Craig Reucassel - Fight For Planet A

CRAIG REUCASSEL is an Australian writer, comedian and broadcaster. Craig and a group of friends founded The Chaser newspaper, which led to a number of ABC TV Chaser programs including The Election Chaser, CNNNN, The Chasers War on Everything, The Hamster Wheel and the satirical consumer affairs show The Checkout. As well as his TV work, Craig has worked on triple j with fellow Chaser Chris Taylor and acted in David Williamsons Jack of Hearts and Tim Firths Nevilles Island at The Ensemble Theatre.

In 2017 and 2018, he presented the multi award-winning ABC TV series War on Waste. In 2020, Craig presented the ABC TV documentary series Fight for Planet A and Big Weather (and how to survive it).

Thanks to Jodi Boylan, Leonie Lowe, David Galloway and everyone at Lune for all their support in making the documentary Fight for Planet A a reality. Thanks also to Geri Packer, Amy Sherden and Alex Godwin for their tireless research on a never-ending topic. Thanks to all the amazing experts who took our calls and explained complex problems with patience and generosity.

Thanks to Stephen Oliver and Josie Mason-Campbell and everyone at the ABC who supported a difficult program from the beginning.

Thanks to Jude McGee, Simone Ford, Madeleine James and Mary Rennie for wrangling my rantings into the form of a book.

And finally huge thanks to my parents, Doug and Pam, and my wonderful family, Keisha, Oliver, Sam and Jasper, for their support, love, laughs and inspiration.

I feel like skipping this chapter. And not just because Im lazy. Weve been talking about the effects of climate change for so long and were starting to feel them already. Beyond that, I figure that at least 40 years of scientists warnings is surely enough. But my publishers disagreed I guess they didnt like the idea of the first chapter just saying go read a different book.

So in this fight for Planet A, what and who are we up against? What are the problems and threats we are facing?

At its most basic, our enemy is carbon dioxide (or CO2) and other gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, which are increasing in our atmosphere due primarily to our reliance on fossil fuels. Or, in terms that even I can understand, the gases operate as a kind of blanket around the world, slowly increasing the temperature. The more gases there are, the higher the temperature rises.

It hasnt just been the IPCC that has told us this story. As with all debates about climate, I think we should hear from the fossil fuel industry first, because they pay the most money to make you listen to their side of things.

In 1962, the oil company Humble advertised in Life magazine with a picture of a glacier captioned, Each day Humble supplies enough energy to melt 7 million tons of glacier! This was not a knowing nod to climate change. It was just a strange brag that the energy from the oil, if converted to heat, could melt a hell of a lot of ice.

But if the Humble advertisers had spoken to the Humble scientists, they may have given their campaign a second thought. In 1957, scientists at the company had published a paper tracing the enormous quantity of carbon dioxide contributed to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution from the combustion of fossil fuels. That burning fossil fuels increased CO2 was not controversial at the time, even to those guilty of it.

In 1968, the American Petroleum Institute released a research paper by the Stanford Research Institute that not only recognised the increasing levels of CO2 but acknowledged that this would lead to an increase in temperature, which could lead to melting ice caps and rising seas, concluding there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.

By 1973, Humble Oil had merged with Exxon, presumably so, together, they could brag about their product more. Exploration of the effects of CO2 had been continuing and in 1977, scientific adviser James Black made a presentation to the Exxon management committee and followed it up with a transcript in 1978. Whether this was considered slow in the days before Powerpoint is unclear, but the typewritten pages were clear in their conclusion:

The earths atmosphere presently contains about 330 ppm of CO2. This gas does not absorb an appreciable amount of the incoming solar energy but it can absorb and return part of the infrared radiation which the earth radiates toward space. CO2, therefore, contributes to warming the lower atmosphere by what has been called the Greenhouse Effect.

Living as we do in the 21st century, wed presume that the management committees response would have been sack this nerd and give his wage to a spin doctor. But this wasnt the case back then. In fact, Exxon invested substantial amounts of money in climate research, including rigging a ship, the Esso Atlantic, to take readings of the CO2 released from oceans.), but the conclusions it reached decades ago have not been challenged.

We know CO2 levels are rising, we know that the greenhouse effect leads to global warming. Its only the speed and consequences that we must clarify.

During the 2020 fire season in Australia, there was a lot of talk of this being the new normal. I found myself doing it too. The problem is that until we stop emitting CO2 above pre-industrial levels, there is no new normal. Instead, it will be an ever-changing normal. And it will be changing for the worse.

Right now, were dealing with the effects of a temperature rise of around 1 degree. Some people are freaking out and others are saying, Its fine, we can deal with this. But this isnt it. The climate hasnt changed, it has just started changing. And it will keep changing unless we act.

So when we talk about effects, were talking about changes that have already happened, but also ones that are yet to come. And when it comes to effects, theres a big difference between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees of global warming, and a hell of a lot of difference with 4 degrees of global warming.

Were standing in a river thats slowly rising. The water is up to our waists and were calling it the new normal. But until we bother to plug the hole in the levee, the water will keep rising till were neck-deep.

The extent of the effects that we are going to experience is dependent on how quickly we respond. The IPCC has said that to even keep temperatures under a 1.5-degree increase, we have to be carbon neutral around the world by 2050. This requires drastic action.

There can be an obsession with the debate about how much Australia contributes to climate change (more on that later). But theres another way that Australians should also look at this issue. To what extent are we going to suffer the effects of climate change?

In Australia, were facing droughts that will be far more common and longer lasting than they already are. Were facing many more days of extreme temperatures above 40 degrees. Were facing longer and more intense fire seasons. While the number of cyclones may fall, were facing more extreme weather events. Were facing farming areas that have been prosperous for generations no longer being viable. Were facing rising sea levels and tidal inundation. And we are facing the end of our reef.

Droughts are not new to Australia. If they were we would lock them up on a Pacific Island. They are familiar, which is why it is harder to feel their increasing threat. The farmer that remembers a similar drought back in the 1930s isnt wrong, but similar isnt the same when it comes to duration or intensity. Climate is not the sole factor at play but it is a multiplier. The Bureau of Meteorology is clear that droughts are becoming more severe and will continue to do so: The drying in recent decades across southern Australia is the most sustained large-scale change in rainfall since national records began in 1900.