Snowy Hydro 2.0: Government makes $6 billion buy-out commitment to power project

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has underlined his commitment to the Snowy 2.0 Hydro scheme by striking a deal to buy the iconic power plant outright.

Conditional on sign-off in the May 8 federal budget, the government will pay NSW around $4 billion for its 58 per cent share and Victoria $2 billion for its 29 per cent stake, giving the Commonwealth (a 13 per cent shareholder) total ownership and control.

Energy minister Josh Frydenberg said the sale was “fair value” and promised to never sell the asset, which was valued at $7.8 billion in the deal, to a private buyer.

“The Commonwealth is absolutely committed to keeping it in public hands. There’s no talk about anything different to that,” Mr Frydenberg told ABC Radio.

Mr Turnbull insists the proposed expansion of the Snowy Hydro system will help make the electricity grid more reliable by increasing the amount of energy to be stored from intermittent generators like wind and solar farms.

Studies give the go-ahead

A new independent economic study recently rubber-stamped the government’s decision to press ahead with the ambitious scheme, despite the project’s budget blow-out.

The report, conducted by Marsden Jacob Associates (MJA), considered the state of the market “with or without” Snowy 2.0, which could cost up to $4.5 billion – a $2.5 billion increase on the original estimate.

Key findings of the MJA findings confirmed that Snowy 2.0 would:

  • Lead to better price outcomes for retailers, customers and large energy users.
  • Help future proof the National Electricity Market at the least possible cost against the intermittency of wind and solar generation as they continue to grow their market share.
  • Build on the Snowy Scheme and see greater utilisation of existing dams and increase operating capability.

The Snowy Mountains hydro scheme, built between 1949 and 1974, is made up of 16 dams, seven power stations and 225km of tunnels.

The expansion proposal – dubbed Snowy Hydro 2.0 – involves boring 27km of tunnels linking the Talbingo dam, at an elevation of 552 metres, to the Tantangara reservoir, at 1,233 metres, so energy can be generated by pumping water uphill to the higher reservoir when energy is cheap (say, in the middle of the night) and releasing it back downhill when energy is in high demand and prices are higher.

The upgrades would add 2,000 MW to the hydro scheme’s 4,100 MW capacity, enough to power 500,000 homes. Engineers also say you’d need to build more than 35 million domestic batteries to match its 350,000MWh storage capacity.

One of the technical features of this project is the reversible turbines which can draw water back through the system so it can be reused, lessening the impact on downstream releases and on the supply during drought.

“Snowy Hydro 2.0 is a nation-building project,” a spokesman for the prime minister said before the release of a $29 million feasibility study at the end of 2017.

“It will not only deliver a more affordable and reliable energy system but will also generate jobs and grow our economy.

“The feasibility study clearly demonstrates that Snowy 2.0 is a viable pumped hydro project that will futureproof the National Electricity Market (NEM), helping stabilise the system and deliver lower prices.”

Future-proofing power supply

If construction gets underway shortly, the Snowy 2.0 scheme could begin operating from 2024.

Mr Frydenberg believes that building Snowy 2.0 is vital for the future of Australia’s energy supply.

In a recent opinion piece for the Australian Financial Review, he warned that without Snowy 2.0 the east coast would have “a weaker and more expensive system and we would have failed to future-proof the grid for the inevitable arrival of more intermittent renewables”.

“Instead of falling electricity prices we will see upward pressure on price as volatility continues, there is less competition and other more costly gas peakers and batteries are pursued to stabilise the system,” he wrote.

Mr Frydenberg said the lack of storage and dispatchable power was “playing out painfully today in Victoria and South Australia”.

He cited the use of “expensive, polluting diesel generators using up to 80,000 litres of fuel an hour [which] have been called in just to keep the lights on this summer”.

As for budget blowout, Snowy Hydro CEO Paul Broad said taxpayers needn’t worry about the revised estimated cost of $3.8 billion – $4.5 billion.

“Snowy 2.0 can be funded off our balance sheet, while delivering a healthy internal rate of return of 8 per cent,” he wrote recently in The Australian.

“While, historically, we have not often used our pumping capability, we’re progressively pumping more and will be at capacity when Snowy 2.0 comes on line.

