Environmental Policy

<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>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

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

<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
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 OBSERVER 
Australia is the world’s largest carbon emitter per capita and requires energy reform on our country’s households.
 Australia needs to be more environmentally-minded, and not enough is being done at the top level through policy and greater consumer awareness to reduce our carbon footprint.
You can’t play politics with the environment.
If we genuinely want to reduce our country’s carbon footprint, it needs to be introduced on a Federal level, with both sides of politics coming together, regardless of political persuasion. Frequent changes in Government mean that there is little to no concentration on a long-term goal and while the focus is primarily on industry and commerce, it should extend beyond this.
According to the ABS, households are the biggest consumer of energy after manufacturing, even topping transport and mining.
We need to have more robust conversations on how we can make property more energy efficient and homeowners more energy aware. Most of our ‘green’ discussions are centred around creating energy in a more environmentally conscious manner, but we need to start looking at how we can improve energy waste by reducing the energy leaking from homes. There is a huge lack of education amongst homeowners around this, and while it will first help save money, it will also be a giant leap towards reducing our carbon footprint.
There is a huge lack of education around the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS), and given the opportunity, the average Australian would be interested in knowing what the energy rating is for their home or a home that they are purchasing.
Currently, a large number of Australians are buying property off-the-plan, and they may not have access to knowledge about the property’s energy efficiency. Similarly, those who own or who are purchasing more recently built homes may only be able to access this rating through their local council or estate lawyer. 
While there is much focus on building for our future population, there is little consideration on established homes built pre-2000s. Douglas believes these homes are an even bigger contributor to the environment, accounting for 95 per cent of Australia’s total dwellings, and the Government should mandate energy ratings as part of building and pest inspections during the home buying process. 
Mandating energy ratings will provide greater transparency on wasted energy but it won’t necessarily cause people to withdraw from their purchase. The UK Government introduced Energy Performance Certificates in 2007 for homes that are built, sold and rented, and it did not deter people from buying in the slightest. If anything, this step will make people more aware of their environmental impact, and how they can contribute to making our country cleaner and greener. Government rebates are available to alleviate financial stress for homeowners looking to make their homes more energy efficient – there really needs to be more education on this.”
Research by the Energy Supply Association of Australia indicates that Australia leads the world in household solar penetration. While about 15 percent of dwellings have solar, research has demonstrated it is only as effective as behaviour, with almost half of energy generated by solar lost when used in the home through a lack of insulation, single-glazed windows and cavities. Douglas likens this to pouring water into a bucket with holes in the bottom.
There are 10 million dwellings in Australia and if each one is made five to 10 percent more energy efficient, it will make a significant reduction on our country’s carbon footprint, and keep a lid on rising energy bills.
A Canadian company called MyHEAT uses drone technology with thermal heat mapping to help homeowners understand and physically see energy loss in their home. With utility companies abroad becoming legislated to help customers reduce their energy consumption and Australian utility companies becoming privatised, a similar model would be adaptable in Australia.
It’s just as much about keeping dwellings cooler in summer as it is about keeping them warmer in winter. We have the technology at our disposal so why wouldn’t we use it for the greater good?
DOUGLAS DRISCOLL is CEO of real estate agency <a href="https://www.starrpartners.com.au/" target="_blank">Starr Partners</a>.
</body></html>

