MP for Warringah in NSW, has a climate bill that focuses on that target).
What is also true is that we need to bring carbon emissions down by a factor of two within the next 10 years or so to stay on target. Both this near-term target and the longer-term 2050 target are important to keep in focus when it comes to policies to decarbonise our economy and avert dangerous warming.
Updated
Thanks to Greg Mullins for his time. Again, sorry we could not get to every question. Next up, climatologist and geophysicist Prof Michael Mann.
Is Indigenous fire management the answer?
Our final question for Greg Mullins is from Yindi Kalina:
Thank you with all our heart for standing up and speaking out. Can you tell me your thoughts on Indigenous fire management as a practice and does it have a role to play in managing wildfires in Australia?
Greg Mullins:
Yes! Cultural burning practices where they are still practised are incredibly sophisticated. It is NOT just a case of training firefighters to burn in a different way. Experts in this area understand their country – when animals and birds are nesting and reproducing, when certain plants are flowering and producing seeds. They use this knowledge of country to develop burning strategies that will invigorate rather than harm the environment.
The basic problem, however, is that historically our Indigenous brothers and sisters have been driven off much of their country. Therefore the deep knowledge and continuity of practice is lacking in many areas. However, there is a resurgence in this area and we need to listen to the people who understand country and can help to heal it.
The major issue though is that nobody in the past 60,000 years has experienced a climate like this or fires like this. Which means we need to work together and try new approaches, with cultural burning front and centre among the possible solutions.
Updated
Water
12 months after Fleur Magick Dennis moved to Euchareena in regional NSW in 2017, the water was turned off.
One of the longest, most severe droughts in living memory is the cause – and is exacerbated by climate change. Even recent rain across the state was not enough to break it.
Read Fleur and her husband Locky’s story and let our experts know if you have any questions about the future of water in a changing climate.
Greg Mullins will be here for a few more minutes, and climate scientist Michael Mann will be in soon to take over.
Are waterbombers the answer?
Michael McGovern asks:
Could a fleet of long-range large waterbomber aircraft deployed early after fires were detected have significantly reduced or eliminated the fires before they became uncontainable?
Greg Mullins:
Together with 22 other former fire and emergency chiefs, from April last year I tried to alert the Australian government to the seriousness of the impending bushfire threat. One of the issues we raised was that Australia’s fire seasons now overlap with the US and Canada, where we source all but one of our large firefighting aircraft. Fire services had lodged a business case in 2018 for more financial support from the Australian government, but had been ignored, as had a Senate inquiry recommendation from 2016 that Australia develop its own fleet of large waterbombing aircraft.
Disclaimer: all firefighters know that aircraft on their own cannot extinguish fires. They are another tool in the arsenal. However, they give a tactical edge by reducing fire intensity near assets to allow firefighters to get close enough to save assets, and in remote areas they can hold and contain fires until specialist remote area firefighters arrive.
A study was published in the US last week showing that when aircraft are deployed early they can significantly reduce the ultimate size and duration of bushfires.
We use a range of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters for different roles. The large air tankers generally don’t drop directly on to flames – they lay retardant lines ahead of the flames to try to form a fire break. In extreme conditions and eucalypt forests these often only slow down the fires, as spotting (burning brands carried ahead of the fire front causing new fires) simply cross the retardant lines.
Updated
On 8 September 2019, historic Binna Burra Lodge in Australia's Gold Coast hinterland was razed to the ground. About 450ha of rainforest burned around Binna Burra that day. This is the new fire zone. Hear their story in our first episode of #TheFrontline https://t.co/ms9UEsd1S6 pic.twitter.com/CQ9hCw1sYT
— Guardian Australia (@GuardianAus) February 13, 2020
Robert Armstrong asks:
Having been in northern NSW for a few months, I noticed that the regrowth forests that were burned out did not have much resemblance to the old growth forests in national parks.
The regrowth forest does not have a canopy and consists of dense, thin trees of varying height. Do these forests contribute to intensifying fires? Has any research been conducted on these forests?
