As smoke closes in on the SCG, one can only hope it will kickstart cricket and Australia’s other sports into doing something about the climate emergency we’re faced with.
Today’s second day of the third Test against New Zealand is facing the very real chance of being severely impacted by climate change. Cricket Australia CEO Kevin Roberts has been blunt about the governing body’s approach to what is expected to be badly deteriorating air quality as horrendous bushfires flare up in the south-east of the country.
“We won’t be putting the players’ health at risk, nor will we be putting the health of match officials, fans at the match or our own employees at risk… If we have smoke delays that even go collectively for as long as a day then we can still fit in the amount of overs over the course of the match,” Roberts said.
“We need to be treating this like rain delays, but smoke delays.”
This summer has already seen a Big Bash match abandoned due to smoke and a Sheffield Shield game completed in conditions so poor they prompted quotes of “toxic”, “hard to breathe”, “(like) smoking 80 cigarettes a day”, and “significantly altered visibility” from three former Test players involved in the fixture.
(AAP Image/Craig Golding)
The cause, of course, are the devastating bushfires tearing through New South Wales, the severity and scale of which have been horribly exacerbated by the changing climate.
So it’d make some serious sense for Cricket Australia to be doing something about that issue. A commitment to zero net carbon emissions, for example. Perhaps applying some pressure on federal and state governments to get their act together.
Simply having a document titled “Climate Policy” under their list of rules and regulations.
They have a heat policy – having been cricket’s first major governing body to implement one in 2018 – and a player safety policy and a set of state clothing and equipment regulation. But no climate policy.
Not that they’re alone on that front. Cricket’s an easy and obvious focal point in this discussion, being the sport in Australia most impacted by climate disasters. But it’s not the only one. All codes will be exposed to hotter playing conditions, particularly those played over summer: tennis, the A-League, Super Rugby even has a January start date this year.
The AFL and NRL, too, will have to cope with extreme weather at both ends of the spectrum. Heat in the early-autumn months. Cold in the middle of the year – remember that AFL game played in sleet and snow last season?
But, like Cricket Australia, none of the AFL, NRL, FFA, Rugby Australia or Tennis Australia have a climate policy.
(AAP Image/Lukas Coch)
To their credit, TA have committed to the United Nations’ Sports for Climate Action framework – one of few Australian bodies to have done so. Of the 93 signatories, which include some of world sport’s big-hitters like the IOC, NBA, FIFA and World Rugby, six are Australian: Bowls Australia, the Australia SGP team, Melbourne Cricket Club, Richmond Tigers, TA and Youlden Parkville Cricket Club.
It seems Cricket Australia, too, are taking steps in the right direction. A CA spokesperson was recently quoted in the Guardian as saying the organisation was beginning to work on a “strategy for sustainability”.
That they’re in the early stages of such a policy strongly suggests it’s only been brought about by the unprecedented situation this summer. Which, while not ideal, is certainly preferable to lodging their heads firmly in the sand, doing nothing as the climate and conditions for cricket deteriorate.
CA have been relatively progressive in bringing about a number of admirable changes in recent years, better pay for their female athletes and maternity leave among them. If they take a similar lead on this front, there’s hope they’d spur some of this nation’s other sporting bodies into similar action.
That would be a welcome change to the current overarching picture, which is still largely one of inaction. I’m sure it’s just a massive coincidence that mirrors what we see from our nation’s supposed leaders.
Hey CA, don’t be like this guy when it comes to acting on climate change. (Image: Twitter)
There’ll be some who have a nerve touched by comments like that. The old ‘don’t mix sport and politics’ crowd.
You’ve seen the lines. “I thought this was a sports website, not a political one.” “They’re athletes, not politicians”. “Stick to sports”.
Because apparently sports and politics are completely separate entities that only merge when an athlete or sporting organisation makes a social statement deemed to be controversial by someone.
The reality is, of course, that multiple codes play a fixture that bears the title of our highest-ranking politician, and that the major sports have seasons punctuated by societally themed rounds or matches: Women in League round, Sir Doug Nicholls Indigenous round, Anzac Day clashes. Few complain about them.
And then there’s the inherent issue with climate change being framed as an ideological political debate rather than an issue debated solely using these awesome things called facts.
