Environmental Policy

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Too often it takes a crisis to trigger changes in legislation and behaviour, when forward thinking, cooperation and future planning could have negated the risk in the first place. Australia’s building and construction industry is under the microscope and changes in the law are in the wind, due to situations that could have been avoided. These include the evacuation of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/22/sydney-opal-tower-report-finds-multiple-design-and-construction-faults" target="_blank">Sydney’s Opal building</a> and the fires in Melbourne’s <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-28/lacrosse-apartment-owners-win-5.7-million-cladding-fire-damages/10857060" target="_blank">Lacrosse tower</a> in 2014 and the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/04/apartment-fire-in-melbournes-spencer-street-prompts-new-fears-over-cladding" target="_blank">Neo200</a> apartment building in February, both of which were <a href="https://theconversation.com/cladding-fire-risks-have-been-known-for-years-lives-depend-on-acting-now-with-no-more-delays-111186" target="_blank">fuelled by combustable cladding</a>, as was the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/04/expert-lists-litany-of-serious-safety-breaches-at-grenfell-tower" target="_blank">2017 fire in London’s Grenfell Tower</a> that killed 72 people.
The <a href="https://aibs.com.au/Public/News/2018/ShergoldWeir.aspx" target="_blank">Shergold Weir report</a> made 24 recommendations to improve the National Construction Code to ensure compliance, integrity and more. Commissioned by federal and state building ministers, the report was made public at the Australian Building Ministers Forum in April 2018. But implementation has been too slow to prevent the problems in the Opal and Neo200 apartment buildings. And it included no changes to climate-proof buildings.
A new National Construction Code comes into effect on May 1. Recent events have, however, exposed inadequate construction standards and increased public pressure for further change. This presents an opportunity to future-proof our cities as well as restore public confidence in our construction industry.
Construction codes were created to eliminate “worse practice”, but we are now in a position to make them “best practice”. Importantly, we must prepare for climate change. Australia is increasingly <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-climate-2018-bureau-of-meteorology-and-csiro-109001" target="_blank">experiencing more extreme weather patterns</a>, but are we ready?
The legislative overhaul must also include building sustainability and higher performance requirements. A low-to-zero-carbon future must be part of the picture.
Construction code changes are needed urgently, not just for increased safety, but to ensure future urban developments:
<ul>
<li>are ready for higher energy demands to cool and heat buildings</li>
<li>are designed to maximise sun and shade at the appropriate times to cool and warm both building and street</li>
<li>use materials that reflect heat for hot climates and absorb it for cooler ones</li>
<li>maximise insulation to reduce energy use</li>
<li>provide enough green space to give shade, produce oxygen and sustain a healthy environment</li>
<li>use water features to cool common and public areas</li>
<li>install smart technology to monitor and manage buildings and precincts.</li>
</ul>
Many leading developers are taking the initiative to ensure projects include high-performance, zero-carbon, highly energy-efficient buildings, with top star ratings, but action needs to be across the board. This can only be done via tough legislation and enforced compliance.
The <a href="https://www.estate.unsw.edu.au/tyree-energy-technologies-building-sustainable-energy-research" target="_blank">University of NSW’s Tyree Building</a> is an excellent example of a high-performance building, as is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/nov/11/sydneys-one-central-park-wins-international-best-tall-building-award" target="_blank">One Central Park, Sydney</a>, which features hanging gardens and an internal water recycling plant. But its most striking feature is its “heliostat”, a large array of mirrors that reflect sunlight to areas that would otherwise be in shadow.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2jN8-rMbQDM?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Around the world, high-performance buildings are on the increase, such as <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/singapore_takes_the_lead_in_green_building_in_asia" target="_blank">313@Somerset</a> in the heart of Singapore, and the <a href="http://nirman.com/blog/2016/08/31/cii-sohrabji-godrej-green-business-center-hyderabad-a-guiding-light/" target="_blank">Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre</a> in Hyderabad – India’s first <a href="http://leed.usgbc.org/leed" target="_blank">Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)</a> platinum-rated building. There are many more.
Changing the law
New building standards and compliance are required to ensure high-performance buildings are the norm, not the exception. The construction industry should fulfil a “cradle to cradle” objective for materials. This means accounting for:
<ul>
<li>where materials come from</li>
<li>how materials are made</li>
<li>safety levels</li>
<li>carbon component</li>
<li>recyclability at demolition.</li>
</ul>
Laws covering low-carbon building design are imperative, setting standards for geography, maximising natural light, air flow, insulation and smart technology. Technology can monitor and run a building’s utilities to ensure it’s not only energy-efficient but also delivers a health standard that’s adaptable to the future pressures of climate change.
Sustainable buildings are achievable now
Current know-how makes all this achievable. Over the past seven years the <a href="http://www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/" target="_blank">Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living</a> and its industry partners have funded research into most low-to-zero-carbon aspects of the built environment. This has led to many recommendations in reports like <a href="https://www.asbec.asn.au/research-items/built-perform/" target="_blank">Built to Perform</a>, produced by the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council.
The many research projects include:
<ul>
<li>17 living laboratories providing cutting-edge data</li>
<li>creating low-carbon communities</li>
<li>developing tools to measure carbon outputs, from materials to services</li>
<li>studying the effects of heatwaves in Western Sydney and ways to cool cities</li>
<li>research into low-carbon concrete made of fly ash.</li>
</ul>
This plethora of data reveals that sustainable cities and precincts are achievable, while providing for a growing communities. <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-blockchain-can-democratize-green-power-87861" target="_blank">Blockchain and solar technology</a>, for example, is now proven for managing a precinct’s energy needs and can help turn energy users into providers.