“In fact, our analysis shows that future storage demand will surpass Snowy 2.0’s capacity from 2031, when we can again deliver by expanding the scheme, using the same reservoirs as Snowy 2.0, to benefit future generations.”

He also told ABC TV that the Snowy 2.0 board is committed to doing another $60 million worth of work in the next few months to refine the expansion costs.

“We expect [the cost] is at the lower end of the spectrum,” he said.

“It’s expensive, but it stacks up economically.”

Climate change goals at risk if new coal plants go ahead, says study

Just days after government data confirmed that Australia is on track to meet its 2020 Renewable Energy Target, a new study finds our climate control headway could be undone by other countries’ continued coal reliance.

Ottmar Edenhofer of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin, and three colleagues, say that if all the world’s planned coal plants are built we are closing the door on the Paris Agreement’s target of restricting temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius this century.

The research was published in Environmental Research Letters, with co-authors from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the Technical University of Berlin.

The study is based on a concept of “lock-in” or “committed” emissions: Once a coal plant is completed and put into service, the thinking goes, it’s likely to operate for long time to justify the cost of the investment, reports The Washington Post.

The research finds that five countries — India, China, Turkey, Vietnam and Indonesia — are home to “nearly three quarters (73 percent) of the global coal-fired capacity that is currently under construction or planned.”

Vietnam, if plans are carried forward, could see 948 percent growth in coal emissions, the research asserts, by 2030.

The study is based on a database by CoalSwarm, a project of the Earth Island Institute, which carefully tracks coal plants in varying stages of completion across the globe, in collaboration with Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

Christine Shearer, a researcher with CoalSwarm, said it’s important to bear in mind that not all coal plants are actually completed.

“Since we started doing this work, since 2010, only about a third of proposed coal plants ever begin construction or are commissioned,” she said.

China, the world’s biggest consumer of fossil fuels, is a classic example.

Just last October it announced it was stopping or postponing work on 151 coal plants that were either under, or earmarked for, construction.

A month earlier India reported its national coal fleet on average ran at little more than 60% of its capacity – among other things, well below what is generally considered necessary for an individual generator to be financially viable.

Study author Mr Edenhofer, however, countered that the current building plans are important information.

“This does not mean we are doomed, but these announcements are announcements which should be taken into account very seriously,” he said.

“These are not just paper plants, these are real plants.”

Cameron Hepburn, a professor in environmental economics at Oxford University, also weighed in on the recent study with a gloomy outlook.

“If we don’t stop building coal plants now, we will have four unpalatable options,” he tells The Washington Post by email.

“We either (1) shut down coal plants early, (2) retrofit expensive carbon capture technologies, (3) suck even more CO2 out of the atmosphere, potentially at high cost, or (4) burn through the 2 degree C target.”

2017 Climate Change Champions v The Deniers: Who won the heated debate?

After a year of catastrophic weather on his own doorstep, would 2017 finally be the year the world’s most high-profile climate change sceptic had a change of heart?

Not judging by the end-of-year social media retort below, which President Trump fired off as the eastern seaboard in the U.S. was gripped by an icy winter storm.

Using a cold snap as an argument against the existence of global warming is nothing new for Mr Trump, who has discharged more than 100 climate denialism missives on Twitter since 2011.

In the years before running for president, he called it “non-existent,” “mythical” and a “a total con job”. Indeed, it seemed that whenever snow fell in Manhattan he’d mock the idea of global warming.

“Global warming has been proven to be a canard repeatedly over and over again,” he wrote on Twitter in 2012. In another post later that same year, he said, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” A year later, he wrote that “global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!”

This time, however, was the first occasion he’d tackled the issue head-on as president, and also included an implicit swipe at the Paris climate accord, which Mr Trump has vowed to abandon.

Flawed logic

Climate scientists, however, have long warned against using individual weather events to deliberate the existence, or otherwise, of global warming. Weather, they point out, refers to atmospheric conditions during a short period; climate relates to longer-term weather patterns.

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale University’s project on climate change communication, called Mr Trump’s tweet “scientifically ridiculous and demonstrably false”.


“There is a fundamental difference in scale between what weather is and what climate is,” he said.

“What’s going on in one small corner of the world at a given moment does not reflect what’s going on with the planet.”

David Karoly, a climate scientist from the University of Melbourne, was even more blunt, reports The Guardian.

