If the environment minister is serious about the domestic delivery of the Kunming-Montreal 2030 biodiversity targets, she’ll need to burn a lot of political capital, not just with various stakeholders, but with her own Cabinet colleagues.
politics
Down into the weeds again – the new government announces a return to bioregional planning
Our new environment minister has announced the government’s commitment to regional (biodiversity) planning. Australian governments have been talking about this approach for over 25 years. If done well, regional planning has the potential to enable biodiversity conservation to be integrated across land uses, programs and tenures, and enhance resilience to climate change. But doing it well will take money, good planning and collaboration with multiple partners – a big ask for any national government.
Game of Sustainability – Episode One: A New Hope
1987 The year Aust began grappling with the idea of sustainable development – a time where populists battled policy wonks. John Kerin said parties were taking a winner-take-all approach without understanding economic, social or environmental consequences.
Triggering the safeguard or safeguarding the trigger: Climate, large emitters and the EPBC Act
Triggering the climate safeguard or safeguarding the climate trigger
A climate trigger should be limited to actions that are not caught by the safeguard mechanism, such as land clearing.
However, there are some benefits that are better delivered by one or other of the two mechanisms.
Should we include a climate-change trigger in national environmental law?
Should we include a climate-change trigger in Australian environmental law?
The public are crying out for it but the politicians won’t touch it. Here’s why. (And some of the reasons to resist are quite valid.)
What can we expect in Australia’s new climate law?
Australia’s newly elected government has promised to introduce a Climate Change Bill. It won’t be available till later this month but we have a fair idea of what it is likely to say. It will not seek to reimpose a carbon price but will use an existing law reduce allowable emissions for the largest polluters. It will enshrine both Australia’s ‘net zero by 2050’ goal and its new Paris ‘nationally determined contribution’ of a 43% reduction in emissions by 2030. It will also restore the CCA’s role of advising Government on future targets; require the climate minister to report annually to Parliament on progress in meeting targets; and paste the new climate targets across into the formal objectives and functions of several government agencies.
Why can’t we fix this? Because it’s complex
Don’t treat climate change as a simple problem. It’s not. It’s complex, and it won’t be solved with simple solutions. If you’re in any doubt about this, have a look at what’s happened over the last two decades.
Bringing ‘the environment’ in from the cold
The major parties will always be keen to downplay big environmental reform ideas because rocking the boat is simply unacceptable in a political campaign. The solution is to bring the environment ‘in from the cold’; to connect it to the numbers that politicians see as central to what voters think is important.
A new government and a new environment minister – what now for Australian environmental policy?
While Labor lifted its game at the last minute with its environmental law reform policy, they can hardly be said to be environmental-policy high performers. So, what’s ‘on the record’ and ‘off the record’ for our new government when it comes to the Environment? What should our new environment minister prioritise?
In the war of the colour chart, where lies the colour of resilience?
Latest news in Australian politics: The blues, being overly influenced by the browns, thought they could ignore the wishes of electorate. They thought they could trounce the reds while laughing at the greens because they believed a sufficiently frightened public would shy away from change, stick with a status quo no matter how inadequate. The teals appeared as if from nowhere and proved them dead wrong.
It’s election time! For one party the environment is not a priority. For the other, it’s not something to talk about.
What’s the overarching message on election policies on the environment from the two parties capable of forming government: a re-elected Coalition, or Labor? It boils down to ‘not a focus for us’ vs ‘not telling’.
Wanna save Planet Earth? Try ‘thinking slow’. In praise of Daniel Kahneman
How do you communicate information to score a sale or bag a vote? You do it by building a simple coherent narrative that you can ‘sell’ with confidence. You scare people about their losses if the status quo is threatened (as will happen if you ‘vote for the opposition’), and you frame your arguments for maximum salience to your target group. These are some of the lessons available if you understand the cognitive biases in how we think. Nobel laureate Danial Kahneman has spent his life unravelling this puzzle.
International declarations and other environmental promises: A game for those who talk but don’t walk
Are international declarations on the environment worth the paper they’re printed on? Based on the way the Australian Government treats them, they’re not worth anything. Consider what the Australian Government has said recently about forests and climate change
Disaster follows failures in integrity. Don’t think the Earth System is too big to fail.
Disaster follows failures in integrity. Don’t think the earth system is too big to fail.
Good governance, transparency and accountability would have prevented Chernobyl, Challenger and Deepwater Horizon from ever becoming disasters.
Now we have climate change and we’re ignoring all the warnings.
Last Chance Quiz – the Australian Government’s (non) response to queries on the environment
The Government tinkers with the environment while inflating and conflating its efforts so as to deliberately mislead the people. The final Senate Estimates before the official election period (‘last chance quiz’) poked a few holes in the Government’s carefully contrived environment Budget narrative, but this doesn’t mean we are any wiser about what’s going on.
Federal budget: $160 million for nature may deliver only pork and a fudge
Federal budget: $160 million for nature may deliver only pork and a fudge.
Two spending measures on the Environment – the Environment Restoration Fund & bioregional funds – bear scrutiny. One smells of pork, the other of fudge.