Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

Climate Change Policies Review – submissions2017 Review BranchDepartment of the Environment and EnergyGPO Box 787CANBERRA ACT 2601climatechangereview@environment.gov.au

Friday 5th May 2017

RE: Review of Australia’s climate change policies

To the DEEC 2017 Review Branch

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission to the 2017 Review Branch on this Inquiry. I note the Terms of Reference for this review of Government's climate policies to achieve a 2030 target of reducing emissions to 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels as per the Paris Agreement commitments.

This submission provides comment on Australia’s Climate Change Policies through a health lens, that is, by extending the current policy impacts on the near, medium and long term upon human health and societal wellbeing. It will primarily focus on:

the opportunities and challenges of reducing emissions on a health sector basis; the impact of climate change policies on jobs, investment, trade competitiveness,

households and regional Australia; the integration of climate change and energy policy, including the impact of state-based

policies on achieving an effective national approach; complementary policies, including the National Energy Productivity Plan; the role of research and development and innovation;

My motivation to make this submission stems from a genuine concern that insufficient emphasis is being placed on the impact of climate change on the health and wellbeing of Australians and the global citizenry. Interruptions to ecosystems has a direct impact on the health and welfare of human societies. This extension of the scan to impacts on health, in its broadest sense, needs emphasising as current emission trajectories are careering towards a variety of tipping points beyond which catastrophic impacts will unfold, and many societies will not survive. Although partially protected by the virtue of being a developed nation, our high temperatures, highly erratic rainfall, vast climatic zone coverage, and propensity to cluster around the coast make Australia highly vulnerable. This precarious state is exacerbated by the decline in climate research investment. This submission begins with a very brief outline of my professional expertise, followed by a short discussion on the areas where your terms of reference intersect, commencing with the relationship between climate, climate change and health and societal impacts – why it matters. This is to strengthen the case for stronger mitigation, whilst also stressing the need for Australia to significantly amplify adaptation efforts. I then outline some policy needs.

Page 1 of 17

Dr Liz Hanna PhD, MPH, BA, RCCN, RN FPHAA, FACN

President: Climate & Health Alliancehttp://www.caha.org.au

Honorary Senior FellowClimate Change Institute Australian National UniversityActon, ACT 0200

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

About the Author

Dr Elizabeth (Liz) Hanna. After a professional career in Intensive Care, I transitioned to health education, health workforce training, public health (and an MPH), and a PhD in environmental health. My PhD examined exposures, personal risk understanding and adoption of protective behaviours, relevant health sector expertise, surveillance and health intelligence available upon which to build sound policy, and compared that entire risk pathway to international frameworks.

I therefore have a deep knowledge of human physiology, which is relevant to the health threats of climate change, plus a deep understanding of public health, and how climate impacts upon the population, the vulnerable groups, and the relationship between policy levers, and health and social outcomes. This is capped by a grounding in climate science, and expertise in climate change and human health, mitigation and adaptation strategies, that is, the complex risk pathway by whcih climate becomes a health determinant.

My expertise in this area has led to several terms on the enHealth Council (Australia’s peak advisory body to AHMAC1 on Environmental Health, on the Board of the Public Health Association of Australia, and many other hospital and health organisations. For the past 15 years, I have focused entirely on human health research and policy development of Climate Change Adaptation (CCA), climate health risks, risk awareness and behavioural protective responses. I directed Australia’s largest NHMRC funded project investigating health impacts of heat exposures in the occupational setting. I have also led Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments for the Pacific Island States and the State of Victoria, and for the past two decades, lectured climate change impacts on human health and supervised PhD candidates examining CCA in many parts of the world. I am the Key Contact for Climate Change for the Australian College of Nurses, and President of the Climate and Health Alliance. Currently I am an Honorary Senior Fellow at the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University, and for the years of its operation, I convened Australia’s National Climate Change Adaptation Network for Human Health at ANU, as a hub of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF). In my current research, with Meteorologist Clem Davis (ANU Fenner School), we have been examining trends in average temperatures and rainfall, and fore extreme events across Northern Australia since 1911, and the implications these threats pose for past, current and future climate regimes on human and society’s health and wellbeing.

1 Australia’s Health Minsters Advisory Council

Page 2 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

Initial statements:

On 10 November 2016, Australia ratified the Paris Agreement and the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, reinforcing our commitment to action on climate change by pledging to reduce carbon emissions by 26 - 28 % below 2005 levels by 2030. I present arguments explaining why this is inefficient. The Australian Government’s Action on Climate Change Factsheet described the signing of the Paris Agreement as symbolic (1). I urge the Review Panel to recognize that the gravity of Climate Change demands more than ‘symbolism’. No less than the survival of the human species is at stake. Decisions made NOW, climate policies designed NOW, are critical to redirect the trajectory, away from its current path towards needless annihilation. The more ambitious our early mitigation, the easier and cheaper the available and feasible transformation options, and less need for the world to rely on socially and scientifically contested negative emissions technologies and high-cost emission reduction options in the future (2).