Although we are more global than ever, online and social media have in turn made us locally focused. We can know what’s going on in our street at a click and this technology is applicable to the operation of our future, sustainable cities.
We have the data, expertise, tools and knowledge to make safe, low-to-zero-carbon cities part of our future. But there’s much work to do. We still need to implement this knowledge, use the tools, change behaviour and instil 100% trust in the design and construction process. There’s no time to waste.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113365/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Deo Prasad, Scientia Professor and CEO, Co-operative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living, UNSW
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-forget-our-future-climate-when-tightening-up-building-codes-113365" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Photo: John Gollings (Aerial images of One Central Park)
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Don’t forget our future climate when tightening up building codes

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
<div>Setting stronger energy standards in the National Construction Code for new buildings would, between now and 2050, reduce energy bills by up to $27 billion, lower energy network costs by up to $7 billion and deliver 78 million tonnes of cumulative emissions savings, according to a new report released today.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>'Built to Perform, an industry led pathway to Zero Carbon Ready building code', created by the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) and ClimateWorks Australia, outlines a series of forward pathways for Code energy requirements that cover a range of building types and climates across Australia.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It presents the final results of the Building Code Energy Performance Trajectory Project aimed at supporting the adoption of medium term targets and trajectories for mandated minimum energy requirements in the Code.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We, the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) welcomed the new report, it highlights the need for Government to unlock the full potential of the Code and target the cost-effective opportunities found in the buildings sector to improve Australia’s energy efficiency and affordability.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Better buildings, built to perform in a zero carbon future, are one of the easiest and cheapest ways to reduce Australia’s emissions, save money and create comfortable homes and workplaces.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This report shows that the triple-bottom-line dividend from plotting a zero net carbon path in the Code early is enormous.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>By 2050 Australia will need to be at or near zero net emissions and that means the Code must ensure that buildings under construction today are being built to meet the energy performance required in the future.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A clear trajectory for the Code would also give industry the certainty to innovate and invest in high performing buildings at lower cost.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We welcome the report’s recommendation for well designed and implemented targets along with a clear, transparent process for upgrading Code energy requirements.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The world-leading practices being implemented by a growing number of Australian companies need to extend further across industry.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Code is a vital tool for lifting the bar across the board and our communities are the ones who will benefit, from reduced out-of-pocket energy costs and a healthier, lower-emissions built environment. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, the Code can only take us part of the way to net zero. Code improvements must go hand in hand with other measures to deliver a zero carbon buildings sector by 2050.</div>
<div> </div>
<div align="justify">Through our <a id="LPlnk805788" href="https://gbca-web.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/carbon-positive-roadmap-discussion-paper-fa.pdf" target="_blank">Carbon Positive Roadmap for the built environment project</a>, the Green Building Council of Australia is also proposing a pathway for the building industry to decarbonise by raising the benchmark for sustainable design, construction and building operation in Australia.</div>
The Carbon Positive Roadmap presents many complementary measures which, along with a strengthened National Construction Code, will help lead the delivery of a more sustainable built environment and meet our international emissions commitments.
Romilly Madew is Chief Executive of Green Building Council of Australia.
</body></html>

RomillyMadew-zVLXsYSc74

New pathway to a zero carbon ready building code': Romilly Madew

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The Australian Bureau of Statistics released the Australian Environmental-Economic Accounts on June 15. It’s a fine achievement, which shows, among other things, growing efficiency in water and energy use. That’s good for both the economy and the environment. Less good is that waste generation is increasing, broadly in line with GDP growth, as shown below.
<iframe style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/XFoTx/2/" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
Equally notable, though, is the reaction to the environmental accounts compared to the response to the traditional national accounts, which give us the indicator GDP.
These national accounts are released to much market speculation and commentary. For example, reports of an expectation of a rising GDP preceded the release of the latest national accounts on June 6. Straight afterwards there was commentary by Treasurer Scott Morrison and many media commentators.
Four reasons we neglect environmental accounts
So why no reaction to the environmental accounts? There are at least four reasons for this.
Firstly, few people in government or business are aware of the environmental accounts. While this was the fifth time the ABS has released the environmental accounts, and individual accounts for water and energy have a longer history, they remain little known.
The second reason is that it is not clear to government or business how the accounts should be interpreted. The ABS commentary is baldly descriptive:
"More recently, between 2014-15 and 2015-16, the economy grew by 3%. At the same time, the population increased 2%; greenhouse gas emissions were up just under 1%; and Australian energy consumption increased less than 1%. Water consumption decreased 7% between these years. If the economy is growing at a faster rate than the consumption of our resources (or generation of waste and emissions), it is an indication that we are using our resources more efficiently, as measured by the Gross Value Added (GVA) of economic production per unit of resource use (or waste generated)."
This is all true, but what does the information mean for the management of the economy and the environment? Of course, it is good that efficiency in resource use is improving. But we also need to understand what the limits are so that we can answer the key question: how much can we extract without risking the performance of the economy or the functioning of the environment?
For this we need other information. For example, to determine how much water we can use without damaging the environment we need information on the amount of water and the condition of ecosystems that depend on water in different places and times. With this information managers could compare the environment stress against the economic benefits or risks. All this can be done in an accounting framework, but is yet to occur.
It is also interesting that the ABS commentary neglects to mention waste. The amount of waste we produce is growing at about the same rate as GDP. Full waste accounts would improve our understanding of the reasons for this and the options for policy intervention. Sadly, while full waste accounts were prepared for 2010-11, they have not continued.
