News
Australia’s National Adaptation Plan: Navigating Climate Change Challenges and Building Resilience
(CTN News) – In Australia, most discussions on climate action revolve around emissions reduction. However, cutting emissions is only one aspect of the climate story; Australia must also plan how to adapt to the effects of climate change. Nations’ resilience to climate change is determined by adapting to increasing sea levels, preparing for heatwaves, and managing shifting rainfall patterns.
The floods that devastated north Queensland in December 2023 and northern New South Wales (NSW) in 2022, as well as 2020’s Black Summer bushfires, demonstrate that Australia must step up its conversation about how it intends to adapt to the effects of climate change.
However, in Australia, where climate change has been a long-standing political issue, legislative progress on climate adaptation has been gradual.
As the Australian government prepares to release its Issues Paper for its first National Adaptation Plan in the coming months, it’s a good moment to consider why the country has lagged on climate adaptation legislation — and what’s required to make its plan successful.
National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) are a valuable tool for determining climate adaptation priorities at the country level. They were created to speed up adaptation planning at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP16 in 2010. Since then, around 70 countries have developed one.
While the most developed countries (including Finland, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand) and approximately 40 developing countries (including Chad, Fiji, and Sudan) have produced plans, Australia has made slow progress on climate adaptation.
Under the Morrison Coalition government in 2021, Australia submitted a National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy to the UNFCCC. However, it was never legislated and consisted primarily of existing projects.
The Albanese Labour government pledged a large commitment to climate change adaptation in its 2023-2024 budget, particularly emphasising completing a National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan.
That strategy is already in the works: the government plans to present an Issues Paper in early 2024, following consultations in 2023. This will support broad public consultation throughout 2024, with the NAP expected to be completed in time for the COP29 summit in Baku in November 2024.
Australia has lagged in climate adaptation because climate change and research have long been political footballs.
The country got off to a promising start with the 2007 National Climate Change Adaptation Framework approved by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), followed by large investments in the National Climate Change Research Facility. However, with a change of government, climate change became a marginalised subject for many years.
When then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison unveiled his 2021 climate adaptation strategy, he was chastised for hiring multinational consulting firm McKinsey, which has advised 43 of the top 100 corporate polluters, to do the modelling rather than Australia’s national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
Climate adaptation has not been prioritised due to other policy concerns. However, Australia’s poor progress towards building a NAP is partly based on the misconceptions that focusing on adaptation diminishes ambition to cut emissions and that adaptation is primarily a local issue that should be addressed at the local government level.
These are both incorrect. Adaptation and mitigation are both critical climate measures, and all levels of government have a role in adaptation.
These assumptions are currently changing. There are numerous chances for diverse stakeholders to take the lead in climate adaptation. Many state and municipal governments have already produced climate adaptation plans and strategies, indicating a growing awareness that urgent climate adaptation is required.
Critics of the NAP dispute if the Albanese government’s multimillion-dollar expenditure is worthwhile. However, there are various ways in which a true national strategy, rather than just local and state policies, may help Australia.
Without an adaptation strategy, a country would struggle to grasp its risks, priorities, and progress.
Making judgements and national policy without a complete NAP is likely to ignore the effects of climate change, skewing planning budgets by failing to include expenditures for damages.
For example, Australia can commit to long-term infrastructure improvements that appear economically reasonable, but if the effects of climate change on that infrastructure are ignored, the plan will result in increased vulnerability.
Building new roads in a changing environment, for example, means that building materials may need to endure increasing heat in the future, necessitating a different assessment of current and future costs.
Australia’s adaptation strategy has the potential to shed insight into how climate impacts might exacerbate inequality and unfairness across the country due to the uneven distribution of susceptibility.
Without a NAP, policies may present a misleading picture of the causes of inequality and the potential for current policies to address it.
Any growth in inequality can have serious ramifications for people’s security and, possibly, political stability. NAPs are crucial for measuring climate change adaptation progress, especially tracking how climate adaptation impacts the most vulnerable and marginalised communities.
NAPs frequently highlight critical challenges for researchers and industry, indicating where additional study is required to enable evidence-based decisions and the spectrum of the most promising and scalable adaptation solutions and projects that could accelerate adaptation progress and implementation.
Having an NAP does not guarantee progress in climate adaptation. Key questions for Australia include how the plan will be executed and funded and how priorities will be established and scaled to achieve the greatest reductions in vulnerability.
To properly answer these concerns, there must be a strong emphasis on creativity and a varied range of expertise and experience.
Many countries have made climate adaptation a legal requirement to ensure efforts do not stall due to political changes.
The United Kingdom, for example, has a Climate Change Act (2008), which established the Climate Change Committee and the National Adaptation Programme, as well as regulatory reporting methods and timelines.
This strategy recognises that climate adaptation is more than a “nice to have” when a government feels like it; it is a need with long-term policy support. Australia may surely consider this technique.
Moving forward, adaptation to the effects of climate change must be considered in all areas.
Australia’s agriculture sector may need to plan for food insecurity, which could entail modifying or diversifying crops to promote more water-efficient farming.
The energy sector has a long way to go towards climate adaptation. While there are benefits and chances to capitalise on, for example, Australia is the world’s largest supplier of lithium, which is used in batteries; nevertheless, the country is also a major emitter and provider of fossil fuel resources.
It is not just the world’s greatest net exporter of coal but also the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Direct mapping of Australia’s emissions and their impact on vulnerability reinforces the need for energy sector change.
There are fears concerning Australia’s distinctive biodiversity. The Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest coral reef, is threatened, and Australia is the only developed country designated as a deforestation hotspot.
Urban planning and emergency management must both adapt. Change is required, from early warning systems to refraining from building in places prone to bushfires or flooding.
Australia must also consider how the changing nature of disasters and long-term trends, such as droughts, put its population in greater danger. These conversations are crucial for towns with firsthand experience with extreme weather occurrences, such as Lismore. Climate resilience consequently entails planning for the future in a way that enables communities in at-risk areas to be safe and healthy.
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.
Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years agoLet’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment1 year ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years agoHow Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years agoTop Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years agoAries Soulmate Signs
-
Health2 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?