The fact is ignorance and inaction on the climate disaster is imperilling the sports Australians love to watch and play. And the sport most watched by Australians at this time of year is being used – or at least trying to be used – by our Prime Minister as a distraction from the inferno that has claimed lives and properties and caused the kind of scenes you’d usually reserve for times of war, not summertime in Australia.
So they are connected. We can have this conversation in a sporting context as well as a political one. We must, just as Australia’s sporting bodies must start properly acting on it.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Contradictory, peko? No, contradictory is when the same person tries to argue two or more sides of an argument. Interestingly, within the man made climate change industry, when more than 2 people agree after expressing their opinion with varying degrees, that is deemed consensus; no more debate, must act now. You also seem to consider my view of the majority of voters rejecting Labor for their anti coal stance as contradictory to EIE's opinion that a tiny amount of scientists are anti climate change. Read that last sentence a coupla times peko, then explain how a contradiction is evident! Are all Australian voters scientists? You got a reaction I suppose, although your post wasn't worthy of it.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Thanks Jeff, the most informative conversation I've had in weeks. Congratulations on your company, I and many other Aussies admire your investment in future proofing our water as much as possible and wish you all the best producing tangible results for adapting technology to this continent's harsh climate.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Re underground storage, yes. However our storage mechanism is natural, in that we have up to 4 huge groundwater aquifers which underly the Swan Coastal Plain on which Perth and the south west sits. It’s all limestone and layered, which is perfect for groundwater “basins”. Both public and private sector are now beginning to harvest stormwater, drainage and treating sewerage/wastewater to a high standard for reinjection into the aquifer - aka managed aquifer recharge. I run a private water utility company that is delivering recycled sewerage to new communities, with recharge being central to the approach. The traditional approach had been to treat sewerage to a low standard then pump it into the ocean. It was a waste of a resource, especially when seawater is then drawn back out of the ocean and turned into drinking water standard via costly desal, only to then irrigate parks and flush toilets etc. All urban development generates more than sufficient sewerage to meet urban non drinking water purposes, so we don’t actually have a water shortage issue if all existing resources are harnessed, which we are now doing, though still a long way to go to make it happen across the board. Perth’s rainfall pattern is consistent in that it’s almost completely dry half the year and then wet in winter months with not a lot of variation year to year, though the long term trend over a number of decades has been less rainfall in winter. So we don’t get the drought/flood cycle in SW WA that is characteristic of the east coast. Not to say we don’t get drought conditions in the wheatbelt as it’s marginal agriculture at best for most area, so a series of marginally drier winters can have a big impact. It’s often the late arrival of the first winter rains that causes issues re crop yields.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
Cheers Insulty...
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
If my reading is correct, The Snowy Hydro 2.0 is incorporating underground storage as part of it's next stage of renewable energy. I understand that there are differences in annual rainfall and even the extent of inevitable floods which always follow droughts, but has WA investigated underground storage and or piping filtered flood excess into the aquifer? Victorians never received an answer when they questioned why billions of litres of flood water damaged Gippsland 2-3 times around 2012 - 2016. Especially when increased water storage would've been more productive and cheaper than the 4.2bn desalination plant which fell into disrepair because it had never been needed, despite tax payers paying 132m per year for the privilege. Australia's planning is poor and knee jerk political reactions costly, because they continue to believe that a sound infrastructure policy is a voting buzzkill. Ridiculous when this time in history is all about solid solutions whether you believe in mmcc or not, we aren't future proofing food and water off the back of a quarter century recession free wealth.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Now you're just being childish, you know full well how predictive can change verifiable to veritable. Meanwhile you're using ?!? and lol, I'll let you have the last 'word', you can send an emoticon to fully encapsulate the depth of your argument and we'll say you won the debate.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
No more dams around Perthor south west it still rains, but has dropped steadily by 20% since mid 70s. But actual inflow to existing dams ends up being much less than the 20% reduction - the first part of the winter rainfall goes into wetting the soil, thereafter (once soil absorption is at maximum) the rest then actually flows into dams via surface water. So actual dam inflow has dropped somewhere between 40 and 50% in the last 40 years. Dams now account for just 20% of Perth drinking supply, down from about 80% 40 years ago (the other 20% came from groundwater, but the lower rainfall has meant these aquifers aren’t recharging the same, plus there has been an increase in groundwater demand from industry, ag and urban open space via bores). And the cost of a new dam in constrained areas would be not much less than desal to provide equivalent supply, with desal at least being climate independent.