This gets to the third reason – the environmental accounts cover only part of the picture. A summary of the greenhouse gas accounts produced by the Department of Environment and Energy is included. The water accounts from the Bureau of Meteorology are not. The environmental accounts also do not cover air pollution, biodiversity, spending on environmental protection, and more.
The partial picture means the interactions between the different parts of the environmental and the economy cannot be fully understood or explored. A key feature of the national accounts is that these are comprehensive. All industries and sectors of the economy are covered, with data on income, expenditure and assets.
The fourth reason is no one is quite sure how to use the environmental accounts. The greenhouse gas accounts fulfil an international reporting obligation and the water accounts come under the Water Act 2007. But the ABS environmental accounts are not specifically linked to any government process, although they have been used in modelling and economic analysis.
In contrast, the national accounts are used, for example, by the Department of Finance for forecasting revenue, by Treasury for preparing the budget and economic policy, and by the Reserve Bank of Australia when setting interest rates.
Such use is partly due to the length of time that the national accounts have been produced. The first Australian national accounts were published in 1963. A measure of national income was produced in 1938.
The interest in the national accounts is also due to the understanding by business and the public that the health of the economy is directly linked to their own interests – i.e. profits for business and employment and income for people.
It’s also widely recognised that national accounts, and GDP in particular, are a good indicator of economic health. There is no similar indicator for the environment.
What can be done about this?
At present there is little understanding of how the environment contributes to the economy. Government agencies do not have regular information to assess the health of the environment, the adequacy of policies to stop environmental decline, or the economic impacts of environmental degradation.
To fill this information gap, interest in environmental accounting is growing. The recently released National Strategy for Environmental-Economic Accounting is a product of this.
How the strategy is implemented, however, will depend heavily on resourcing. This resourcing will need to consider not just the technical aspects of the accounts and related data sources but also the more challenging issue of how information from the accounts can be used in policy. Natural Capital Accounting for the Sustainable Development Goals recently summarised emerging examples from around the world.
One promising example is the United Kingdom’s Natural Capital Committee, an independent body that advises the government. The committee made recommendations on the development of the UK’s 25-Year Environment Plan. These included recommendations on the type and level of investments needed to achieve the goals of the plan and on the use of pilot demonstration projects.
Australia could establish a similar body to help develop a comprehensive set of environment accounts that meet policy needs. This would put us on the path to better policy, planning and management of both the economy and environment.
We would also get greater public discussion of the environmental accounts. Over time this might even rival the interest in the national accounts and GDP.
Michael Vardon, Associate Professor at the Fenner School, Australian National University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/you-probably-missed-the-latest-national-environmental-economic-accounts-but-why-98620" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

You probably missed the latest national environmental-economic accounts – but why?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
If not for the public’s generosity, the iconic Statue of Liberty might not have the solid and impressive footing she does today. In the late 1800s, government funds for the monument were exhausted. Yet through a fundraising campaign, the New York World newspaper garnered support from over 160,000 residents to cover the pedestal costs.
Just as large monuments need solid bases to ensure their long-term existence, so too does the environment. In the case of nature conservation, it requires money to support diverse research projects, on-ground activities, and outreach aimed at protecting and managing species and habitats.
While the health of the environment continues to decline globally, in most regions government funding falls short of what is required to stem the losses. Crowdfunding plays an important and under-appreciated role for biodiversity conservation.
Our new research presents a global analysis of how crowdfunding, still a relatively novel and minor financial mechanism in the conservation community, is contributing to conservation around the world.
Show me the money. What’s being funded and why?
Crowdfunding offers a powerful mechanism for mobilising resources for conservation across borders. We recorded 577 conservation-oriented projects (from 72 crowdfunding platforms), which have raised around US$4.8 million since 2009. The people leading these projects were based in 38 countries, but projects took place across 80 countries.
This pattern has important implications for conservation, because there is often a mismatch between high-priority areas for global conservation and countries with the greatest financial and technical capacity. For instance, we discovered that a third of the projects were delivered in different countries to where their proponents were based. The USA, UK and Australia were the countries with the highest outflow of projects (“project exporters”). Indonesia, South Africa, Costa Rica and Mexico had the highest inflow (“project importers”).
<iframe src="https://greenfirescience.carto.com/builder/c1a70aca-e978-4db7-8e1b-063a590dccf9/embed" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="520"></iframe>Global distribution of crowdfunding for biodiversity conservation: countries where relevant platforms are based, countries where proponents of projects are hosted, and countries where projects are delivered. (Interactive map generated using CARTO)
Crowdfunding could be supporting conservation work of actors that do not have as much capacity for raising funds.
The people leading projects were primarily from non-governmental organisations (35%) or universities (30%), or were freelancers (26%). Importantly, among non-governmental organisations, we discovered organisations operating at sub-national levels proposed a majority of projects.
Additionally, crowdfunding for conservation is not all about research. While most of the projects we reviewed focused on research (40%), many tackled raising awareness of conservation-related issues (31%) or boots-on-the-ground activities (21%). This expands the sphere of anecdotal evidence and commentary about crowdfunding related to conservation, which has so far revolved around research. For the first time, we’ve systematically unpacked how these funds are being used for additional activities to support conservation.
Crowdfunding can also support innovative projects that traditional funding agencies deem too risky or unconventional. For example, one project supported buying and training two Maremma sheepdogs to protect penguins against predatory foxes in southeastern Australia. (That might sound familiar to those who’ve seen the movie Oddball.)