“It’s winter in the US. Cold temperatures are common in winter.”

Climate modelling showed cold snaps like the one in the US were actually becoming less common as a result of global warming, Mr Karoly said, adding that rapid attribution analysis means scientists are now able to look more closely at “classes of events”.

That type of modelling for the north-east of the US, he said, showed that although there was a great deal of year-to-year variability, the average coldest temperature in December in the region has increased in the past 50 years.

Australian scientists from the Institute of Public Affairs John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy managed to publish an alternative view for the sceptics in the journal GeoResJ, citing data from six 2,000 year-long proxy temperature series from different geographic regions.

“Proxies” are the markers scientists use – tree rings, sediments, pollen, etc – to try and assess global temperature trends in the days before the existence of thermometers.

All the evidence suggested that the planet was about a degree warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than it is now; and that there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about late 20th century and early 21st century “climate change”, trumpeted far-right publications Breitbart and The Daily Caller.

But when The Guardian canvassed five genuine climate scientists for their view on the findings, they variously summarised the research as “junk science” and seriously flawed.

Climate change is good for us

Another outspoken climate change denier, former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, also didn’t let established science derail his ‘message’ to the world in 2017.

In an October speech called Daring to Doubt to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, he likened climate change policy to “primitive people killing goats to appease volcano gods”.


Mr Abbott argued that “at least so far it is climate change policy that is doing harm; climate change itself is probably doing good — or at least more good than harm”.

“In most countries far more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it is accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change might even be beneficial.”

Mr Abbott also used the platform to outline his opposition to renewable power by arguing it was possible to have “too much of a good thing”.

“The only rational choice is to put Australian jobs and Australia’s standard of living first; to get emissions down but only as far as we can without putting prices up,” the former prime minister said, arguing anything else would be a “dereliction of duty as well as a political death wish”.

He described the reality of climate change as very modest but the consequences of the policy to deal with it as “increasingly dire”.

That’s not a rhetoric likely to book Mr Abbott any speaking gigs with economic superpower China anytime soon.

So long reviled as a climate change villain, in 2017 China transformed into a green energy colossus.

The world’s top clean energy investor pledged to increase the amount of energy coming from non-fossil fuels to 20% of its total output by 2030.

To that end, China’s energy agency vowed to spend more than $360bn on renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind by 2020, cutting smog levels, carbon emissions and creating 13 million jobs in the process.

Time to act is now

In June, it unveiled one of its early jewels in that masterplan, the world’s biggest floating solar farm off the shores of Huainan, in the central, coal-rich Anhui province, which can generate 40 megawatts of electricity – enough to power 15,000 homes.

More recently, China has also launched the world’s biggest ever mechanism to reduce carbon, in the form of an emissions trading system that will initially cover the country’s heavily polluting power generation plants, then expand to take in most of the economy.

“This is a game-changer,” said Nathaniel Keohane, vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund, a US-based environmental group.

“This shows global leadership on the part of the Chinese government.”

Ironically, the very country whose leader and has routinely scoffed at the notion of mankind causing global warming, was also behind an indirect vindication of China’s stand.

The November-released Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) in the US – the most comprehensive summary of climate science since 2013 –  concluded with 95 to 100 per cent certainty that global warming is man-made, mostly from the spewing of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

“Over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations,” the report said.

In a year that also saw Scott Pruitt, the controversial new head of the Environmental Protection Agency end the US war on coal-fired emissions, one of the father’s of climate science James Hansen concluded that the best way forward was in the courts.

The former Nasa scientist ended 2017 by calling for a fresh wave of lawsuits against governments and fossil fuel companies on what he describes as the growing, mortal threat of global warming.

He tells The Guardian that the litigate-to-mitigate campaign is needed alongside political mobilisation because judges are less likely than politicians to be in the pocket of oil, coal and gas companies.

“We are entering a period of consequences and are in danger of being too late,” he warned.

“I have come to note that greenhouse gas climate forcings are accelerating, not decelerating, and sea-level rise and ocean acidification are accelerating.

“We confront a mortal threat, now endangering the very existence of island and low-lying nations in the Pacific and around the planet. Accordingly, ambition must be increased and enforced.”