douglasdriscoll-EkfdEjJSsC

Environmental reform on property needed: Douglas Driscoll

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The International Energy Agency (IEA) may be underestimating Australian household energy bills by 25% because of a lack of accurate data from the federal government.
The Paris-based IEA produces official quarterly energy statistics for the 30 member nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), on which policymakers and researchers rely heavily. But to provide this service, the IEA relies on member countries to provide it with good-quality data.
Last month, the agency published its annual summary report, Key World Statistics, which reported that Australian households have the 11th most expensive electricity prices in the OECD.
But other studies – notably the Thwaites report into Victorian energy prices – have reported that households are typically paying significantly more than the official estimates. In fact, if South Australia were a country it would have the highest energy prices in the OECD, and typical households in New South Wales, Queensland or Victoria would be in the top five.
A spokesperson for the federal Department of Environment and Energy, the agency responsible for providing electricity price data to the IEA, told The Conversation:
"Household electricity prices data for Australia are sourced from the Australian Energy Market Commission annual Residential electricity price trends report. The national average price is used, with GST added. It is a weighted average based on the number of household connections in each jurisdiction.
"The Australian energy statistics are the basis for the Australia data reported by the IEA in their Key world energy statistics. The Department of the Environment and Energy submits the data to the IEA each September. Some adjustments are made to the AES data to conform with IEA reporting requirements."
But it is clear that the electricity price data for Australia published by the IEA is at least occasionally of poor quality.
The Australian household electricity series in the IEA’s authoritative Energy Prices and Taxes quarterly statistical report stopped in 2004, and only resumed again again in 2012.
Between 2012 and 2016, the IEA’s reported residential price series data for Australia showed no change in prices.
Yet the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ electricity price index, which is based on customer surveys, showed a roughly 20% increase in the All Australia electricity price index over this period.
Australia is also the only OECD nation not to report electricity prices paid by industry.
This year’s reported household average electricity prices are almost certainly wrong too. The IEA reports that household electricity prices in Australia for the first quarter of 2017 were US20.2c per kWh.
At a market exchange rate of US79c to the Australian dollar, this puts Australian household electricity prices at AU28c per kWh. Adjusted for the purchasing power of each currency, the comparable price is AU29c per kWh.
By contrast, the independent review of the Victorian energy sector chaired by John Thwaites surveyed the real energy prices paid by customers, as evidenced by their bills. In a sample of 686 Victorian households, those with energy consumption close to the median value were paying an average of AU35c per kWh in the first quarter of 2017. This is 25% more than the IEA’s official estimate. At least part of this difference is explained by the AEMC’s assumption that all customers in a competitive retail market are supplied on their retailers’ cheapest offers. But this is not the case in reality.
Surveying real electricity and gas bills drastically reduces the range of assumptions that need to be made to estimate the price paid by a representative customer. Indeed, as long as the sample of bills is representative of the population, a survey based on actual bills produces a reliable estimate of representative prices in retail markets characterised by high levels of price dispersion, as Australia’s retail electricity markets are.
Pointing to a reliable estimate of Victoria’s representative residential price is, of course, not enough to prove that the IEA’s estimate is wrong. It could just as easily mean that Victorians are paying way more than the national average for their electricity.
But the idea that Victorians are paying more than average does not stack up when we look at the state-by-state data, which suggests that Victoria is actually somewhere in the middle. Judging by the prices charged by the three largest retailers in each state and territory, Victorian householders are paying about the same as those in New South Wales and Queensland, less than those in South Australia, and more than those in Tasmania, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187510/original/file-20170926-25765-1cdi55t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Residential electricity prices. Author provided
The IEA can not reasonably be blamed for the inadequate residential data for Australia that they report, and the nonexistent data on electricity prices paid by Australia’s industrial customers. The IEA does not do its own calculation of prices in each country, but rather it relies on price estimates from official sources in those countries.
An obvious question that arises from this is where Australia really ranks internationally if we used prices that reflect what households are actually paying.
This is contentious, not least because prices in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia increased – typically around 15% or more – from July this year. We do not know how prices have changed in other OECD member countries since the IEA’s recent publication (which covered prices for the first quarter of 2017). But we do know that prices in Australia have been far more volatile than in any other OECD country.
Assuming that other countries’ prices are roughly the same as they were in the first quarter of 2017, our estimate using the IEA’s data is that the typical household in South Australia is paying more than the typical household in any other OECD country. The typical household in New South Wales, Queensland or Victoria is paying a price that ranks in the top five.
It should also be remembered that these prices are after excise and sale tax. Taxes on electricity supply in Australia are low by OECD standards – so if we use pre-tax prices, Australian households move even higher up the list.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84681/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">There are serious question marks over Australia’s official electricity price reporting. Policy makers, consumers and the public have a right to expect better.
Bruce Mountain is director, carbon and energy markets at Victoria University.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-household-electricity-prices-may-be-25-higher-than-official-reports-84681" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Australian household electricity prices may be 25% higher than official reports: Bruce Mountain