Such opportunities for innovation can have important consequences for conservation worldwide; crowdfunding could be considered an incubator for novel ideas before widespread dissemination.
More than half of the projects we recorded (around 58%) largely focused on species. These included a disproportionate number of threatened bird and mammal species.
Prominent projects to save orange-bellied parrots or Papua New Guinea’s endangered tree kangaroos are important success stories.
This is not to underplay crowdfunding’s importance for ecosystems – whether land-based (20%), marine (9%) or freshwater (4%). Crowfunding is supporting projects ranging from protection of wilderness areas in remote Tasmania to research informing the conservation of the Californian coast.
Crowdfunding benefits extend beyond dollars and cents
The amount of money for conservation via crowdfunding has so far been relatively modest compared to more traditional conservation finance mechanisms. However, the benefits of crowdfunding extend well beyond dollars and cents. Crowdfunding helps communicate environmental issues and empower researchers and communities.
The figure below shows the reach of a single tweet during the Big Roo Count campaign. It shows how conservation-related messages can spread widely and engage communities via social media.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220580/original/file-20180528-80640-1fmpk6j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Example tweet (1777 tweets, 512 users) network during the Big Roo Count crowdfunding campaign. Stuart Palmer
Crowdfunding is an exciting new tool in the conservation toolbox. But, ultimately, traditional funding sources, like government agencies, still have a major role and duty to invest adequately in environmental protection and nature conservation. Considering the current extinction crisis, governments must avoid further outsourcing of such responsibilities.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220560/original/file-20180528-51115-1cctcjc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Examples of conservation projects supported through crowdfunding.
The discussion over novel sources and recipients of conservation funding continues. At the same time, transparency and oversight remain critical for managing expectations and overall effectiveness of funding. Crowdfunding contributes one more building block to democratising conservation funding and increasing transparency.
Eduardo Gallo-Cajiao, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland
Carla Archibald, PhD Candidate, Conservation Science, The University of Queensland
Euan Ritchie, Associate Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life &amp; Environmental Sciences, Deakin University
Rachel Friedman, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland
Richard Fuller, Professor in Biodiversity and Conservation, The University of Queensland
Rochelle Steven, Postdoctoral Researcher, The University of Queensland
Tiffany Morrison, Principal Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/crowdfunded-campaigns-are-conserving-the-earths-environment-97312" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Crowdfunded campaigns are conserving the Earth’s environment

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Australia has national environment laws – the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). Yet given the staggering rates of land clearing taking place, resulting in the extinction and endangerment of plants and animals in Australia, these laws are clearly not working.
About 395,000 hectares of regrowth and old growth vegetation were cleared during 2015-16 in Queensland. Australia is set to clear up to 3 million hectares of native forest by 2030, and more than 1,800 plant and animal species are currently listed as threatened nationally.
When the EPBC Act was first implemented in 1999, the idea was for it to provide reinforced federal environmental protection to areas of national environmental significance. But in reality, many projects that come within the ambit of the Act are not rigorously evaluated for their environmental impact.
Why isn’t the EPBC Act working?
Land clearing was listed in the 2001 and 2006 State of the Environment Reports as one of the greatest threats to biodiversity.
Deforestation and excessive land clearing fundamentally impacts existing biodiversity, damages fragile ecosystems, destroys wildlife habitat, and increases greenhouse gas emissions. In Queensland, where much of the land clearing is taking place, the state law (Vegetation Management Act) is not strong enough to diminish incentives for land clearing. Yet the national environmental laws have not provided greater protection.
There are several reasons for this. While land clearing is indirectly regulated by the EPBC Act due to the significant impact it can have on the environment, land clearing is not directly addressed by the EPBC Act.
As it stands, land clearing will only attract EPBC Act application where it can be established that it impacts a directly protected entity such as a World Heritage area, Ramsar wetland, threatened species, ecological community, or migratory species. If this connection cannot be established, no environmental assessment under the EPBC Act will occur.
Even where projects do attract the application of the EPBC Act, its capacity to advance best practice environmental impact assessment is highly questionable. One of the biggest problems is that the process of assessment is insufficiently robust.
This problem is evident in other environmental issues too. Where a bilateral state and federal assessment is approved, as was the case with the Adani coalmine, the federal department often relies on state counterparts to undertake a thorough environmental assessment. Many of the proposals evaluated by state departments are assessed with reference to the least onerous environmental impact assessment available.
This documentation is generally prepared by the project proponent. Unsurprisingly, as a consequence, many of the projects that are evaluated under the EPBC Act are approved, subject to the imposition of environmental conditions. This means the environmental conditions need to be carefully monitored if environmental protection is to be optimised.
This creates a new set of problems. Where a breach is alleged, it must be proved and appropriate sanctions enforced. In reality, this rarely happens, and the sanctions that are imposed can be woefully inadequate. For example, Adani was fined A$12,000 for breaching an environmental condition relating to the release of coalwater in Abbott Point coal terminal, which flowed into the fragile Caley Valley Wetlands.
The substantive problem with the EPBC Act is that its implementation is subject to departmental discretion and therefore the vagaries of government administration. This is particularly problematic given the political nature of many of these decision-making processes.
Lack of rigorous scrutiny
In circumstances where, for example, there is a need to challenge the approval of a resource title in light of its environmental consequences, the EPBC Act relies heavily on environmental groups or other third parties to scrutinise the federal decision-making process.
For example, the Australian Conservation Foundation took strong action in challenging the issuance of the mining licence for Adani’s proposed Carmichael coal mine. It argued the endangered species and climate change impacts were insufficiently taken into account by the then Environment Minister Greg Hunt in exercising discretion under the EPBC Act.