Greg Mullins:
I’m assuming that you mean regrowth following harvesting by forestry. The regrowth in these cases, unlike natural forests, is of a uniform age, so they are all about the same height. The danger with this is that should a high-intensity fire burn through these areas, immature trees can be killed and not regenerate.
Because I’m unsure exactly what you are referring to, I can’t really comment on the intensity of fires and whether the state of regrowth contributes. However, the relationship between fuel and fire intensity is very straightforward: “available fuel” is generally considered to be leaf litter, sticks, twigs, bark, low shrubs etc that is 6mm in diameter or smaller. We weigh this to get a figure of tonnes per hectare, then can calculate fire intensity using algorithms that take into account drying, temperature, etc. If the new trees have a lot of light foliage they can contribute to fire intensity.
The issue we have faced after a 20-year drying trend overlaid by a very serious drought is that “available fuel” is probably far more than 6mm diameter fuels, with a consequential significant increase in fire intensity, convection, spotting distances, and even pyroconvective activity (fires creating their own dry thunderstorms).
Updated
This map shows the increasing severity of bushfires if carbon emissions remain high.
Greg Mullins will be here until 12pm answering more of your questions.
Are we even "in control" of our fire season any more?
From Lyon Lim via email:
How can we play a role in preventing these bushfires from ever happening again? Are we even in control, and have the means to avert such intense bushfires in the next fire season? With the amount of bushfires acreage burnt, would the upcoming season be that intense again?
Greg Mullins:
Unfortunately, as my emergency service chief colleagues and I have been trying to warn the Australian government, climate change has super-charged the bushfire problem.
Australia is the driest inhabited continent, and bushfires have been here for as long as humans. Unfortunately the warming and drying trend caused by CO2 and greenhouse emissions has made our forests, scrublands and grasslands even more flammable.
Prevention efforts can be effective for human causes (such as throwing away cigarettes, controlling burn offs, etc). However we have seen a significant increase in the number of naturally caused bushfires – specifically lightning-caused fires and “dry” thunderstorms. In 2016, hundreds of thousands of hectares burned in Tasmania due to lightning, and then again in 2018. Former Tasmanian fire chief Mike Brown and other veteran foresters and firefighters told me that this was unknown in previous decades.
So, in a very real sense, we are no longer in control of the bushfire situation, something that is mirrored around the world, such as in California where they lost 18,000 homes and 100 lives in 2018, and 9,000 homes the year before.
This is why I, and my 22 former fire and emergency chief colleagues who are members of Emergency Leaders for Climate Action, are asking the Australian government to take real action on the basic cause: greenhouse emissions. Over time we might then have a chance.
With regard to area burned, about 21% of broadleaf forests were burned this season. That leaves a lot of bush to burn next year or subsequently. In Sydney the suburbs were not touched. Unfortunately our bushfire problem will not go away.
Updated
The new fire zone
The first installment of The Frontline looked at our horror summer – the 33 people killed, the thousands of homes lost. And as Greg just said, they were of an unprecedented intensity and scale that shocked everyone.
In the Gold Coast hinterland, Tony Groom’s beloved Binna Burra Lodge stood for more than 80 years. This summer it burned. It’s “the kind of lush forest that doesn’t usually burn”. We spoke to him for our first chapter back in February.
Updated
What's something we can do that isn't a march?
Our first question for Greg Mullins is from Mark Doyle:
We need to break our of this climate stasis we are in. It requires Australians to take actual action. What’s something real and immediate individuals could do to start the citizen-led ball rolling? Not a march.
Mullins:
Thanks for your question, Mark. I think that this summer has woken up a lot of people, including politicians, to the climate change crisis that we face. It is no longer theoretical. The scale of the bushfires, the losses, and the extreme weather conditions that drove them even surprised veteran firefighters and climate scientists.
The big gap that I see is in government policy on emissions reduction: this means our energy sector, transport, manufacturing, agriculture – none have any signals from government about what needs to be done and how they can do their part. State and territory governments are all adopting net zero policies, but they need Canberra to step up to assist.
We have an opportunity now: independent MP Zali Steggall will introduce a private member’s bill to parliament this month based on UK legislation. It will provide a framework for action in Australia. We need our politicians to support this. Many in the Coalition understand the need but they are being bullied by the few climate deniers.