The word has just witnessed an unprecedented run of three consecutive world record breaking hot years (in the meteorological record), to 1oC above pre industrial levels (3). Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C per decade since 1970. To date, all 16 years of the 21st century rank among the seventeen warmest on record (1998 is currently the eighth warmest). The five warmest years have all occurred since 2010 (4). Analysis released in the climate science literature in the past few weeks paints a highly disturbing picture of the near term future warming. The world is apparently entering a multi-decadal phase of rapid warming, such that the breaching of the 1.5oC threshold has been brought forward to 2026 (5). I stress that this rate of warming is unsafe for humans and human society.

At this relatively small amount of warming, the world is already experiencing substantial impacts and damages, including for agriculture, water insecurity, conflict, storms and sea level rise, mass death events from heat extremes, widespread loss of human livelihoods and destruction of natural systems such as the Great Barrier Reef. Events have amplified since the IPCC 2012 SPREX report (6, 7). Embedded further warming arising from the inertia in the climate systems means continued exacerbation of these devastating impacts. They will be more frequent and worse, as the relationship is not linear. The magnitudes of hazard are showing an increasing trend – yet lack of ambition to redress the trend reveals widespread unjustified expectation that a) climatic disaster episodes will not reappear, and b) future events are unlikely to be as severe as recent extreme events. Whereas climate science is unequivocal that future climatic extreme events could be significantly worse – hence we should prepare to experience exceedance events much more frequently. Failure to adapt will inevitably lead to system disruption, widespread grief and loss, across personal, financial, ecological and infrastructure domains.

Coupled with the need to adapt is the imperative to mitigate, substantially, and urgently. Global carbon dioxide emissions increased by 2.9 per cent per year between 2000 and 2011, slowed to 1.3

Page 3 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

per cent per year for the period 2012 to 2014 (2). This slowing of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and industry is encouraging, but experts caution that it is still too early to say whether this is likely to be permanent. Importantly, UNEP argue that the world is not yet on a trajectory that allows for a transition to stringent low emissions development pathways consistent with the stated temperature goals (2). The Paris INDC’s, including Australia’s commitment, fall well short, and unless greater ambition is shown, will fail the target of limiting global temperature rise to “well below 2 degrees Celsius” and endeavouring to keep average temperature rise below a more ambitious 1.5 degree limit. UNEP warns the Paris pledges will push the world to temperature rise of 2.9 to 3.4oC this century (8). Furthermore, the INDC’s are non-binding guidelines, which further raises the likelihood that global nations, including Australia, will fail to meet their targets under full accounting.

All countries, must urgently commit to greater emissions cuts than countries have pledged. As one of the highest emitting countries per capita, and one of the wealthiest, Australia is morally obliged to embark on far greater cuts, and genuine commitment to translating ambition into action, in order to deliver the required emissions reductions.

Australia’s climate can be described as: Hot and getting hotter. Heat exposure is Australia’s greatest climate health threat, which also precipitates fires, and damages agricultural systems, crops, stock, wildlife and ecosystems. The rapidity of CO2 emissions, and global warming is unprecedented in human history and will require significant adaptive changes to infrastructure, such as urban and housing design, and heat tolerance of bitumen and rail tracks (so they do not warp on hot days), and indeed all human systems.

Extreme heat is the leading cause of weather related deaths across the world (9). Humans evolved in a cooler climate, and despite having a highly effective thermoregulatory system which maintains a stable core temperature of about 37oC, we have an upper limit to our tolerance to exposure to extreme heat, and importantly, to have the capacity to exercise, work for any extended periods (10). (My paper detailing this is attached). Australians are already dying in the increasingly hot summers, and increased fire regimes (11).

The climate of northern Australia is already a difficult environment for human activity, where the average daily maximum temperatures range between 33°C and 39°C (12), tending to be higher inland and lower towards the northern and eastern coasts and on the Great Dividing Range. It is not uncommon for daily temperatures at individual inland locations to exceed 40°C on a regular basis during these months (12). Much of rural Australia experiences extreme heat through summer, such as 54 consecutive days over 35oC in Moree in the summer of 2017, and Canberra experiencing 18 days over 35oC, a figure that is not projected to become customary until 2090 (13). Canberra also had 3 days over 40oC, which is double the projection for 2090 under RCP 4.5 (14).

Protecting human health, and societal functioning during the increasingly hot days, and extended heat waves will present a major challenge that Australia must confront. Some places on the planet are becoming uninhabitable and many global megacities will present intolerable heat stress risks (15). The uninhabitable regions of Australia will also expand. The withdrawal of people from their home regions will be a painful and stressful process, as will retreat from the low lying coastal regions. The human toll, and economic costs far outweigh the inconvenience of shifting to

Page 4 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

renewables. Left unchecked, climate change will unleash these scenarios on today’s children. Hence the urgency of rapid decarbonisation cannot be overstressed.

In his book “Collapse”, Jared Diamond articulates the issue clearly with a theory of four stages of disastrous decision-making processes:

1. It could be that a society fails to anticipate a problem;2. a society does not want to perceive the problem;3. a society may perceive the problem, but does not make any serious effort to solve it;4. the social and political elites of society close themselves to the consequences of their

actions, hampering transformation and accelerating the collapse.Characterisation of the individuals within those societies could be called pioneers, laggards and dunces.