The case was dismissed because the Federal Court found that this decision was authorised by the discretions included within the EPBC Act. The minister was therefore within his power to decide not to take account of the climate change impacts of such a vast new coalmine. This is concerning given the profound impact that climate change can have upon fragile ecologies in areas of national environmental significance.
These findings indicate a lack of preparedness by the federal minister to accept a causal connection between climate change and domestic coal production, and to focus on narrow jurisdictional boundaries and strict domestic obligations. It also strongly highlights the deficiencies of our national environment act because the existing triggers do not address some of the most important environmental concerns of the modern world.
New environment laws urgently needed
Climate change is almost universally accepted as one the most serious environmental threats. Yet the EPBC Act does not include a climate change trigger (or a land clearing trigger, as discussed above).
This means these key threats to Australia’s environment will not be protected by EPBC Act. They may attract the EPBC Act indirectly, but only if it can be established that they raise a different trigger that is listed under the Act. This calls into question the capacity of our national environment laws to truly protect areas of national environmental significance.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92924/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">In order to reverse unacceptable rates of land clearing, preserve ecosystems and habitats and diminish greenhouse gas emissions, a new framework for our national environment act is urgently needed.
Samantha Hepburn, Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-arent-australias-environment-laws-preventing-widespread-land-clearing-92924" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Why aren't Australia's environment laws preventing widespread land clearing?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Since the pioneering work of architecture professor Roger Ulrich, who found that patients with a view of a natural scene recovered more quickly from surgery, research has shown that exposure to the natural environment is associated with a wide range of health benefits.
We have focused our work on asthma, and our research, published today, shows that children who live in greener neighbourhoods are less likely to develop it.
Not all greenness was equally effective, however. If a child was exposed to a broader range of plants, they were even less likely to get asthma. Exposure to landscapes with low plant diversity, such as gorse and exotic conifers, on the other hand, were a risk factor for asthma. Thus, greenness is good, but more biodiverse greenness is even better.
How nature protects against asthma
One intriguing explanation is provided by the hygiene hypothesis, which proposes that for children’s immune systems to develop properly, they need to be exposed to a broad range of microbes in early life. Without this exposure, children may be more susceptible to immunological diseases, like allergies and asthma.
The hygiene hypothesis explains why children living on farms, where they are exposed to a wide range of animals, are less likely to develop asthma. However, it’s not only farm children who benefit from exposure to animals. Having a pet in the house can also help protect against asthma. Similarly, children with more siblings are less likely to be asthmatic.
Living around a more diverse range of plants may also increase a child’s exposure to microbes. In fact, past studies have shown that people who live in more biodiverse areas have more diverse skin bacteria. Exposure to the natural environment may, therefore, improve our health by increasing the diversity of microbes living on our skin and in our gut.
This, in turn, may promote a healthy immune response and reduce the risk of allergies and asthma. Reduced stress and increased physical activity, associated with living close to green space, may be another reason for the observed protective effects.
Tracking children’s environment
This study used the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), which is a large database of individual-level data maintained by Stats New Zealand. Currently, it contains 166 billion pieces of information on education, benefits, tax, families and households, health, justice and migration.
Using these data, we were able to track where children lived from birth until age 18, calculate the greenness of their neighbourhoods using satellite imagery and land-use data, and link to health records throughout each child’s life. This was all done anonymously, in a secure data lab, to safeguard the children’s privacy.
This study is an unusual collaboration between economists at the US Forest Service and epidemiologists in New Zealand. It contributes to our understanding of why asthma is on the rise.
Our results may lead to some innovative strategies to combat asthma, although there is a need to elucidate the underlying immunological mechanisms.
Improved prevention and treatment options for asthma are urgently needed as the burden of asthma is considerable, with 334 million people affected worldwide. Asthma prevalence in English-speaking countries such as New Zealand, Australia, the US and the UK is particularly high, with approximately one in six people suffering from it.
Good for people, good for the planet
Showing a link between biodiversity and human health may also change how we manage natural resources, especially in cities. Unfortunately, biodiversity is declining around the world due to population growth, climate change and intensive agricultural practices. Our work suggests that this is not just an ecological problem, but may also present a significant threat to public health.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96190/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Other studies have suggested that the exposure to the natural environment also protects against low birth weight, heart disease, mental health disorders and breast cancer, although results have not always been consistent. Therefore, as the diversity of our natural environment and resultant microbial exposure declines, we may see further increases in diseases, such as childhood allergies and asthma.
Jeroen Douwes, Professor of Public Health; Director, Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University
Geoffrey H. Donovan, Economist, United States Forest Service
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/children-living-in-green-neighbourhoods-are-less-likely-to-develop-asthma-96190" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Children living in green neighbourhoods are less likely to develop asthma

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The apparently inevitable rise of the electric car has prompted Australia’s top federal infrastructure advisor to warn of falling revenues from the petrol excise.
In a speech yesterday, Infrastructure Australia chief executive Philip Davies highlighted a need for “planning policy” for an “expected rapid uptake of electric vehicles”.
But the reality is that, unless federal policy changes, Australia is extremely unlikely to increase its very small share of electric vehicles. Far from worrying about alternative taxes, international examples suggest subsidies and incentives are required to shift a country towards low-emissions cars.
The Norwegian example
For a real example of “rapid uptake”, we can look to Norway. More than 50% of consumers chose to buy an electric vehicle in 2017, compared with 40% in 2016.