We should all be calling on our federal MPs to support this bill. If necessary, they should cross the floor for climate and for the kids’ futures. This is something concrete that all of us can do right now. Politicians rely on votes so they listen to voters.
Come on “quiet Australians”: get loud!
Updated
Thanks to Prof Lesley Hughes for her time and incredible expertise. From Antonio Gramsci to mangrove forests, it had it all. Sorry we couldn’t get all your reader questions – but we do have more experts lined up for the rest of the day who can. A full list is here.
Next up is Greg Mullins, former commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW, volunteer firefighter and climate councillor. He’ll be answering questions until 12pm.
Email frontline.live@theguardian.com or tweet #frontlinelive
Updated
Our final question for Lesley Hughes is from Sophie Bickford via email:
Over the past decade with the understandable focus on climate change, other areas of the environment have been given less attention – nature conservation in particular. In some ways the species extinction is a crisis of the same order of magnitude as climate change – and is irreversible. Can we fix both at the same time?
Hughes:
I think the recent bushfire crisis has focused a lot of attention on the threats of climate change to wildlife, and the parlous state of the Australian environment in general. We must be a lot bolder in terms of conservation action – being more prepared, for example, to move species to reduce the risk of extinctions.
We must also resist the knee-jerk reaction of the right wing to blame the fires on the lack of hazard reduction or national parks or “greenies”. No amount of hazard reduction would have prevented some of the fires we have just seen. But in terms of conservation more generally, the government must reverse the decline in funding that has been going on since the Abbott government. We can save species, but need to spend money to do so. We can’t separate the climate crisis from the extinction crisis – one is exacerbating the other, and both must be addressed simultaneously.
Updated
What can we do?
And now our second-last question for the professor.
From Micaela Ledin:
For those of us who are feeling overwhelmed and helpless right now, what bigger steps can we take as individuals? (Beyond cutting plastic, less water, less driving etc). What actions, specifically, should we be demanding our government to do?
Lesley Hughes:
Use your vote wisely – make sure your parliamentary representatives know that climate change policy will be the number one reason determining your vote at the next election. In the meantime, add your signature to Zali Steggall’s climate bill.
Think about where your money is – in insurance, superannuation and banks. If your bank, insurance company or super fund is investing in fossil fuels, move your money and tell them why. The website Market Forces is a great resource to support this action. Put solar panels on your house if you can, or buy green power if you can’t.
Depending on your finances, consider installing battery storage and getting an electric car. Reduce your meat and dairy consumption (healthier too!). Finally, a good colleague of mine always says, “Use your time, your talent, and/or your treasure.” Join a like-minded community group and give them your time, donate to climate advocacy groups if you can, and volunteer your skills.
In terms of demands to government: we must close down our ageing coal-fired power stations as soon as possible and support investment in renewables and new green technologies. We do actually need a climate and energy policy and we must demand that our governments be guided by facts not opinions.
Updated
From grape to grain: how a warming climate is changing what we eat and drink https://t.co/H85FhnoR28
— Guardian Australia (@GuardianAus) March 2, 2020
This is 'The Lost Harvest', the final episode in @GuardianAus's multimedia series #TheFrontline: inside Australia's #climateemergency pic.twitter.com/FaT20ib3SR
From Julie Bennett via email:
Could the interruption to global trade with the spread of Covid-19 be the impetus for radical change in lifestyles and institutions required to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable ecosystems time to adapt to changing temperatures?
Lesley Hughes:
These are very big questions, and probably best answered in hindsight! I do think that global emissions will be reduced, at least temporarily, as travel, trade, and goods production (especially in China) slows down. We saw this happen during the GFC. I suspect that once the virus emergency is over (assuming this happens) that most things will return to their previous state, but with some more attention being paid to self-sufficiency (at a country level) and a desire for economies to be less dependent on China (such as diversifying the origin of overseas university students here in Australia). But I think it’s probably wishful thinking to expect this crisis to bring about a whole-world change in how we live. But really, your guess is as good as mine!