Australia is too clever to be forever cast as a nation of laggards and dunces.

Opportunities and challenges of reducing emissions in the HEALTH sector

The Climate and Health Alliance (CAHA.org.au) run a small program on behalf of Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), called Global Green and Healthy Hospitals (GGHH). HCWH was established in the UK to respond to the high emissions from the UK health sector, identified as 25% of total government emission source. Hospitals present a difficult case, requiring intensive resource use, and little flexibility, as all polices, and procedures need to preserve optimal patient care and patient safety. Hence the aim of GGHH is to reduce emissions within the health sector, whilst preserving its core functionality. Extremely positive results are being achieved, which are coupled with substantial cost savings. This program could be rapidly expanded across Australia with Government incentives and assistance. Successful case studies would also serve to entice non-heath sector organisations to adopt a low emission mandate.

In April 2017, the Victorian branch of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation hosted a Health and Sustainability Conference at the Melbourne Convention Centre. Over 700 nursing delegates attended. This testifies to the high level of concern amongst nurses that climate change is a serious health issue, and the existence of a growing enthusiasm to lower emissions. It is widely recognised that emissions reduction is a community wide necessity. This could be spearheaded with coordinated support from Government policies. Momentum is already apparent for the health sector to transition to low carbon modalities. Great acceleration of effort could be achieved by relatively modest government investment. Full costings would be required, however broad figures might suggest the following:

$1Million to fund a GGHH convenor stationed in each state & territory $ 1million to fund on-costs- and office support for these personnel within an existing agency $ 1million to fund outreach – apportioned proportionally across the states, reflecting the

distance & population spread $1 million to provide support to an annual conference in each state, with awards recognizing

achievements, and production of materials and supporting a web-based clearing house for information

$500K to support engineering departments in transitioning health agencies

Page 5 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

Continue all above for 4 years $500K to fund evaluation:

o Phase 1 – establishment of baseline emissions: o Phase 2 – mid way, o Phase 3 - after 3 years of operation

Further information on the existing Global Green and Healthy Hospitals (GGHH) program is available on the CAHA website (CAHA.org.au). Our site also provides links to other publications relevant to this Review. Examples include:

Coal and Health in the Hunter: Lessons from One Valley for the World report in 2015; Joint Position Statement and Background Paper on Health and Energy Choices in 2014; ‘Our Uncashed Dividend’ 2012: on the health benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; National Roundtable on the Health Implications of Energy Policy; Briefing Paper on Health Implications of Energy Policy; The Human Cost of Power: a film on the risks to health and climate from coal and gas

The impact of climate change policies on jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households and regional Australia;

The sudden closure of the Hazelwood mine in Victoria provides a stark example of climate induced job losses, that eventuated through poor planning. Coal mines are quickly earning the status of stranded assets around the world as the smart money moves towards renewables. Australia must accept that billions of dollars of potential coal revenue will never, and must never be realized. Clinging to old dreams is both futile and damaging. Privatisation of state owned assets inevitably changes the asset owner’s set of priorities. Profit generation, as large and for as long as feasible, dominates, whereas the plight of the workers is insignificant by comparison. Governments have options to secure transitioning for yesterday’s technologies. However, the disparate government interest and largesse to differing industry job losses is transparent and disheartening, such as loss of jobs in the STEM sectors, eg CSIRO, the automotive industries, the agricultural sector as recent examples. Whether by collapse of the dairy industry, tourism, manufacturing or mining, concentration of job losses from major employer in small communities must always be addressed.

Innovative countries are forward looking and prepare for the transition, and develop incentives to assist industries evolve to absorb the shifts. Public health “prevention” literature is replete with unequivocal evidence that relatively small initial outlay towards building resilience reaps manyfold reward in avoiding the costs of social disruption, unemployment, mental health issues, domestic violence and lost productivity of the individual involved, and encompassing the broader impact the families and children. These influences carry through throughout the person’s life, and are multigenerational (16).

As climate change progressively unfolds, the list of industries at risk of significant upheaval or even collapse will expand. Many will be predictable, such as agriculture and tourism. The death of the

Page 6 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

Great Barrier Reef will risk 69,000 tourism jobs and communities along the Queensland coast, and loss of the $7 billion industry would wreak havoc to the Queensland economy (17). The shock is likely to be unexpected for other industries. Building a climate resilient nation requires systematic and comprehension examination. Government has a clear role to kickstart this effort. Indeed, it has a duty of care to its citizens to harness the nation’s capital and expend it for the betterment of society. This encapsulates, protection against the worst of climate change, and to facilitate transitions to a new economy, so that all can thrive and prosper.