We know consumers are unwilling to buy electric vehicles if they cost substantially more than conventional vehicles. Norway imposes a high stamp duty on internal combustion vehicles, and exempts battery electric vehicles from both stamp duty and the high 25% Value Added Tax. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles have a lower rate of stamp duty. Such financial incentives are high enough to offset the price differences between electric and combustion vehicles.
But financial incentives alone are not enough. Norway also provides total exemption from road tolls, free car ferry travel, free recharge sites, free parking, and access to bus lanes. In effect, consumers in Norway are better off for choosing a battery electric vehicle.
These incentives were crucial for removing the price barrier and influencing demand, raising Norway’s total of electric vehicles in 2017 to 123,200.
It is projected that by 2030, up to 4 million electric vehicles will be on the road in the Nordic states. Norway and Sweden will account for 80% of the growth by 2030.
If Australia wants to achieve its estimated 230,000 electric vehicles by 2025 (and more than a million by 2030) it’s clear we need additional federal policy measures.
Australians want electric – at the right price
According to Australian surveys, half of consumers are prepared to buy an electric car, but are concerned about price, range, and infrastructure. Although state and territory governments are supporting infrastructure and introducing policies to reduce stamp duty and registration for zero- and low-emitting vehicles, more is needed.
Federal government policy has not addressed the major barrier to sales: the high price sticker of electric vehicles relative to equivalent combustion vehicles, and the long time it takes for petrol savings to “pay back” the price difference.
For example, the hybrid Mitsubishi Outlander, which emits just 41 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre, is listed in the manufacturer price guide at A$55,490. The petrol-fuelled model, which emits 211g of CO₂ per km, costs A$41,000. How many people will pay an extra A$14,490 for a low-emission car, with a nearly identical alternative available?
This is particularly important for low-end battery electric vehicles and PHEV with the longest driving range, as incentives seem to be less important for users of high-end battery electric cars like the Tesla Model S.
Without significant reductions in purchase price – through policy reform of taxes like the luxury car tax, and other incentives – it’s highly unlikely there will actually be a “rapid uptake” of electric vehicles in Australia. Low consumer demand will discourage car manufacturers form increasing the supply of electric or hybrid options in Australia, creating a vicious cycle.
The Australian Institute’s Emission Audit for December 2017, found that over the past two years emissions from road transport fuels has grown at twice the rate of GDP. This is actually offsetting any falling electricity generation emissions.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96104/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">To put it bluntly, if Australia doesn’t get on board the global transition to low-emission vehicles, we risk not meeting our 2015 Paris Agreement commitment to reduce emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030.
Anna Mortimore, Lecturer, Griffith Business School, Griffith University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-will-not-buy-electric-cars-without-better-incentives-96104" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Australians will not buy electric cars without better incentives: Anna Mortimore

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Nothing uses more resources or produces more waste than the buildings we live and work in. Our built environment is responsible for half of all global energy use and half of all greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings consume one-sixth of all freshwater, one-quarter of world wood harvests and four-tenths of all other raw materials. The construction and later demolition of buildings produces 40% of all waste.
The sustainability of our buildings is coming under scrutiny, and “green” rating tools are the key method for measuring this. Deakin University’s School of Architecture and Built Environment recently reviewed these certification schemes. Focus group discussions were held in Sydney and Melbourne with representatives in the field of sustainability – including government, green consultancies and rating tool providers.
Two main concerns emerged from our review:
<ol>
<li>
Sustainability ratings tools are not audited. Most ratings tools are predictive, while those few that take measurements use paid third parties. Government plays no active part.
</li>
<li>
The sustainability parameters measured only loosely intersect with the building occupants’ sustainability concerns. Considerations such as access to transport and amenities are not included.
</li>
</ol>
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/207055/original/file-20180220-116343-j14zhh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Focus group sessions run by Deakin University helped identify problems with current sustainability ratings. Author provided
That’s the backdrop to the sustainability targets now being adopted across Australia. Australia has the highest rate of population growth of any developed country. The population now is 24.8 million. It is expected to reach between 30.9 and 42.5 million people by 2056.
More buildings will be needed for these people to live and work in. And we will have to find ways to ensure these buildings are more sustainable if the targets now being adopted are to be achieved.
Over 80% of local governments have zero-emissions targets. Sydney and Canberra have committed to zero-carbon emissions by 2050. Melbourne has pledged to be carbon-neutral by 2020.
So how do green ratings work?
Each green rating tool works by identifying a range of sustainability parameters – such as water and energy use, waste production, etc. The list of things to be measured runs into the dozens. Tools differ on the parameters measured, method of measurement, weightings given and the thresholds that determine a given sustainability rating.
There are over 600 such rating tools worldwide. Each competes in the marketplace by looking to reconcile the credibility of its ratings with the disinclination of developers to submit to an assessment that will rate them poorly. Rating tools found in Australia include Green Star, NABERS, NatHERS, Circles of Sustainability, EnviroDevelopment, Living Community Challenge and One Planet Communities.
So, it is easy enough to find landmark developments labelled with green accreditations. It is harder to quantify what these actually mean.
Ratings must be independently audited
Government practice, historically, has been to assure building quality through permits. Planning permits ensure a development conforms with city schemes. Building permits assess structural load-bearing capacity, health and fire safety.
All this is done off the plan. Site inspections take place to verify that the building is built to plan. But once a certificate of occupancy is issued, the government steps aside.
The sustainability agenda promoted by government has been grafted onto this regime. Energy efficiency was introduced into the residential building code in 2005, and then into the commercial building code in 2006. At first, this was limited to new buildings, but then broadened to include refurbishment of existing structures.