Vancouver and Sydney Hold on to the Commitments of the Paris Accord

The impacts of a warmer world are already in place, drowning us in the rising temperatures day by day. There is something that we can learn by looking at the recent flooding catastrophes in the United States, Caribbean Islands, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh. Staying inactive is only going to worsen the situation.

So far, the leaders around the world, which carry immense hopes of tackling climate issues, have actually set a collective intent to achieve net zero emission of carbon by 2050 to save the world.

The achievement of this goal, however, requires them to navigate two major checkpoints. The first one is to pull down the trajectory of emission on a global level by 2020 –keeping humanity on a better path towards reaching full de-carbonization. In achieving this, it will support us on our way to meet the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals by the year 2030, putting an end to poverty, and ensuring planet protection and prosperity.

The serious threats of climatic conditions are becoming more and more obvious at the end of each day since climate change is costing us human lives more than anything else. From destruction to flood, fire, or storms, global warming has already touched 1°C. The destination of reaching net zero de-carbonization is not an easy one but it is indeed achievable.

While some nations continue to neglect the issue, focusing on undermining the so-called ‘exaggerated issues’, others are working hand in hand, making coalitions like the Global Covenant of Mayors on Climate and Energy and the C40 Cities, with the help of which, urban populations are striving to settle the task at hand.

Vancouver and Sydney Step up to Meet Climate Commitments

The city of Vancouver is striving to reduce GHG emissions by almost 33% (below 2007 levels) through 179 municipalities in British Columbia. Vancouver is doing great in reducing figures and leading North America with the construction of new zero-emission constructions.

Sydney too, is leading at transforming the southern precinct into a sustainable and vibrant urban environment through $8 billion projects in Green Square.

However, Vancouver and Sydney are not the only cities achieving a milestone. All the Mayors in the country are committed to the path of net zero emissions and with absolute intent. From 2011 to 2015, all the cities in C40 invested collectively almost US$1.5bn towards low carbon projects and have expanded the portfolio into many sustainable infrastructure projects.

Efforts are being directed after realizing the scale of the climate challenge and actions must be expedited to achieve the 2020 checkpoint.

Moreover, to show commitment to the Paris Agreement, California will host a summit in 2018, to collect new climate commitments from regional governments, cities, investors, and businesses, in order to fully demonstrate the possibility to the national leaders in terms of raising ambitions.

We hope to get new commitments from fellow nations and wish for them to step up in this time of trouble because tackling the climate issue and meeting this challenge is only possible if we leave no stone unturned.

Donald Trump faces another Climate Hurdle

The well-known president Donald Trump is about to face another important decision, in terms of his willingness to undo federal efforts, to alleviate climate change effects.

It’s been more than three months since the US president Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Change Accord.

The president is also likely to decide soon if the endangerment finding put into place by the Obama administration, and on which the rules of climate change are built, must be overturned.

Despite the pledge, Trump seems to discover that it is much easier to promise and say things on the campaign trail than getting it done through the complex bureaucracy of the government.

And again, the President is still walking a line between pragmatists seeing court battles for years ahead despite uncertain results, and some true believers who expect Trump to follow through on the pledge and knock over the endangerment findings.

Indeed, some close fellows of Trump’s Administration expect that EPA will eventually stop short of the endangerment finding repeal, and merely water down the regulations of the climate change including the Clean Power Plan. This would, however, force shuttering of various coal plants of the country.

“I think they’re going to come up with something far less onerous. Taking on the endangerment finding, it’s such a sensitive topic. That’s an 800-pound tiger the left will fiercely resist.” – said Trump’s campaign Adviser and Economist – Stephen Moore – at the Conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Health Risks

After railing against climate change, Trump has to make a decision against the deadly storms’ backdrop including Hurricane Harvey. These hurricanes have brought the policy of climate change to the forefront again but it remains unclear as to how EPA and the administration will act towards it.

“Administrator Pruitt encourages the exchange of ideas and is committed to a robust dialogue on the science related to carbon dioxide,” says EPA Spokesperson- emphasizing that the review is just about the endangerment rule.

The Legal Challenges

Conservative groups have now started to take a step back, despite pressurizing Donald Trump previously to follow through on the pledge, as they can clearly see the legal challenges that are on its way.

According to Myron Ebell, Trump’s campaign advisor, alleviating the endangerment finding is likely to make it a lot more difficult for the next administration to take on climate policies.

