There is no such thing as a free lunch
How is it that with all the brains and capacity locked up in society’s many institutions that humanity is unable to steer towards real sustainability? Could it be that in their current configuration they’re simply impotent in the face of an all-powerful status quo (Business as Usual) that protects the interests of the very rich?
In the face of an increasingly uncertain future there are growing calls for change across society. But our elected officials, despite talking big at election time, only give us increments of nothing when it comes to delivery.
Wetlands are under threat all around the world but there’s one particular type of wetland that provides a disproportionate ecosystem service in the form of carbon storage that is in dire need of increased protection. We’re talking peatlands, and new research is suggesting it’s way past time we got serious about looking after them.
The Government’s ambitious ‘Nature Positive’ initiative appears to have founded on the rocks of realpolitik. Peter Burnett has been closely following the saga of Nature Positive policy reform and believes while the chances are small that legislation establishing an EPA and EIA will be passed before the next election, they are not zero. Indeed, as he explains here, there is a credible pathway that might enable the reforms to be acceptable to all parties and still achieve significant environmental outcomes. This might be critical if the Government wants to burnish its rather dull environmental credentials as it heads into what is expected to be a tight electoral race.
The latest Outlook for the world’s greatest coral reef – Australia’s own Great Barrier Reef – give politicians some wiggle room to foster hope that the dire condition of the Reef is improving. But this snapshot of Reef health was taken just before it was hit with a killer blow. This Reef may no longer have the resilience to get up off the floor. (Yet we still maintain it’s ‘the world’s best managed reef’)
The Great Barrier Reef is facing an existential threat of our own making. We know what the solution is but our current governance around the Reef is inadequate to meet the challenge.
We can’t speak truth to power; science does not guide our decision making; and we can’t acknowledge that current economic priorities (and vested interests) mean that “the best managed reef ecosystems in the world” is being hung out to bleach.
Given the risks of catastrophic climate change, a possible anthropogenic mass extinction event, and seriously bad and irreversible climate tipping points, a precautionary approach to managing the future must rapidly decouple, in absolute terms, economic growth from environmental impacts. This requires much more than ‘steady-as-she-goes’ transitions. Despite this, ‘transitionists’ hold the floor. Quentin Grafton discusses the folly of accepting the ‘transition’ line of reasoning.
‘Trumpism’ is a bit like crazy ants? Both require certain system conditions for them to become super pests. Throwing Trump in jail won’t remove the threat. The conditions for Trump’s ascendency are still present and will enable the next ‘crazy man’ to do just as much damage. We need to remediate the craziness and address the gaps in society that let so many people believe the system isn’t working for them.
What do we know, more or less, for sure about the future? First, the world is getting hotter at a faster rate. Second, maintaining or increasing greenhouse emissions will result in substantial temperature increases within coming decades that entails substantial costs and risks. Third, carbon sequestration, over the coming few decades will only make, at best, a very marginal contribution to lowering atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Fourth, despite the rhetoric, the world’s greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise to at least 2030. These are our future certainties under business-as-usual. Much of the uncertainty about what the future holds is about what we choose to do about it.
The really worrying aspects of Hurricane Otis go way beyond the immediate impacts on the poor citizens of Acapulco. Indeed, there are consequences here that every person on this planet should reflect on. No-one saw Hurricane Otis coming. No-one had time to prepare. And, after the impact, the rest of the world hardly noticed it had happened.
While it is apparent that society can turn a blind eye to bleaching coral reefs, burning forest biomes and flooding cities, it seems everyone is angry about the rising cost of living and unaffordable insurance. And when voters get really angry, politicians start actually doing something. When it comes to climate disruption, that includes taking climate criminals (ie, the fossil fuel sector) to court. Could it be we are beginning to join the dots on climate boiling?
There’s probably not a government on this planet that isn’t telling its people they acknowledge climate change and are making ‘serious’ efforts to combat it. However, in the parentheses at the end of every proclamation is the implicit (sometime explicit) caveat that new policies won’t change the status quo, won’t slow down economic growth, won’t bite the hand of key stakeholders (read fossil fuel sector), won’t cost the voter anything additional and likely won’t even be implemented in the current electoral cycle. Climate delay may sound different to climate denial but it amounts to the same thing.
Discovering new species is so much cheaper than stopping the development of new fossil fuel projects or passing effective regulation on land clearing. Paying the expenses of a few taxonomists and a group of teachers for a week’s camping out in the bush to find new species is as cheap as chips by comparison.
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.)
A single fossil fuel development proposal in Australia is predicted to raise the global temperature by a tiny amount. With a world already overheating, should this new development be allowed? Government approval may well hinge on the idea of ‘economics of substitution.’
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