Again, sustainability credentials are assessed off the plan and certification issued once the building is up and running. Thereafter, government walks away.
We know of only one longitudinal energy performance study carried out on domestic residences in Australia. It is an as-yet-unpublished project conducted by a retiree from the CSIRO, working with Indigenous communities in Far North Queensland.
The findings corroborate a recent study by Gertrud Hatvani-Kovacs and colleagues from the University of South Australia. This study found that so-called “energy-inefficient” houses, following traditional design, managed under certain conditions to outperform 6- and 8-star buildings.
Sustainability tools must measure what matters
Energy usage is but the tip of the iceberg. Genuine sustainability is about delivering our children into a future in which they have all that we have today.
Home owners, on average, turn their property around every eight years. They are less concerned with energy efficiency than with real estate prices. And these prices depend on the appeal of the property, which involves access to transport, schools, parks and amenities, and freedom from crime.
Commercial property owners, too, are concerned about infrastructure, and they care about creating work environments that retain valued employees.
These are all core sustainability issues, yet do not come up in the rating systems we use.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91655/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">If government is serious about creating sustainable cities, it needs to let go of its limited, narrow criteria and embrace these larger concerns of “liveability”. It must embody these broader criteria in the rating systems it uses to endorse developments. And it needs an auditing and enforcement regime in place to make it happen.
Igor Martek, Lecturer In Construction, Deakin University
M. Reza Hosseini, Lecturer in Construction, Deakin University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/greenwashing-the-property-market-why-green-star-ratings-dont-guarantee-more-sustainable-buildings-91655" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Why 'green star' ratings don't guarantee more sustainable buildings

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Two cities on opposing continents, Santiago and Cape Town, have been brought to their knees by events at opposing ends of the climate spectrum: flood and drought.
The taps ran dry for Santiago’s 5 million inhabitants in early 2017, due to contamination of supplies by a massive rainfall event. And now Cape Town is heading towards “day zero” on May 11, after which residents will have to collect their drinking water from distribution points.
It’s probably little comfort that Santiago and Cape Town aren’t alone. Many other cities around the world are grappling with impending water crises, including in Australia, where Perth and Melbourne both risk running short.
In many of these places governments have tried to hedge their bets by turning to increasingly expensive and energy-ravenous ways to ensure supply, such as desalination plants and bulk water transfers. These two elements have come together in Victoria with the pumping of desalinated water 150km from a treatment plant at Wonthaggi, on the coast, to the Cardinia Reservoir, which is 167m above sea level.
But while providing clean water is a non-negotiable necessity, these strategies also risk delivering a blowout in greenhouse emissions.
Water pressure
Climate change puts many new pressures on water quality. Besides the effects of floods and droughts, temperature increases can boost evaporation and promote the growth of toxic algae, while catchments can be contaminated by bushfires.
Canberra experienced a situation similar to Santiago in 2003, when a bushfire burned through 98% of the Cotter catchment, and then heavy rain a few months later washed huge amounts of contamination into the Bendora Dam. The ACT government had to commission a A$40 million membrane bioreactor treatment plant to restore water quality.
At the height of the Millennium Drought, household water savings and restrictions lowered volumes in sewers (by up to 40% in Brisbane, for example). The resulting increase in salt concentrations put extra pressure on wastewater treatment and reclamation..
The energy needed to pump, treat, distribute and heat water – and then to convey, pump, reclaim or discharge it as effluent, and to move biosolids – is often overlooked. Many blueprints for zero-carbon cities underplay or neglect entirely the carbon footprint of water supply and sewage treatment.
Some analyses only consider the energy footprint of domestic water heating, rather than the water sector as a whole – which is rather like trying to calculate the carbon footprint of the livestock industry by only looking at cooking.
Yet the growing challenge of delivering a reliable and safe water supply means that energy use is growing. The United States, for example, experienced a 39% increase in electricity usage for drinking water supply and treatment, and a 74% increase for wastewater treatment over the period 1996-2013, in spite of improvements in energy efficiency.
As climate change puts yet more pressure on water infrastructure, responses such as desalination plants and long-distance piping threaten to add even more to this energy burden. The water industry will increasingly be both a contributor to and a casualty of climate change.
How much energy individual utilities are actually using, either in Australia or worldwide, will vary widely according to the source of supply – such as rivers, groundwater or mountain dams – and whether gravity feeds are possible for freshwater and sewage (Melbourne shapes up well here, for example, whereas the Gold Coast doesn’t), as well as factors such as the level of treatment, and whether or not measures such as desalination or bulk transfers are in place.
All of this increases the water sector’s reliance on the electricity sector, which as we know has a pressing need to reduce its greenhouse emissions.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205222/original/file-20180207-28333-18qd6w9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205222/original/file-20180207-28333-18qd6w9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Desalination plants: great for providing water, not so great for saving electricity. Moondyne/Wikimedia Commons, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-SA</a>
One option would be for water facilities to take themselves at least partly “off-grid”, by installing large amounts of solar panels, onsite wind turbines, or Tesla-style batteries (a few plants also harness biogas). Treatment plants are not exactly bereft of flat surfaces – such as roofs, grounds or even ponds – an opportunity seized upon by South Australian Water.
But this is a large undertaking, and the alternative – waiting for the grid itself to become largely based on renewables – will take a long time.
A 2012 study found large variations in pump efficiency between water facilities in different local authorities across Australia. Clearly there is untapped scope for collaboration and knowledge-sharing in our water sector, as is done in Spain and Germany, where water utilities have integrated with municipal waste services, and in the United States, where the water and power sectors have gone into partnership in many places.