However, anyone that has an idea that Trump is softening towards the climate change issue better think again. As per the recent statement from the White House, it has absolutely no plan to continue the Paris Agreement, unless the accord is renegotiated, and that is a request which has already been claimed as unacceptable from the world leaders.

Australia only wealthy nation still breaking energy emissions records

A recent analysis showed that Australia is the only affluent country that is generating the highest amount of greenhouse gas emissions, even though it recently launched a carbon-pricing scheme. Sales of petroleum products – petrol and diesel – sky-rocketed in Australia and were followed by an increase in carbon emissions.

The record was higher than the emissions of 2009, which still continue increasing. More people are now using petroleum products, therefore; the country is heavily reliant on coal to meet the growing demand. Presently, there is nothing being done to reduce dependency on coal.

The think tank analysis estimated Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions at 383 million tons in June, which was approximately a 49% increase since the base year of 1990. Australia is still burning fossil fuels when other countries are undertaking strategies to switch to renewable energy sources.

Although energy emissions keep rising, Australia is keeping up with the goals of 2020 Kyoto Protocol, largely due to land clearance, that aims for at least a 5% reduction in energy emissions. Australia refused to rescind its carryover credits to accomplish targets of reducing emissions.

The government stated that it had a forum on transport emissions that sought to improve quality and efficiency of fuels. Dr. Hugh Saddler stated that lack of investment in efficient modes of transportation was causing increased usage of roads. Australia does not have fuel-efficiency standards, which is why the vehicles used are less efficient than those of other countries. Mining, agricultural and construction activities are also causing increased diesel usage.

Political leaders still disagree on policies of providing subsidies for coal and supporting renewable or green technology. Businesses are campaigning for durable climate and energy strategies to generate investments for new power plants. About twelve old, dysfunctional coal factories have shut down since 2012, although lignite and black coal account for 75% national electricity.
Presently, Australia has not devised an alternative strategy for renewable energy when the Protocol ends in 2020. The government repealed carbon pricing scheme of 2012, which was the only goal for renewable energy and encouraging private investment.

Former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, was a serious advocate about combating climate change while in office. However, during his speech in London, he claimed that taking measures to combat climate change could be detrimental to the economy and referred to climate science as “absolute crap”. He further stated that climate change policy was doing more harm than good and climate change was actually beneficial. He said that more people died due to extreme cold rather than heat waves, asserting that our adaptability to climate change could be good for us. Abbott has suggested the government to revoke renewable energy policies.

Josh Frydenberg said that the ministers were collaborating with stakeholders and using an evidence-based approach to deal with the issue. It was further stated that they were committed to the Paris Agreement and aiming to reduce about 30% energy emissions, below 2005 levels, by 2030.

Trump Nominates Climate Change Denier as the New Chief of NASA

The U.S. President Donald Trump tapped Jim Bridenstine – Republican Congressman of Oklahoma, as the next chief of NASA. While the nominee is already facing a lot of opposition from politicians and scientists, Jim does not believe humans cause climate change.

As per the opposition, Bridenstine does not possess scientific chops to direct and lead a space agency – capable of sending men to the moon.

Moreover, NASA has never been headed by a Congress member in its history of 60 years.

Opponents argue that Bridenstine, that is likely to be confirmed by the Senate, is a bad choice for the administrative job in NASA.

The major three contention points include his political nature, lack of scientific credentials and doubts regarding the human contribution towards climate change.

Two U.S Senators DoubtBridenstine’s Capabilities to Lead NASA

Florida’s senators – Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Marco Rubio – have already voiced Bridenstine’s nomination as a bad choice.

As per Nelson’s statement to Politico;

“The head of NASA ought to be a space professional, not a politician.”

As per Rubio’s statement to Politico;

“This appointment can be devastating for the space program. Obviously, being from Florida, I am very sensitive to anything that slows up NASA and its mission.”

Bridenstine; who won his first seat in 2012, would be the first ever elected official to lead NASA.

Another Republican Senator – Oklahoma’s Jim Inholf– calls climate change a hoax and stated to the Associated Press;

“I think he faces a tough fight because he’s been outspoken in some areas that having nothing to do with NASA.”