Updated
And here are the statistics behind that question, from our initial story.
Projected output has dropped by as much as 25% in some parts of Australia’s cropping and grazing industries – and that’s only at 1C of warming. We are on track for 3C.
Average annual farm profits have already dropped significantly due to global heating: down by 37% in Victoria, and 35.3% in the cropping industry.
Will community gardens save our food crops?
A question on The lost harvest from Roan Sajko:
If cropping profits continue to decline in Aus, What kind of food security situation will we be in if many plant farmers decide they can no longer sustain their businesses? Is there a good case for things like urban community gardens? Can indoor hydroponic systems save our crops?
Lesley Hughes:
The impacts of climate change on agriculture are extremely complex. The most general thing to say is that many types of crops, as well as livestock farming, will need to transition to other locations as the climate in their current location becomes unsuitable – this will mean that considerable disruption in our farming sector is ahead.
Community urban gardens certainly have a place in cities and towns, but are unlikely to provide all the food we need for a growing population (especially considering that by 2050, we might have 10 billion mouths to feed). Shifting out of animal products to a more plant-based diet will help a lot – because producing food from animals is far less efficient than from plants. There are also some exciting fermentation technologies being developed in which animal protein is being produced from genetically modified yeast and other microorganisms. I have just had a piece on this technology in relation to dairy production come out in the Monthly (called “The milk of human genius”).
Updated
From Cliff Fraser via email:
Trees, plants in general, absorb and sequester carbon. When a tree dies, naturally or otherwise, is the carbon released or still held in the tree remains?
Lesley Hughes:
After plants die they gradually decompose and, as they do so, the carbon is released back to the atmosphere. This will be a much slower process for a large tree than for a small herb.
Updated
The lost harvest
Published just yesterday, here’s the final chapter of our series. It looks at how the climate emergency is changing the food we eat and crops we grow.
“Consumers are going to have to get used to not being able to get the fruit and vegetables they want at the price they want and the quality they want without sourcing them from overseas,” Mark Howden, the director of the Australian National University’s climate change institute, told us.
Updated
More on that answer as well, specifically about mangroves:
Lesley Hughes:
Massive mortality of mangroves in the Gulf of Carpentaria occurred between late 2015 and early 2016, along a 1,000km stretch of coastline. The deaths occurred during an underwater heatwave (responsible for coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef at the same time), along with a severe drought and a temporary drop in sea level associated with a strong El Niño event.
Approximately 7,400 hectares of mangroves from the Roper River Estuary, east to Karumba in Queensland, were affected, with some river catchments losing over 25% of their mangroves. These habitats provide important nursery grounds for prawns and fish, which in turn support turtles, dugongs and other marine life, as well as the fishing industry. Mangrove communities also filter nutrients and sediments from land runoff, act as natural buffers against storm surges, and store vast amounts of carbon. When mangroves die, this carbon is released back into the atmosphere, contributing to further changes in the climate. This type of event could certainly occur again if sea surface temperatures keep rising, as expected.
Updated
This graphic shows that change in water temperature Hughes is talking about.
Updated
One from Phillip Sutton via comment:
What percentage of the kelp forests have been destroyed in each state? What about the massive mangrove forest loss in the NT? Will this recur? How often and with what consequences?
Lesley Hughes:
I’m not sure the exact percentages of kelp loss in each state, but overall, these important ecosystems are in serious decline. They cover more than 71,000 sq km around the southern mainland coast and Tasmania and are highly productive, supporting rich marine biodiversity. They are facing multiple threats including underwater heatwaves, damage from boats, nutrient and sediment runoff, and overgrazing by marine herbivores. This latter threat is particularly important in Tasmania.
Since the 1970s, the long-spined sea urchin (Centrostephanus rodgersii), originally a resident of the New South Wales coast, has been migrating southwards under the influence of the warming and strengthening East Australian Current. It has now established in large numbers in Tasmania where warming waters mean that the larvae can survive the winter. The urchins graze on the kelp, creating bare patches called “barrens”. The habitat of over 150 species is being lost during this process, with flow-on impacts to the abalone and lobster fishing industries, worth over $100m per year in 2016.