The developing world
Climate change and population growth are seriously affecting cities in middle-band and developing countries, and the overall outlook is grim. Many places, such as Mexico City, already have serious water contamination problems. Indeed, in developing nations these problems are worsened by existing water quality issues. Only one-third of wastewater is treated to secondary standard in Asia, less than half of that in Latin America and the Caribbean, and a minute amount in Africa.
The transfer of know-how to these places is critical to reaching clean energy transitions. Nations making the energy transition – especially China, the world’s largest greenhouse emitter – need to take just as much care to ensure they avoid a carbon blowout as they transition to clean water too.
Just as in the electricity sector, carbon pricing can potentially provide a valuable incentive for utilities to improve their environmental performance. If utilities were monitored on the amount of electricity used per kilolitre of water processed, and then rewarded (or penalised) accordingly, it would encourage the entire sector to up its game, from water supply all the way through to sewage treatment.
Water is a must for city-dwellers – a fact that Cape Town’s officials are now nervously contemplating. It would be helpful for the industry to participate in the strategic planning and land-use debates that affect its energy budgets, and for its emissions (and emissions reductions) to be measured accurately.
In this way the water industry can become an influential participant in decarbonising our cities, rather than just a passive player.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82822/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">This article is based on a journal article (in press) co-authored by David Smith, former water quality manager for South East Water, Melbourne.
Peter Fisher, Adjunct Professor, Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/fixing-cities-water-crises-could-send-our-climate-targets-down-the-gurgler-82822">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Fixing cities' water crises could send our climate targets down the gurgler: Peter Fisher

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Recent king tides have again caused significant damage to coastal assets in Australia and New Zealand. This time the combination of large tides and coastal storms damaged properties on Torres Strait islands and in Nelson and other coastal areas of New Zealand. It is increasingly recognised worldwide that, despite many coastal adaptation plans being developed, the implementation of these plans is lagging.
King tides occur several times a year when the Moon is slightly closer to the Earth (so they’re sometimes called perigean spring tides). This means king tides are predictable, as are rising sea levels. The combination, along with sporadic storm events, will lead to increasing flooding of our coastal cities.
Higher sea levels, whether creeping (associated with anthropogenic climate change) or transient (episodic storm events), have impacts on both private and public property and assets. What is now mostly nuisance flooding will become more problematic, and the ever-increasing global damage bill from disaster will continue to mount.
According to the global re-insurer Munich Re, losses from natural disasters in 2017 totalled US$330 billion, the second highest on record. Almost half of these losses (41%) were uninsured.
Who’s responsible for adaptation plans?
In keeping with the theory that risk is best managed by those closest to the risk, local government in Australia is the level of government best suited to managing such local risks. In response to the increasing threat from rising sea levels, many local government councils around Australia have developed coastal climate adaptation plans.
Federal and state governments clearly also have roles to play in managing coastal inundation. The federal government is often the insurer of last resort, especially for public infrastructure.
In Queensland, the state government has implemented the successful QCoast2100 program. This is helping local governments to develop adaptation plans all along the state’s coastline.
It is increasingly recognised that many of the plans developed in the past contain overcomplicated analyses of oversimplified adaptation options. Instead, we need less complicated ways of determining the most suitable adaptation option and assessments that consider more tailored and considered options, which will then be more readily implementable.
What are the options?
Coastal climate adaptation options tend to fall into one of three categories:
<ul>
<li>retreat – relocate assets and structures inland or to higher ground</li>
<li>protect – mostly by building engineered seawalls, although green infrastructure can also be implemented</li>
<li>accommodate – live with the hazard but reduce the vulnerability of structures and assets.</li>
</ul>
Retreat makes intuitive sense: relocating assets out of harm’s way reduces their vulnerability. However, this approach has proved politically problematic, especially for private buildings.
Most communities are familiar with seawalls and other forms of coastal protection. Others fundamentally disagree with the principle of hard coastal protection measures.
The third adaptation option, accommodating sea-level rise, is becoming the most popular approach in many nations, including the low-lying Netherlands. However, this approach is probably the least understood in Australia and rarely appears as the preferred option in Australian coastal adaptation plans.
This option includes making existing structures less vulnerable. This might involve relocating electrical and air-conditioning services and switchboards higher in existing buildings. Over time, vulnerable sites can be repurposed with less vulnerable land uses and structures.
This is different from pre-emptively evicting and relocating entire communities from vulnerable locations – the retreat option. The retreat option is most easily implemented immediately after major flooding that has led to significant damage.
Plans must consider the politics
Early coastal adaptation plans commonly advocated mass pre-emptive coastal retreat, but local government often ended up shelving or rejecting such recommendations. Instead, councils simply commissioned the construction of small local seawalls in areas at risk of erosion.
More developed and recent coastal adaptation plans consider finer spatial scales. What they still often don’t do is consider more sophisticated and politically informed adaptation options and approaches.
Hence adaptation planning is still often best characterised as the “plan and forget” approach. These plans typically lack monitoring and evaluation and a realistic implementation strategy.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91318/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Increased flooding of our coastline is inevitable and happening. Therefore, adaptation planning needs to consider more nuanced options that are likely to be more politically palatable and implementable.
Mark Gibbs, Director, Knowledge to Innovation; Chair, Green Cross Australia, Queensland University of Technology
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/king-tides-and-rising-seas-are-predictable-and-were-not-doing-enough-about-it-91318">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Environmental Policy

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Environmental Policy

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News