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
When you think of devastating deforestation and extinction you usually think of the Amazon, Borneo and the Congo. But eastern Australia ranks alongside these in the top 10 of the world’s major deforestation fronts – the only one in a developed nation. Most of the clearing is happening in Queensland, and it is accelerating.
Only last year a group of leading ecologists voiced their alarm at new data which showed the clearing of 296,000 hectares of forest in 2013-14. This was three times higher than in 2008-09, kicking Australia up the list as one of the world’s forest-clearing pariahs. At the 2016 Society for Conservation Biology Conference, a Scientists’ Declaration was signed by hundreds of scientists, expressing concern at these clearing rates.
But the latest snapshot, Queensland’s Department of Science report on land cover change published last month, showed a staggering 395,000ha of clearing for 2015-16: an increase of one third on 2014-15. As far as we can tell this rate of increased clearing is unmatched anywhere else on the globe.
showed a staggering 395,000 of clearing for 2015-16: which is an increase of one third on 2014-15, or 133% over the period
Strong vegetation management laws enacted in Queensland – the Vegetation Management Act 1999 – achieved dramatic reductions in forest and woodland loss. But the subsequent Liberal National state government, elected in 2012, overturned these protections.
The current government, elected in 2015, has tried and failed to reinstate the protections. In response, “panic clearing” caused clearing rates to shoot up, in anticipation that the state election will deliver a government that will reintroduce the much-needed protection of forests.
The Queensland Parliament is now in caretaker mode ahead of the November 25 election. The Queensland Labor Party has pledged to reinstate laws to prevent wholesale clearing, while the LNP opposition has vowed to retain current clearing rates.
Australian community and wildlife lose
Whichever way you look at it, there is not a lot of sense in continued clearing. Australia already has some of the highest extinction rates on the planet for plants and animals. With 80% of Queensland’s threatened species living in forest and woodland, more clearing will certainly increase that rate.
Clearing also kills tens of millions of animals across Australia each year, a major animal welfare concern that rarely receives attention. This jeopardises both wildlife and the A$140 million invested in threatened species recovery.
This rate of clearing neutralises our major environment programs. Just one year of clearing has removed more trees than the bulk of 20 million trees painstakingly planted, at a cost of A$50 million. Australia’s major environment programs simply can’t keep up, and since 2013 are restoring only one-tenth of the extent of land bulldozed just last year.
Restoration costs to improve the quality of waters running onto the Great Barrier Reef are estimated at around A$5 billion to A$10 billion over 10 years. Nearly 40% of the land cleared in Queensland is in reef catchments, which will reverse any water quality gains as sediment pours onto the reef.
Climate efforts nullified
Since 2014, the federal government has invested A$2.55 billion on reducing emissions in the Carbon Farming Initiative through the Emissions Reduction Fund. Currently 189 million tonnes of abatement has been delivered by the Emissions Reduction Fund. This – the central plank of the Australian government’s climate response – will be all but nullified by the end of 2018 with the current clearing rates, and will certainly be wiped out by 2020, when Australia is expected to meet its climate target of 5% below 2000 emissions.
Ironically, this target will be achieved with the help of carried-over results from the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia was only able to meet because land clearing had decreased between 1990 and 1997.
Why is this happening?
Most of the clearing in Queensland since 1999 has been for pasture. Most good cropping land was cleared decades ago. Removing trees in more marginal lands can increase the carrying capacity for a short time with an immediate, and usually short-lived, financial reward. These rewards come at the expense of long-term sustainability, which future landholders and government will bear.
Large areas of the cleared lands have been subject to substantial erosion and nutrient loss from the newly cleared lands, and land degradation over time, and some areas have suffered massive woody weed incursions.
This is playing out today across the north where pastoralism is a marginal activity at best, with declining terms of trade of about 2% per year, with no net productivity growth, high average debts and low returns, and many enterprises facing insolvency. Clearing vegetation won’t change that.
A recent preliminary valuation of ecosystem services, on the other hand, estimated that uncleared lands are worth A$3,300-$6,100 per hectare per year to the Australian community, compared with productivity of grazing lands of A$18 per hectare.
With a clear divide between the policies Labor and the LNP are taking to the election, now is a good time to give land clearing’s social, economic and environmental impact the scrutiny it deserves.
Noel D Preece, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow at Charles Darwin and, James Cook University.
Penny van Oosterzee, Principal Research Adjunct James Cook University and University Fellow Charles Darwin University, 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/australia-is-a-global-top-ten-deforester-and-queensland-is-leading-the-way-87259" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Picture: Forest cleared by bulldozers towing massive chains. Source: Provided by author. 
</body></html>

Australia is a global top-10 deforester – and Queensland is leading the way

<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>

King tides and rising seas are predictable, and we're not doing enough about it: Mark Gibbs

<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 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>

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