The public health community across Australia is skilled to assist in this process, however funding is required to reap the benefits, and avoid the social costs. These high returns are also demonstrated in the realm of disaster risk management. Investment in education, prevention and resilience building, reaps multiplied benefits (18-21). Furthermore, many strategies improve public health, and hence invoke the principle of ‘no-regrets’ (22), whereby expenditure delivers benefits, even when the planned risk is slow to unfold (23). The burning of fossil fuels

The integration of climate change and energy policy, including the impact of state-based policies on achieving an effective national approach;

At the National Press Club speech in January 2017, the Australian Prime Minster emphasised the need for “affordable, reliable and secure energy”. This is eminently applaudable, but he then advocated for “clean coal, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) and onshore gas (CSG)”. His language suggested that renewables were neither affordable or reliable, which is devious, and false. He failed mention that clean coal is neither clean nor cheap, and CCS is either unachievable, or prohibitively expensive. The PM then denounced the states for their “unrealistic” renewable targets. An effective national approach to energy policy does not involve castigating the States for taking the lead on emission reductions and helping Australia transition to a low carbon economy, when their forward-looking highlights the recalcitrance of the Federal Government.

What is needed is national energy security – affordable, reliable, secure and CLEAN – to every house, business, service and industry. This requires multiple energy generation sites across the nation, primarily wind, solar and hydro where available, with an integrated networked grid, that can withstand single link interruption, such as transmission towers folding during extreme wind events – which can be expected to increase. The networked grid requires sufficient redundancy to provide back-up links during outages, repairs and peak demand. National coordination through an independent agency, that is not motivated by profits at the expense of providing power to consumers, and state cooperation.

It is disappointing to witness the Australian Government's residual environmental reputation being tarnished by the decision to support the largest coal mine in history – Adani’s Carmichael mine. There can be no credible grounds for wrecking Australia’s changes of reaching its current, albeit meagre, emission reduction targets, or trashing the environment by offering scarce public monies to a project with foreseeable severely damaging consequences to health, the environment (by polluting

Page 7 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

the land, water and air) and the climate, whilst also disrupting and overturning the rights of local communities, Indigenous and otherwise, with deep bonds to the land.

Economics do not stack up – as evidenced by the lack of financial backing available to the company, by prudent investors who are attuned to the concept of stranded assets of yesterday’s technology, one which is rapidly becoming obsolete. Furthermore, the company eludes paying its share of taxes via use of tax havens. Any financial benefit is unlikely to come to Australia. This present yet another example where the profits are privatised, and the costs are socialised, as the cost and health burden are borne by the public, the health and welfare sectors and the poor. Thus, the Adani mine is a situation of high financial risk and likelihood of nil / minimal return, even in the unlikely event of the mine were to be profitable.

Environmental considerations are appalling: Adani’s international track record of environmental pollution, and failure to rectify contamination is legendary. Recent evidence indicates Adani is responsible for a major pollution incident here in Australia, prior to construction of the mine. Through total disregard of environmental safeguards, pollution levels exceeded its very generous allowances eight-fold. Irreparable damage to the local environment, groundwater, rail corridors of mineral transport, port storage and transfer, and navigation through the Great Barrier Reef are readily foreseeable from a company with such demonstrable lack of regard. Each of these factors provide independent grounds for refusal of the mine license, let alone provision of public financial backing. Combined, the case against is unequivocal.

Climate: Australia’s emission target: The amount of coal extraction proposed will undermine all efforts to reduce emissions in other sectors, and therefore quash ambition. The combined effect will inevitably be an explosion in Australia’s emissions, and scupper Australia’s chances of reaching its targets. International intolerance towards countries that wilfully destroy the climate, thereby depriving other nations of their right to a healthy future is likely to grow, making the prospect of sanctions and negativity, diplomatic or otherwise is very real. Actualisation of this would translate to damage to Australian Industry, and endanger health and stability.

‘Australian coal can help India achieve its SDGs’: This argument is frankly ludicrous, and transparently reveals a scurrilous attempt to AID-wash the scheme, whereas the reverse is true. Coal, the world’s number one source of CO2 emissions, is preventing the world’s poor from reaching SDG1 (24). It is incontrovertible that access to cheap reliable energy is a fundamental human right, and necessary to foster development. However economic development is not gained via polluting the air and environment through dirty coal. Prosecutors of that fraudulent claim, falsely, that coal is the only supplier of cheap, ready energy.

Renewable energy costs are already substantially lower than just a few years ago and are competing at cost with carbon intensive energy in a low-price oil market still distorted by hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies for fossil fuels. If all embrace low emissions development, renewable energy could be five times cheaper or more by 2050–that is a vision of a low cost energy future we believe everyone wants and should get (25).

Cheaper, cleaner alternatives are now readily available that do not require the construction of expensive infrastructure – poles & wires, as locally generated renewable energy can provide energy

Page 8 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

to the village level at heavily reduced cost, in a heavily reduced time frame, and without the heavy polluting consequences of fossil fuels. The WHO advises 3 million deaths a year are linked to exposure to outdoor air pollution, of which nearly 90% of air-pollution-related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, with nearly 2 out of 3 occurring in WHO’s South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions (26). In India, an estimated 1.5 million people died from the effects of air pollution in 2012, according to WHO data, and latest estimates suggest that Air pollution deaths in India directly attributed to coal were 100,000 (24). Having some of the world’s worst air pollution, India is now taking steps to reduce the burden of disease (27).

Furthermore, the argument that coal is a great job creator is also a furphy argument, as analysis reveals that producing energy from coal or oil creates the least possible jobs, whereas sustainable biomass or renewable hydro energy have among the highest employment (25). Coal therefore has fewer social benefits via the social determinant of health via the employment pathway than renewable energy industries.