Updated
Will bushfires affect the water cycle?
From Kerrie Davis:
How will the loss of the forests from bushfires affect the water cycle in the short to medium term? I assume that the millions of hectares of burnt bushland will reduce the amount of water evaporated from the leaves and eventually form less rain.
Lesley Hughes:
A number of things can happen after a bushfire that affects the water cycle. Yes, transpiration of water from the vegetation is greatly reduced, depending on how many leaves are left. This means that uptake of water from the roots is also reduced, affecting soil moisture. If there is heavy rain after the fire (such as we’ve recently experienced on the east coast), more water will find its way into rivers because it is not being intercepted by the vegetation. Along with this, there may be significant loss of topsoil and nutrients.
The nutrients in the runoff can affect water quality because they can support excessive growth of algae. Some algae can be quite toxic if ingested so there needs to be careful monitoring of drinking water in catchments under these post-fire circumstances.
Updated
The dead sea
Here’s one of The Frontline stories that you can ask ecologist Prof Lesley Hughes about.
The sea around the Tasmanian east coast used to be one of the only places in the world where you could dive among underwater forests of giant kelp. In our incredible multimedia episode – The dead sea – you can see footage of these amazing plants.
But rising sea temperatures killed off the last of the forests a few years ago. In their place, a local diver, Mick Baron, says there are only sea urchins – leaving the ocean floor “like an asphalt driveway”.
Updated
Our first question is in.
ErikFrederiksen asks via comment:
A few years ago a NY Times reporter wrote that some climate scientists had told him they held more pessimistic views than they felt comfortable expressing in public. My question to a scientist would be: Do you find this to be typical and do you feel this to be true about yourself?
Prof Lesley Hughes (ecologist, distinguished professor of biology and pro-vice-chancellor (research) at Macquarie University) answers:
The best way I can think of to answer this question is a quote from Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist politician from last century who wrote about the tension between the “pessimism of the intellect and the optimism of the will”.
What this means is that most of us (I think) simultaneously hold a lot of very negative thoughts in our heads about the consequences of climate change, as we confront the facts. But at the same time, to be truly pessimistic is to give up – and if we give up, we really are lost. I have come around to thinking that hope is far more than an emotion, it is also a fundamental strategy. We must go forward in hope if we are to have any chance of saving life on Earth. Ultimately this means that at times we might not express as pessimistic a view in public as we feel inside. We need to inspire and motivate, at the same time as being as honest as possible. This is a tightrope to walk!
Updated
Your questions answered
Hello and good morning. Over the past three weeks, Guardian Australia has been publishing The Frontline – a beautifully filmed and produced six-part multimedia series about how Australians are already living with the effects of the climate crisis.
It’s about real-life people whose homes have been lost. How the extreme heat in Australia is killing us. How the taps are running dry for some towns in NSW, and how the climate crisis is changing what we eat and drink.
And of course, our black summer of bushfires, which killed 33 people.
Now, you have a chance to ask our panel of experts about the issues raised in the series. You can ask a general question about the impacts of global heating. (How will it affect you? How it will change society? How can it be stopped?) And you can ask about any of the issues raised in The Frontline – follow-ups, clarifications, anything we left unanswered.
Our panel is:
- 10am-11am: Prof Lesley Hughes – ecologist and distinguished professor of biology, expert on animal and plant species and ecosystems.
- 11am-12pm: Greg Mullins, former commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW, expert on bushfires.
- 12pm-1.30pm: Prof Michael Mann, climatologist and geophysicist and a global expert on climate science.
- 2pm-3pm: Assoc Prof Donna Green – an expert on the health effects of climate change and air pollution.
Submit your questions via email to frontline.live@theguardian.com, or tweet on the hashtag #frontlinelive.
We’ll publish your question here on our live blog, alongside the answer from one of our experts.
And the six-part series can be found here: The new fire zone, The taps run dry, The air we breathe, The killer heat, The dead sea, The lost harvest.
Updated
If every country followed Australia's current emission reduction commitments what would be the most likely increase in global temperatures?