SYDNEY: Findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggest Australia may have to isolate landmass. bush Unless there is huge investment in climate change adaptation and planning.
The potential impacts of climate change on employment and the livability of regions have not been adequately considered. Even if emissions are cut, Australia could face adaptation costs of billions of dollars for rural communities.
As the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (published last month) makes clear, the climate will change without any mitigation action now.
Even under its moderately conservative estimates, there would be a 1.5°C rise in worldwide temperatures. This may not sound like much, but it will double the frequency of droughts – from once every 10 years to once every five.
Worse yet, a 2°C increase in temperature, without substantial emissions reductions, the potential result would make drought 2.5 times more frequent.
Farmers’ profits are falling
Climate change is already hurting Australian farmers. Compared to the historical average, agricultural profits declined by 23% over the 20 years to 2020. This trend will continue.
The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Science (ABARES) predicts a likely scenario that total agricultural profits will decline by 13% by 2050. There will be significant differences between regions. For example, a 32% drop in crop profits is estimated in Western Australia.
With higher emissions, the cuts will be worse. The decline in agricultural profits is estimated to range from 11% to 50%.
These changes go beyond the cycle of weather that Australian farmers have always faced. Inconsistent water supplies, increased natural disasters and overproduction risks will make agricultural production unviable in many regions.
These climate changes can make agricultural assets, both land and infrastructure, virtually useless – so-called stranded assets.
no future without water
Vibrant regional communities aren’t just about farms. They are interdependent networks of businesses, towns, public infrastructure and people.
The decline in agricultural income will have an impact in all these communities. Less production would mean less employment. If farms close down, other regional businesses will also lead to more stranded assets. Affected people may face displacement as well as the inability to sell their homes and businesses.
And of course these communities cannot survive without water.
So far development planning in Australia has not adequately considered the potential impacts of climate on the ability to live, particularly in rural communities. This failure to account for climate change increases the potential for stranded assets.
for example, NSW The Auditor General reported in September 2020 that the state government had “not effectively supported or supervised city water infrastructure planning in regional NSW since at least 2014”. This contributed to near “zero” water in at least ten regional NSW cities or towns during the acute drought of 2019.
population pressure
These water problems are increasing due to population growth in some areas.
For example, consider the NSW townships surrounding Canberra. City in January 2020 breadwood (about halfway between Canberra and Batemans Bay) had to start driving a truck into the water when its own water source, the Shoalhaven River, stopped flowing. still close bangador (about 50 km away) A new high school is being built due to population growth.
This “tree-changing” trend is widespread with people leaving cities in search of better lifestyles and more affordable housing. This appears to have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, with figures showing net internal migration of people out of Sydney and Melbourne.
Requires more investment in optimization
There is an urgent need for a comprehensive assessment by all levels of government of the risks to livelihoods and default risk on stranded assets in agricultural and regional communities.
Budget estimates should account for climate change adaptation and economic structural change.
In last year’s budget the federal government committed to invest $20 billion “to ensure Australia leads the way in adopting new low-emissions technologies while supporting jobs and strengthening our economy”.
As important as it is, we should start planning and spending on optimization.
$1.2 billion in the federal budget allocated for natural disasters over five years is just the beginning. Changes in farming practices, subsidized insurance and investments in water infrastructure may be enough in some areas. But it takes many years to plan and build the proper infrastructure.
Some areas are going to be unviable. We will need to deal with the loss of entire communities and internal climate refugees.
It is time to start budgeting for the costs of living with climate change, not just the costs of cutting emissions.
The potential impacts of climate change on employment and the livability of regions have not been adequately considered. Even if emissions are cut, Australia could face adaptation costs of billions of dollars for rural communities.
As the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (published last month) makes clear, the climate will change without any mitigation action now.
Even under its moderately conservative estimates, there would be a 1.5°C rise in worldwide temperatures. This may not sound like much, but it will double the frequency of droughts – from once every 10 years to once every five.
Worse yet, a 2°C increase in temperature, without substantial emissions reductions, the potential result would make drought 2.5 times more frequent.
Farmers’ profits are falling
Climate change is already hurting Australian farmers. Compared to the historical average, agricultural profits declined by 23% over the 20 years to 2020. This trend will continue.
The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Science (ABARES) predicts a likely scenario that total agricultural profits will decline by 13% by 2050. There will be significant differences between regions. For example, a 32% drop in crop profits is estimated in Western Australia.
With higher emissions, the cuts will be worse. The decline in agricultural profits is estimated to range from 11% to 50%.
These changes go beyond the cycle of weather that Australian farmers have always faced. Inconsistent water supplies, increased natural disasters and overproduction risks will make agricultural production unviable in many regions.
These climate changes can make agricultural assets, both land and infrastructure, virtually useless – so-called stranded assets.
no future without water
Vibrant regional communities aren’t just about farms. They are interdependent networks of businesses, towns, public infrastructure and people.
The decline in agricultural income will have an impact in all these communities. Less production would mean less employment. If farms close down, other regional businesses will also lead to more stranded assets. Affected people may face displacement as well as the inability to sell their homes and businesses.
And of course these communities cannot survive without water.
So far development planning in Australia has not adequately considered the potential impacts of climate on the ability to live, particularly in rural communities. This failure to account for climate change increases the potential for stranded assets.
for example, NSW The Auditor General reported in September 2020 that the state government had “not effectively supported or supervised city water infrastructure planning in regional NSW since at least 2014”. This contributed to near “zero” water in at least ten regional NSW cities or towns during the acute drought of 2019.
population pressure
These water problems are increasing due to population growth in some areas.
For example, consider the NSW townships surrounding Canberra. City in January 2020 breadwood (about halfway between Canberra and Batemans Bay) had to start driving a truck into the water when its own water source, the Shoalhaven River, stopped flowing. still close bangador (about 50 km away) A new high school is being built due to population growth.
This “tree-changing” trend is widespread with people leaving cities in search of better lifestyles and more affordable housing. This appears to have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, with figures showing net internal migration of people out of Sydney and Melbourne.
Requires more investment in optimization
There is an urgent need for a comprehensive assessment by all levels of government of the risks to livelihoods and default risk on stranded assets in agricultural and regional communities.
Budget estimates should account for climate change adaptation and economic structural change.
In last year’s budget the federal government committed to invest $20 billion “to ensure Australia leads the way in adopting new low-emissions technologies while supporting jobs and strengthening our economy”.
As important as it is, we should start planning and spending on optimization.
$1.2 billion in the federal budget allocated for natural disasters over five years is just the beginning. Changes in farming practices, subsidized insurance and investments in water infrastructure may be enough in some areas. But it takes many years to plan and build the proper infrastructure.
Some areas are going to be unviable. We will need to deal with the loss of entire communities and internal climate refugees.
It is time to start budgeting for the costs of living with climate change, not just the costs of cutting emissions.
.