I urge a reversal of Government support for Adani's proposals.

Complementary policies, including the National Energy Productivity Plan;

This review provides Australia an opportunity to realign its Climate Change policies towards a genuinely future focussed framework, one that optimises the health, productivity and wellbeing of the nation in the near, and long term timeframes. Too often, governments are swayed by lobbyists arguing that nation building equates to financial maximisation. Sadly, this, often equates to propping up the status quo, and profiting corporate players, under the flawed argument of trickle-down economics, again which is globally refuted by the widening of the gap as measured by Gini Coefficients. The evidence against adopting a hyper-narrow fiscal-only focus is overwhelming.

Any examination of the UNEP SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) will reveal that essentially, the difference between wealthy developed nations and the poorer developing nations is abundance of the most significant resource, human capital. This is defined as a healthy, informed, educated population who are presented opportunities to flourish in their chosen endeavour, be that entrepreneurial, academic, administrative, creative, manually productive, caring or any of the multitude of life and professional choices.

All government policies, and especially those so intricately entwined in crafting our collective future, such as Climate Change policies, MUST prioritise the goal of national and human wellbeing, and not short term profits to the few, or to prop up today’s budgetary woes.

The burning of fossil fuels paved the way for rapid economic advancement, and provided food, water, housing security that underpinned health and longevity in the developed world. Yet, we now recognise the down side is their devastating effect on human health. The WHO advises that air pollution, indoor and outdoor, are now killing over 6 million people per year, and robbing many more millions of their health and productivity (26). This is genocide. The 2008 data suggests that air pollution cases 520 deaths in Sydney every year, and significant health savings around Australia can be achieved by removing the industrial and vehicular pollution form our major cities (28). In

Page 9 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

Australia, costs are $2.6 billion per year, and the health costs arising from the Hunter Coal mines alone are $600 million per year, whereas the broader social costs are $16-$66 billion per annum (29). The contribution of Australia’s fossil fuel burning at home, and export for burning elsewhere has and will continue to further push the globe beyond the tipping points. India and elsewhere do not need their air further polluted.

If Australians were aware of the genocide to which our fossil fuels are contributing, they would be shocked and horrified. If they fully comprehended our (Australia’s) per capita contribution to climate change, and the proximity to irreversible (in our lifetimes) tipping points, they would be similarly horrified. It is the role of elected representatives to take leadership and protect the nation’s and global future. Australia’s voting public would then reflect that understanding, and such policies would become less scary to career politicians. Furthermore, history will judge harshly the foolish (at best), and murderous (at worst) policies and the politicians responsible. Indeed, the process of young people suing governments is underway in several countries, notably the US and Norway (30, 31). Others will inevitably follow.

If there WERE no other energy options, the arguments would be more difficult. But alternatives are plentiful, and Australia is blessed with plentiful supply, and fledgling industries eager to embrace. Australian households have also demonstrated enthusiasm to embrace. The prices of renewables are plummeting, and are now cheaper than fossil fuels (32). So, the economics of fossil fuels do not stack up. They do not stack up on the near term economics. They do not stack up when the current health costs are factored in (29). They do not stack when the environmental costs are included. The certainly do not stack up, on ANY grounds, when the future impacts are considered. The questions to be asked are:

1) What price death? (of the millions who are dying today, and the future billions who will suffer in a hot, hot world, and other species who are disappearing rapidly)

2) Can persisting with fossil fuels deliver benefits that outweigh the harm?

The Lancet, the WHO and many leading organisations recognise that climate change is the greatest health threat to humanity (33). Yet, if national responses are timely and appropriate, then climate change presents a great opportunity to boost public health (34), as many strategies to limit global warming and climate change ALSO bring health benefits, so there multiple are NO REGRETS options. Cleaner air is healthier, walking and cycling is healthier than car travel on physical and mental health parameters, consuming more pulses, fruit and vegetables is healthier

Building community resilience offers population health protection from climate as well as routine hazards such as air and water pollution, and storm damage. Prevention is the best budgetary expenditure possible. It is GOOD debt, as the returns over time range from 3:1 to more than 70:1. It makes good economic sense to invest in health protection, and brilliant economic sense to protect health from global warming and climate change, and prevent further climate upheaval by rapidly transitioning to a low carbon economy. While there is mention of energy, to discuss energy policy without discussing how this integrates with action to mitigate global warming and climate change shows Government’s profound lack of understanding about the most important public health issue of the century.

Page 10 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

The role of research and development and innovation;

It has been extremely disappointing to see a relentless axing of climate change research funding in Australia, at a time when the need for sound local science has never been greater. The attack started with the Climate Commission, CSIRO, and in the 2017-2018 Federal Budget, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) and the Climate Change Authority (CCA). In this budget, the CCA loses almost two-thirds of its funding, and is slated to fold. NCCARF will be reduced to one more year of modest funding ($600,000) to predominantly focus on coastal erosion of properties, and then be subsumed under a contracted CSIRO. Sea frontage is usually a luxury afforded only by the very rich. It is certainly not Australia’s priority global warming and climate change adaption risk.

