We knew it was coming, but that hasn't made it any easier to swallow. Today, President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, just as he had promised during the election campaign.
In effect, the world's biggest superpower is walking away from a landmark global agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions and minimise the harm from climate change. Most experts agree: Pretty much everybody loses.
"In order to fulfil my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord," Trump said from the White House. "We're getting out."
Here's what some of the world's leading academics and scientists have to say on this landmark decision. Needless to say, it's bad news for the planet, the world’s poor and even US businesses.
A race to the bottom to destroy the planet
Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
"The whole of the Paris agreement is based upon goodwill: There are no punitive actions or means to enforce the agreement. The goodwill also includes the Green Climate Fund for transferring money from rich countries to developing countries for building resilience, mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change. The U.S. has pledged $3 billion and has delivered $1 billion but seems unlikely to add to that. That alone undermines a lot of the good will. And it will be a major sore point in all small island states and developing countries, who have not caused the problem of global warming.
"The U.S. leadership was essential in Paris. If the U.S. does not lead by example – and we have a moral and ethical responsibility to do so as the country that has contributed more than any other to accumulated greenhouse gas emissions so far – then why should anyone else go along? Unless there is a universal carbon tax, fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest form of energy. That’s not true, of course, because of all the downstream effects on air quality and climate change.
"So now what we are likely to face is either some form of trade wars in which heavy tariffs are used against the U.S. and other renegades, or the whole thing collapses and we all spiral into a race to the bottom, to see who can exploit and thus destroy the planet first.
"The U.S. can not opt out without major other consequences, including those to the planet. Without the U.S. and Paris, we crash through the critical 2 degree C threshold before 2060 – the point at which climate scientists like me consider the most dangerous effects from climate change will become strongly evident – perhaps a decade earlier owing to U.S. pullout. And this means increasing trouble with ecosystems being out of whack with the climate, trouble farming current crops, and increasing shortages of food and water.
"But if Paris is fully implemented and feeds back on itself to a new energy economy, we can delay 2 deg C by 40 years, maybe. I believe that we will go through 2 C by 2100 regardless. But with more time, we can adapt so much better. It will be bad enough under the best scenarios, but this could be bringing doomsday forward by 50 years (or more)."
Pulling out of Paris will harm the poor
Anthony Janetos, Director, Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future and Professor of Earth and Environment, Boston University
The NBN is a painful political boil on the government's arse. After the promise of fast 100Mbps connections was squashed by the Abbott/Turnbull government, in favour of a program that said 25Mbps qualified as broadband, there have been all sorts of delays and issues with the service.
A recent survey, albeit with a small sample size, quantified some of that pain, with many NBN customers saying they'd prefer to go back to their old ADSL connections. You know things are bad when ADSL looks like a better option. So, what can you do about it if you're on the NBN but it sucks?
The government's My Health Record (MHR) system promises to bring together a bunch of different healthcare data so that a trip to the hospital or doctor won't require lots of information being recorded over and over again.
It should reduce some costs as healthcare providers can access pathology and other analyses without repeating tests and will simplify how we deal with some agencies. But it's also being implemented in a pretty ham-fisted way, with everyone's consent assumed unless they opt out. I've been looking at the system. Here's what I'll be doing.