Bridenstine Doubts Human Factor in Climate Change

During an interview in 2016 with Aerospace America magazine, Bridenstine clearly expressed skepticism regarding the human hand in climate change. He said that the climate has always been changing and further added;

“There were periods of time long before the internal combustion engine when the Earth was much warmer than it is today.”

Unlike the opposition and a few senators, Lightfoot – Acting administrator – said in a statement that he was “pleased to have Representative Bridenstine nominated to lead our team.”

“Of course, the nomination must go through the Senate confirmation process, but I look forward to ensuring a smooth transition and sharing the great work the NASA team is doing,” he added further.

The news is steaming more opposition from different politicians especially after Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

Bridenstine has already criticized the amount of money spent by NASA on climate research previously. He sponsored a bill in 2013, which demanded slash funding towards the studies conducted by Atmospheric Administration and National Oceanic in terms of climate change.

In a post, Phil Plait – science blogger and astronomer – lambasted the nomination of Bridenstine, stating;

“Climate change due to global warming is one of the greatest threats facing us as a species. The leader of the world’s premier space agency should at the very bare minimum be willing to admit it exists.”

No matter what views Bridenstine has for climate change, NASA has been working as an independent agency and its future relies on the president’s favour and his nominee to lead the agency.

New Climate Study Starts a New Debate over the Need of Global Warming Measures

When it comes to a scientific study, the news contains scientific facts and accurate reporting of them. Typically, this entails studying the facts, interviewing the outside experts and authors. But the majority of the times, the narrative shared by media is not actually supported by the scientific study or the experts.
And same is the case with the newly published study of climate change!

Nature Geosciences Climate Change Study

Recently, a study was published in Nature Geosciences, which tried to determine the amount of carbon that humans will possibly emit before surpassing the global warming threshold of 1.5C – set forth in the Paris Climate Accord.

The results were expected or sort of optimistic; as it showed the likelihood of having more carbon in the bank than previously estimated. While some experts remain sceptical, the study’s key finding was twisted and transformed into a bad parody by many outlets, suggesting that the ‘fear of global warming is exaggerated’ and the issue of climate change is not actually ‘as threatening as previously thought’.

From there onwards, things went off the rail.

“The scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean — the computer models they have been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong,” – The Sun bloviated.

“Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they have got it wrong on global warming,” says Breitbart

On the basis of this, the researchers at Oxford University released a statement disavowing the idea, that there is no need of taking aggressive measures to cut down carbon emission.

The researchers wrote. “Our analysis suggests that ‘pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C’ is not chasing a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require a significant strengthening of the NDC at the first opportunity in 2020,”


In simple words:

Countries are still required to ratchet up their measures a lot so that warming can be limited to 1.5C degrees. And for this, aggressive reduction of emissions must be started from today and the CO2 output must be brought to net zero in around 40 years at most.

However, the new study was pushed back by some other climate scientists. And there is a continuous debate about defining the baseline temperatures.

But as Zeke Hausfather – climatologist – mentions Carbon Brief, the records of global temperature which go back as far would have produced more warming by the year 2015 and hence reduced carbon in the bank.

Indeed, comparing the observations with the model is not an easy or wise decision. For example, if some models including the paper ones, estimate the temperature of air over the surface of the planet, scientists measure the temperature of Earth both at the surface oceans and the air, which is warming slowly.

According to the statement of Michael Mann to Gizmodo – Penn State climate scientist:

“Studies that account for both the land/ocean sampling issues and the needed corrections for historical forcing show no discrepancy between observed vs. modelled warming.”

All in all, the conclusion of this essential new study does not differ from the ones which were presented earlier. In order to keep the climate change at a minimum level, the world still needs an aggressive approach towards carbon reductions.

Climate Change – Prince Charles Aims to Save Marine Life Worldwide

Prince Charles seemed to wade into the most controversial debate over the global climate change issue. He claimed that leaders all over the world have severely and catastrophically underestimated the oceans’ vulnerability to climate change, pollution and acidification.

During an impassioned speech, delivered at Malta – Our Ocean Conference – Prince Charles urged all the worldwide governments to take urgent measures for protecting the marine life, and acknowledged the climate change issue by calling it the ‘huge elephant in the room of accelerating climate change’.

As per the statement of Prince Charles; “It is absolutely vital, it seems to me, that we create sustainable blue economy agendas that take truly integrated approaches to improve ocean and therefore planetary health”.