Research underpins intelligent decision making, avoidance of calamitous misjudgements and omissions, and thus a successful nation. Climate change plays out differently in different countries. In terms of emissions, varying demographics, population size and density, level of development, and geophysical characteristics, such as size and climatic range determine resource utilisation and energy spikes in cooling or heating requirements, and transport options. Similarly, mitigation response options need to take account of these factors. Adaptation needs are equally vital, and equally country specific, as they need to be tightly targeted to the climatic vulnerabilities, coping capacity and resilience, and tailored to fit with internal structures and mechanisms, such as operating within existing frameworks of health sector funding models, and constitutional arrangements of State/ Federal /Local Government responsibilities (35-40).

Cherry picking international solutions are unlikely to deliver equally promising results here in Australia. Such processes also risk oversight of potential innovative options that capitalise on the natural advantages of a relatively underpopulated large landmass that spans multiple climatic and geographic environments.

The search for, evaluation of, and promotion of uptake of strategies that deliver co-benefits, be those pro-mitigation as well as pro-adaptation, or deliver multiple mitigation or adaptive benefits will maximise Australia’s trajectory towards emission reductions, and protection of our current and future population, and delicate ecosystems.

Climate change is here for the long haul. We also know that regardless of mitigation effort, impacts WILL continue intensify over the coming decades, and these will inevitably be predominantly negative, and often catastrophic. The urgent task is mitigation to lessen the long-term risks, and societal disruption, our legacy to today’s young people. But adaption requires ling lead times. Investment is needed now.

Research is therefore fundamental, as is education to train all sectors of the community to prepare for, adapt to and mitigate against further climatic changes. Centres of excellence need to be expanded in order to broaden the scope of investigation and solution finding. It is also imperative that the peculiarities of distinctive regions on Australia are accommodated in this effort (35). Solutions and risks to Tasmania, differ vastly from the those confronting northern Australia. Inland region threats, adaption needs, and mitigation options will vary significantly form the urban centres of the major metropolitan regions.

Page 11 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

Lastly, it is a total enigma to the health sector, that vast sums are allocated to Defence, when their role is to protect the public from unquantified unexpected threats. Whereas known calamitous threats are stripped of the funding. Funding to climate change adaption for health and other sectors is critical to safeguard Australians, their health and wellbeing, Australian lifestyles, jobs and the environment, upon which we depend for our very existence.

A significant restoration and expansion of Australia’s Climate change research is urgently required, not only in the fields of climate science but also assessing and finding solutions to mitigate against heath impacts, and impacts to our ecological services.

Three key actions are needed to more effectively address the health and health sector impacts of heatwaves:

1. PREVENT AND PREPARE: tackle the health impacts of heat extremes by:

a. Mitigating, adapting and building resilience to the challenges of extreme heat

b. Incorporating climate-sensitive urban design into planning our cities and towns. This includes smart infrastructure, housing, energy, water, shade and precinct planning.

2. RESPOND: a whole of government response is required, including all levels of government across all states and regions. This response should include:

a. The acknowledgement of heatwaves as a hazard

b. The real-time release of impact data and forecasts by government agencies during and immediately following a heatwave, including data on the correlation between heatwaves and mortality/morbidity

c. Development and implementation of a scaled response to heatwaves, similar to the scaled bushfire response

Page 12 of 17

A Heatwave Summit was held in at the Royal Children’s hospital in Melbourne in March 2016. Over 500 people, predominantly from the health sector, attend a preliminary public forum, to learn about how heat is affecting Australia, and what are the greatest risks and protection strategies. Following this, a 2-day roundtable was held with over 20 key stakeholders, including climate scientists, Chief Health Officers, emergency physicians and senior representatives from the health and welfare sectors, rural and public health. The summit brought together their expertise and experiences and highlighted the breadth of the effects throughout the Australian community. The vulnerable were hardest hit, but deleterious ramifications permeated throughout society, including capacity for industry and services to continue operating.

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

d. Improved understanding of the impacts of heatwaves on human health, the environment, infrastructure and the economy, now and into the future

e. The assessment of current and future response capacity to heatwaves

3. EDUCATE: We need to build awareness about heatwave risks, and develop effective warnings for the public, health and community services, and the Australian workforce.

a. Education should be supported by evidence-based advice and analysis of heatwaves and health impacts.

b. Behavioural and cultural change is required to prevent and reduce heat stress.

c. Health and community services require improved support to assist vulnerable groups.

d. Educate workforces about heat stress and how it affects them.

It is vital that Australian governments, at all levels, continue to address this significant and growing issue to reduce the impact of heatwaves on Australian’s health and on the health and community sectors and, ultimately, to save lives.

This Communique is signed by the Australian Summit on Extreme Heat and Health Co-Chairs:

Dr. Elizabeth Hanna, Professor Lesley Hughes and Professor Fiona Stanley (41)

Concluding remarks

The need for Australia to accelerate its emission reduction targets is unequivocal. The immediate health savings alone from phasing out coal and vehicular emissions provide sufficient reason to dramatically increase ambition.

A 2°C warming would see 50% of all tipping points crossed, whereas limiting to warming of 1.5oC reduces this to 20% (42).