MaxP
Roar Rookie
None that I use. Name calling reflects poorly on everyone and distracts from real debate
concerned supporter
Roar Rookie
I_I, You are spot-on, '' Alarmists have hijacked the term because their PR departments couldn’t explain extreme cold in their original global warming scare campaign. ''
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
And the pejoratives; denier, flat earther, shill for fossil fuel?
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Geoff Lemon? What branch of climate science is he from? Reducing rubbish and the plastic island that Boylan Slat is admirably attacking, isn't the fight against co2. Ah, the media, quoting each other with inferences of expertise on a topic!
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Any more dams on the books? They're cheaper and despite current hysteria, it will rain again.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Obvious really, you have an agenda, I'm expressing concern. Sorry to have put you on the spot.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
That's hilarious, flat earther? Questioning of the flat earth 'scientific' view actually lead to more reason, yet mmcc proponents say stop debating, act. I actually think the real guts of your anger is "Unfortunately far too may of your persuasion hold the more progressive of us to ransom..." Elitists don't like democracy as it is an affront to they innate belief that they are always the smartest in the conversation. That's why we saw tantrums after the election from trashmedia talking heads.
Nick
Roar Guru
Yeah - you still don't argue science. Science is right. Constantly. It's just a matter of doing the maths right. Science is 'wrong' when the maths is proven to be wrong. It's not an argument. It's just the presentation of better maths. Your mob are saying something is wrong, without presenting the maths. that's not science, that's not even an argument. You've no proof that the maths for climate change is wrong. None.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Wow, there it is, you don't argue science? So the first scientists to develop a theorem are never to be questioned? Why do they have to submit to peer review for legitimacy, then? You have to blindly accept that their mathematical basis is correct? But if that's the case why is there now a hysteria about man made climate change? Surely the accepted science was that it had negligible impact? Someone questioned that to get to this point, didn't they? So then, why isn't that allowed to be questioned? That's the guts of the argument for people asking, where's your science? This alarmist cone of silence where "the debate is over, we have to act", flies in the face of all logic. Proponents have convinced world leaders to invest 400bn into the 'fight', but still has to come with rigorous questioning. How are you fighting, how do we measure results WHEN do we know the fight based on the science you say is necessary is certifiably working. Does it need tweaking, is it going down the completely wrong path, is the actual science correct, but not applied correctly? Ridiculous, every advancement in history has come from questioning, otherwise we'd be sitting in a room nodding sagely at your pronouncements that the earth is flat and that dunking women determines if they're witches.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
"a veritable source " LOL - and yet you want us to take you seriously?!?
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
She doesn't believe that. #fakenews
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Saying she's not credible is ridiculous as she's not claiming the research as her own. Nova is a credible source who publishes the names of scientific researchers, their studies, their aims and who commissioned them. She is making scientific research available to the people who wish to hear as many sides of the issue as they can, to make considered judgements. Any mature adult knows there's at least 2 sides to every issue and she is giving public access to the hard working scientists who have alternate, verified views on issues. There's no need to be afraid of her, just read the science she is giving access to and counter that with credible counterpoint and your argument is made. Again, saying she's not credible is ridiculous as she's not claiming the research as her own.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
You are attributing droughts and fires in Australia to climate change, I'm explaining to you what actual climate scientists attribute them to. One of those factors is the IOD which warms Indian Ocean waters and then has a warming effect on the continent creating conditions conducive to drought. That is natural climate change. You're so caught up in the consensus cult that you've ignored the fact that NATURAL climate change occurs and Alarmists have hijacked the term, because their PR departments couldn't explain extreme cold in their original global warming scare campaign. So again, Ben no, if this natural climate factor has lessened it's effect on the continent, what is that the 'more action on getting carbon emissions to zero' brigade has made to change that? Simple question, worth answering surely if we are making inroads to save the world by 2030, especially as Australia is meeting every target set out by the Paris talkfest, that surely is a feather in the cap of the process worth screaming from the rooftops!