He further added;

“If the unprecedented abundance of recent catastrophic hurricanes is not the supreme wakeup call that it needs to be in order to address the vase and accumulating threat of climate change and ocean warming than we … can surely no longer consider ourselves as part of a rational sensible civilization”.


The Great Reef in North Queensland

Long been an advocate of environmental issues, the Prince of Wales also emphasized the importance of focusing and addressing the frequent health degradation of the population of the coral reef; particularly North Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef.

While discussing his major concern, the Prince further stated;

“The fact that significant portions of the Great Barrier Reef on Australia’s eastern coast have been severely degraded or lost over the last few years is both a tragedy and also, I would have thought, a very serious wakeup call. Are we really going to allow ourselves the dismal comfort of accepting that, in the long run, we will only be left with a tiny fraction of them?”

Role of Prince Charles towards Environmental Challenges

If we talk about the role of Prince Charles, he holds a long history in environmental advocacy. The Prince of Wales also founded the International Sustainability Unit in the year 2010, which aimed at addressing the worldwide major environmental challenges; and also included other crucial issues such as deforestation, marine degradation and animal conservation.

The Prince also co-authored a book – Ladybird Expert, which targeted adult readers, along with environmentalists and climate scientists in January, and the book not only detailed the history but also the solutions for global warming.

While the British royals have always avoided involvement in matters of politics, the issue is clearly important for Prince Charles and has also stirred many controversies.

Previously, Prince Charles has already been accused by the British media of “becoming a zealot”

However, Charles whole-heartedly commends the efforts and measures taken by many nations worldwide to save the marine life.

“There is now at least, or at last, awareness of the plight of the ocean, its intimate connection to us and our survival, and the enormous amount that needs to be done,” says Prince Charles.

The Prince is not only encouraged by the efforts put in by many organizations at the global level to meet the challenge of climate change, but he also congratulated the country of Chile, that is now successfully protecting almost 1 of its marine life.

DiCaprio Met Trump – What Really Went Down Behind The Closed-Door Conversation?

Leonardo DiCaprio met the US President Donald Trump in December of last year, discussing the climate change issue. Ever since the news revealed itself, everyone has been waiting to get the inside scoop between the Oscar-winning actor and the US President.

And finally, DiCaprio decided to reveal the news about what really went down behind those closed doors!

At the Yale Climate Conference on 19th Sept, 2017, Leonardo revealed that in his last meeting with Trump; he came up with the “comprehensive plan to tackle climate change” along with harnessing the green jobs economic potential.

Seated next to John Kerry – former Secretary of State – DiCaprio continued divulging that both of them actually conversed about “how the United States has the potential to lead the world in clean-energy manufacturing and research and development”

After witnessing the shocking action of Donald Trump – withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Accord recently – it was quite evident that the conversation between Leonardo DiCaprio and Donald Trump did not end well or be productive.

Leonardo Expresses frustration

While many nations and organizations all around the world are taking serious actions to cut down carbon emissions and aiming at becoming carbon neutralized, big countries such as the United States, do not take the climate issue seriously.

The same was expressed as a frustration from the famous actor in his last statement. Expressing the frustration towards the Trump administration for being inactive on the climate change issue, DiCaprio stated;

“This administration and certain people are going to be vilified for not taking action.”

Even though the conversation between DiCaprio and Trump did not go well or be conclusive, Leo’s attempt to dedicatedly and personally engage with the US President is commended all across the country.

While it may be concerning that the discussion of climate change between the two big names may have failed, Leonardo does not lose hope or give up the fight in tackling the climate change issue with adequate measures, anytime soon.

“We should not have people in office who do not believe in facts and truths and modern science that are able to manipulate and risk the entire future of this entire generation,” he fumed. “We are at that turning point right now, and we are going to look back at this point in history, and frankly this administration, and certain people are going to be vilified for not taking action. They really are. And it’s up to this generation, it’s up to all of you to get involved and make a difference.”

With that, the US home city – New York too, seems to have taken a totally different path from the President as New York’s mayor has confirmed plans to support the Paris Climate Agreement.

As the whole country refuses to accept Trump’s climate perspective, Leonardo took one step ahead by announcing that his foundation will be donating a $20 million grant to support and continue the fight against global warming.