Full accounting is required for energy policies, with all costs, and all benefits encapsulated, with sound estimations of forward costing, and costing to other sectors, such as health and social costs. Too often, policy decisions are determined that result in problems for the ‘losers’ who are unceremoniously called “collateral damage”, and which translate into damaged environments (43), and health costs to the individual, and to the society through health bills, and loss of citizen capacity.

Further references can be provided to support the arguments I have presented here.

Page 13 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

References:

1. Department of the Environment and Energy. The Australian Government’s action on climate change. Factsheet. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2017.p. 4. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/fact-sheet-australian-governments-action-climate-change.

2. UNEP. The Emissions Gap Report 2016. A UNEP Synthesis Report. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); 2016 November.p. 86. Available from: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwj5yZX0ztXTAhVEQLwKHZyFCBMQFggzMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwedocs.unep.org%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F20.500.11822%2F10016%2Femission_gap_report_2016.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGf8VRkBkPovX2flFVEeL_lr3Fk_Q&cad=rja.

3. WMO. WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2016. Report WMO-No. 1189. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization; 2017.p. 28. Available from: http://library.wmo.int/opac/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3414.

4. NOAA NCEI. State of the Climate: Global Analysis for Annual 2016. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Center for Environmental Information; 2017 January 18th. Available from: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613.

5. Henley BJ, King AD. Trajectories toward the 1.5°C Paris target: Modulation by the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters. 2017: Epub 8th May. 10.1002/2017GL073480.

6. IPCC. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. 582 pp.: Cambridge University Press; 2012.p. 582 pp. Available from: http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf.

7. Birkmann J, Welle T. Assessing the risk of loss and damage: exposure, vulnerability and risk to climate-related hazards for different country classifications. Int J Global Warming. 2015; 8 (2): 191-212. 10.1080/13642987.2014.901967.

8. World must urgently up action to cut a further 25% from predicted 2030 emissions, says UN Environment report. Media Release [press release]. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 3rd November 2016.

9. Oleson KW, Monaghan A, Wilhelmi O, Barlage M, Brunsell N, Feddema J, et al. Interactions between urbanization, heat stress, and climate change. Climatic Change. 2013; 129 (3): 525-41. 10.1007/s10584-013-0936-8.

10. Hanna EG, Tait PW. Limitations to thermoregulation and acclimatisation challenges human adaptation to global warming. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015; 12 (7): 8034-74. doi:10.3390/ijerph120708034.

11. Hughes L, Hanna L, Fenwick J. The silent killer: Climate change and the health impacts of extreme heat. Sydney: Climate Council of Australia Ltd 2016. Available from: http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/b6cd8665c633434e8d02910eee3ca87c.pdf.

12. Davis C, Hanna EG. Temperature and rainfall trends in Northern Australia 1911-2013: implications for human activity and regional development. . Climate Research. 2016; 71 (1): 1-16. DOI:10.3354/cr01417.

Page 14 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

13. BOM. Exceptional heat in southeast Australia in early 2017. Special Climate Statement 61. Melbourne: Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology 2017 February 22.p. 40. Available from: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs61.pdf.

14. CSIRO and BOM. Climate Change in Australia: Projections for Australia's NRM Regions. Technical Report. Canberra: CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Australia; 2015 January p. pp222. Available from: http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/publications-library/technical-report/.

15. Matthews TKR, Wilby RL, Murphy C. Communicating the deadly consequences of global warming for human heat stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017; 114 (15): 3861-6. 10.1073/pnas.1617526114.

16. Treasury of the Commonwealth of Australia. 2015 Intergenerational Report Australia in 2055. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2015 September.p. pp170. Available from: http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2015/2015%20Intergenerational%20Report/Downloads/PDF/2015_IGR.ashx.

17. Hughes L, Steffen W, Alexander D, Rice M. Climate Change: A Deadly Threat To Coral Reefs. Climate Council of Australia Ltd. ; 2017 April.p. 36. Available from: http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/6d266714311144e304bcb23bde8446f9.pdf.

18. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Disaster risk reduction and science should be core of sustainable development, experts say. Media release. Japan: UNISDR; 2015 January 30th. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/archive/42164.

19. Deloitte Access Economics. Building Resilient Infrastructure. Sydney, Australia: Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience & Safer Communities,; 2016 2nd March.p. 112. Available from: http://australianbusinessroundtable.com.au/assets/documents/Report%20-%20Building%20Resilient%20Infrastructure/Report%20-%20Building%20resilient%20infrastructure.pdf.

20. Ward PS, Shively GE. Disaster risk, social vulnerability, and economic development. Disasters. 2016; May 12: on line DOI: 10.1111/disa.12199. 10.1111/disa.12199.

21. O’Connell D, Lin B, Capon T, Stafford Smith M. Disaster Resilience and Mitigation: A short report on current and future capacity to deliver on risk assessment and mitigation needs. Canberra, ACT Australia: CSIRO; 2015 August.p. 29. Available from: https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP156099&dsid=DS6.

