February 2017

Climate change plays havoc with Pacific weather

Climate change is already delivering more extremes of wet and dry to the Pacific region. AUTHORS: Scott B. Power,Head of Climate Research/International Development Manager, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Brad Murphy Manager, Climate Data Services, Australian Bureau of Meteorology;Christine Chung, Research Scientist, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; François Delage Assistant scientist, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Hua Ye, Climate IT Officer, Australian Bureau of Meteorology This research was supported by the National Environmental Science Programme and the Australian Climate Change Science Programme. Global warming has already increased the risk of major disruptions to Pacific rainfall, according to our research published today in Nature Communications. The risk will continue to rise over coming decades, even if global warming during the 21st century is restricted to 2℃ as agreed by the international community under the Paris Agreement. In recent times, major disruptions have occurred in 1997-98, when severe drought struck Papua New Guinea, Samoa and the Solomon Islands, and in 2010-11, when rainfall caused widespread flooding in eastern Australia and severe flooding in Samoa, and drought triggered a national emergency in Tuvalu. These rainfall disruptions are primarily driven by the El Niño/La Niña cycle, a naturally occurring phenomenon centred on the tropical Pacific. This climate variability can profoundly change rainfall patterns and intensity over the Pacific Ocean from year to year. Rainfall belts can move hundreds and sometimes thousands of kilometres from their normal positions. This has major impacts on safety, health, livelihoods and ecosystems as a result of severe weather, drought and floods. Recent research concluded that unabated growth in greenhouse gas emissions over the 21st century will increase the frequency of such disruptions to Pacific rainfall. But our new research shows even the greenhouse cuts we have agreed to may not be enough to stop the risk of rainfall disruption from growing as […]

The Hillary Doctrine: Sex & American Foreign Policy

by Valerie M. Hudson and Patricia Leidl Given that much of the political science literature on women, gender, and U.S. foreign policy has primarily examined the legislative branch and public opinion, The Hillary Doctrine’s focus on the executive branch is an important and welcome contribution to the international relations field. Hudson and Leidl focus on Hillary Clinton’s prioritisation of women’s empowerment in all facets of U.S. foreign policy and national security during her tenure as secretary of state in the Obama administration, noting that “she was (and is) the world’s most influential and eloquent exponent of the proposition that the situation of women and the destiny of nations are integrally linked” (pp. xiii). The authors make clear, however, that the book is not about Hillary Clinton herself but about the Doctrine as an idea translated into policy, and hence their “foundational question” is as follows: “Do the situation, security, and status of women within a nation affect that nation’s security, stability, and prosperity? If so, then the premise of the Hillary Doctrine is sound, and warrants a prominent place in U.S. foreign policy” (p. 68). Building on Hudson’s previous work and the work of others demonstrating the strong link between women’s security and national security, and drawing on theory and extensive empirical research (interviews, field work, quantitative analysis, and detailed case studies), the authors examine the origins and implementation of the Hillary Doctrine. In her address to the UN Commission on the Status of Women in March 2010, Clinton first articulated what eventually became known as the Hillary Doctrine, stating that “the subjugation of women is a threat to the national security of the United States.” The Doctrine was officially included in the State Department’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review of U.S. foreign policy, published in December 2010 (p. […]

The environment needs billions of dollars more: here’s how to raise the money

Paul Martin Director, Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law, University of New England Amy Cosby Researcher, Centre for Agriculture and Law, University of New England Kip Werren Lecturer in Law, University of New England Extinction threatens iconic Australian birds and animals. The regent honeyeater, the orange-bellied parrot, and Leadbeater’s possum have all entered the list of critically endangered species. It is too late for the more than 50 species that are already extinct, including bettongs, various wallabies, and many others. Despite international commitments, policies and projects, Australia’s biodiversity outcomes remain unsatisfactory. A 2015 review of Australia’s 2010-2050 Biodiversity Conservation Strategy found that it has failed to “effectively guide the efforts of governments, other organisations or individuals”. Insufficient resourcing is one cause of biodiversity loss. The challenge is impressive. Australia must tackle degradation and fragmentation of habitat, invasive species, unsustainable use of resources, the deterioration of the aquatic environment and water flows, increased fire events, and climate change. This all requires money to support private landholders conducting conservation activities, to fund research, to manage public lands, and to support other conservation activities conducted by governments, industry, and individuals. So where can we find the funds? How much money is needed? We have estimated that Australia’s biodiversity protection requires an equivalent investment to defence spending – roughly 2% of gross domestic product. Of course, such estimates are up for debate given that how much money is required depends on what we want the environment to look like, which methods we use, and how well they work. Other studies (see also here and here point to a similar conclusion: far more money is needed to achieve significantly better outcomes. Apart from government funding, private landholders, businesses, communities, Indigenous Australians, and non-government organisations contribute significantly to natural resource management. We were unable to quantify […]