22. Shindell D (Chair of the CCAC Scientific Advisory Panel). Two Targets for Climate Action: Reducing the Risk for Current & Future Generations. Keynote Address. 18th Working Group Meeting of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-lived Climate Pollutants 20-21 September 2016; 2016. Paris, France. [16th November 2016]. Available from: http://www.ccacoalition.org/en/file/2450/download?token=CF6xtKjG.

23. Rosenzweig C, Solecki W, Romero-Lankao P, Mehrotra S, Dhakal S, Bowman T, et al. Climate Change and Cities Second Assessment Report (ARC3.2) of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. New York: Urban Climate Change Research Network, Center for Climate Systems Research, Earth Institute, Columbia University 2015 November.p. pp28. Available from: http://uccrn.org/files/2015/12/ARC3-2-web.pdf.

24. ODI. Beyond coal. Scaling up clean energy to fight global poverty. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2016 October.p. 24. Available from: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/10964.pdf.

25. Climate Analytics. Pursuing the 1.5°C Limit. Benefits & Opportunities. UNDP, Climate Analytics; 2016 November.p. pp84. Available from: http://climateanalytics.org/files/lowcarbonmonitor-nov2016-medres.pdf.

26. WHO. Ambient air pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden of disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016 27 September p. 121. Available from: http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/250141/1/9789241511353-eng.pdf?ua=1.

27. Editorial. India takes steps to curb air pollution. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2016; 94 (7): 481-556.

Page 15 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

28. Morgan G, Broome R, Jalaludin B. Summary for Policy Makers of the Health Risk Assessment on Air Pollution in Australia. Sydney: National Environment Protection Council, Commonwealth of Australia; 2013 November.p. 37. Available from: https://theconversation.com/air-pollution-causes-more-than-3-million-premature-deaths-a-year-worldwide-47639.

29. Armstrong F. Coal and health in the Hunter: Lessons from one valley for the world. Melbourne: Climate and Health Alliance (CAHA); 2015 February.p. pp68. Available from: http://caha.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Climate-and-Health-Alliance_Report_Layout_PRINTv2.pdf.

30. Howard E. Hague climate change judgement could inspire a global civil movement. The Guardian. Australian Edition; 2015 June 25. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/hague-climate-change-judgement-could-inspire-a-global-civil-movement.

31. Conca J. Kids Win Again In Lawsuit Blaming Gov't For Not Fighting Global Warming. 2016 May 1. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/05/01/climate-change-litigation-the-children-win-in-court/#20e952a761ff.

32. Vorrath S, Parkinson G. Origin stuns industry with record low price for 530MW wind farm. Sydney; 2017 8th May. Available from: http://reneweconomy.com.au/origin-stuns-industry-with-record-low-price-for-530mw-wind-farm-70946/.

33. Costello A, Abbas M, Allen A, Ball S, Bell S, Bellamy R, et al. Managing the health effects of climate change. The Lancet. 2009; 373 (9676): 1693-733.

34. Wang H, Horten R. Tackling climate change: the greatest opportuity for health The Lancet Climate Channge and Human Health Commission. 2015; (June): 1-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60854-6.

35. Hanna EG, Bi P, Dwyer S, Morris P, McKellar R, Stadler S. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Plan for Human Health. Update. Gold Coast Australian National University. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, ISBN: 978-1-921609-79-4; 2012.p. pp. 54. Available from: http://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/attached_files_publications/Update-Report-2012_NARP_Human-Health.pdf.

36. Hanna EG. Health Hazards. In: Dryzek JS, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 217-31.

37. Hanna EG, Bell E, King D, Woodruff R. Climate change and Australian agriculture: A review of the threats facing rural communities and the health policy landscape. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2011; 23 (2 Supp): 105-18. doi:10.1177/1010539510391459

38. Hanna EG, McCubbin J, Horton G, Strazdins L. Australia, Lucky Country or Climate Change Canary: what future for her rural children? . International Public Health Journal 2010; 2 (4): 501-12.

39. Homer CSE, Hanna EG, McMichael AJ. Climate change threatens the achievement of the millennium development goal for maternal health. Midwifery. 2009; 25 (6): 606-12. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2009.09.003.

40. Horton G, Hanna EG, Kelly B. Drought, drying and climate change: emerging health issues for ageing Australians in rural areas. Australasian Journal of Ageing. 2010; 29 (1): 2-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-6612.2010.00424.x.

41. Hanna E, Stanley F, Hughes L. Statement from the Australian Summit on Extreme Heat and Health 2016 20th June. Available from: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/db9b955b4917179139bb594184fc3ae9.pdf.

42. Drijfhout S, Bathiany S, Beaulieu C, Brovkin V, Claussen M, Huntingford C, et al. Catalogue of abrupt shifts in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112 (43): E5777-E86. 10.1073/pnas.1511451112.

43. UNEP. Rate of Environmental Damage Increasing Across the Planet but There Is Still Time to Reverse Worst Impacts if Governments Act Now, UNEP Assessment Says Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; 2016 19th May. Available from:

Page 16 of 17

Hanna submission to CC Policy Review 2017 DEEC

http://www.unep.org/NEWSCENTRE/default.aspx?DocumentId=27074&ArticleId=36180#sthash.mT6IbL1O.dpuf.

Page 17 of 17