1,720,995 research outputs found
Disinformation, no information
No full textEnvironmental policy in Australia and elsewhere would be more stringent if not for the disinformation campaign. ClimateEthics.org, one of Time Magazine’s top ten environmental websites, has recently published a series of entries on the climate change disinformation campaign calling for a distinction between reasonable scientific scepticism and the tactics of the disinformation campaign.
Tactics include “reckless disregard for the truth”, “focusing on unknowns while ignoring knowns”, “specious claims of "bad” science", and “the creation of front groups” such as the Global Climate Coalition, the Greening Earth Society and in Australia as the Landscape Guardians. These “Astroturf” organisations have been set up by players in and around the fossil fuel industry to argue against the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
Australian companies will be able to offset their emissions from coal-fired energy by financing new coal-fired energy projects
No full textA recent decision by the executive board of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) creates an incongruous Australian carbon pricing scheme. Companies will be able to offset some of their carbon emissions by financing coal-fired power stations in developing countries
The economics of ecological restoration
No full textTo date, there have been limited applications of cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis by those involved in ecological restoration, yet these can be powerful tools to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of management and research efforts. First, cost-effectiveness analysis allows restoration practitioners to develop procedures that achieve the greatest ecological value for the limited money which has been made available for restoration. Second, cost-benefit analysis is needed to justify the importance of restoration projects, giving these projects a better chance of competing for government and other funds in a field of worthy causes. At the same time, it is recognised that the use of economic tools can unintentionally commodify and therefore undermine ecological restoration. Nevertheless, using the language and practices of economics, while consciously maintaining an environmentally friendly ethical position, will markedly strengthen restoration proposals
The mineral resources rent tax and the commons
No full textIn “The tragedy of the commons”, Garrett Hardin argues that when natural resources can be openly accessed by all, over-exploitation results. For example, an open access pasture will be over-exploited by each farmer because the benefit of an additional animal accrues privately but the cost (soil degradation) accrues to everyone and therefore only partially to the farmer. Each farmer reaches the same conclusion and ruin results. Similarly, our energy resources (coal, gas etc) are commons and these too would be over-exploited if left open to all
The precautionary principle, uncertainty and the Noah’s Ark problem
No full textMultiple biodiversity objectives have been proposed in conservation planning and economics for the Noah’s Ark problem – the problem of allocating limited funds to conservation projects – including species richness, persistence, taxonomic diversity, representativeness, the charismatic value of species, the broader concept of direct utility and ecological importance. However, these objectives are incommensurable and there is little consensus about which objective should be pursued, given the current state of nature. In economics, this is perhaps because the commensurability problem can be solved by converting all biodiversity objectives to monetary values. Yet, even here, a commensurability problem exists because fundamental uncertainty about species interactions means that ecological values cannot be represented in economic terms. Thus, maximising biodiversity value, combined as it is with a rational decision-making framework and assumed known probabilities of survival, can undermine the very values being pursued. This is especially the case when climate change is a current and future state of nature. Climate change adds additional complexity and fundamental uncertainties to the survival probabilities, the future value of species, the interactions among species and the probability of success of conservation projects. The associated incomplete information can lead decision makers to risky decisions under the current approach. Instead, under such conditions, the precautionary principle is appropriate. This leads to a broad conservation strategy of minimising the maximum regret and, when applied to the Noah’s Ark problem, an objective of ecosystem resilience or functional diversity rather than an objective based on economic values. The paper therefore provides an economic justification for focussing conservation resources and threatened species legislation on the resilience of ecosystems
Carbon lock-in : social-technological inertias increasing our addiction to coal-fired energy
No full textHRL’s proposed brown coal-gas hybrid plant in the La Trobe Valley in Victoria was last year limited in size to 300 megawatts by a Victorian Environmental Protection Agency decision. A challenge to this ruling was upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in late March which would allow HRL to build a 600 megawatt (MW) plant on the basis that it was ‘best-practice’.
HRL last month announced that it had frozen design and pre-construction work because the decision to allow the size increase was linked to the Federal government’s ‘contract for closure’ approach which is part of their Clean Energy Future Policy. The ‘contract for closure’ approach commits the government to closing the most emissions-intensive plants worth some 2000 MWs by 2020.The linking of the VCAT decision to this Federal government policy has created too much uncertainty for the plant to go ahead for now
A post Keynesian perspective on industry assistance and the effectiveness of Australia's carbon pricing scheme
No full textAustralia's carbon pricing scheme protects the profits of polluters and, as a consequence, has a negligible impact on the carbon emissions emanating from Australian industries. I concentrate on the assistance given to emissions-intensive, tradeexposed industries and use a post Keynesian approach to explain that, despite the rhetoric, industries and firms will not move offshore under a carbon price and industry assistance is unnecessary. When assistance is given, profits are protected and could increase in certain industries, which occurred in the comparable European emissions trading scheme. In orthodox economic theory, despite this negligible impact on profits, any method of pricing carbon causes a reduction in emissions because firms seek to adjust technology and factor inputs at the margin and abate until marginal abatement costs equal the carbon price. However, from a post Keynesian perspective, the government's prediction of a transformed economy and clean energy future will not occur unless the carbon pricing policy reduces the corporate profits of emitting firms. Thus, complementary policies are required to take the burden of reducing emissions off the more symbolic carbon market established. I further argue that a carbon tax without any industry assistance is a preferred approach and that where plant shutdown does occur, carbon emissions around the world will fall and workers could be compensated at a far smaller cost than the adjustment assistance given to industries in the policy's current form
In defence of renewable energy targets
No full textPower prices are a hot political topic. While politicians argue about who is to blame for higher prices, the renewable energy target (RET) is also being reviewed. The RET has been the focus of considerable debate since the introduction of the carbon pricing scheme. Critics of the target argue that it is redundant or that it interferes with the working of the carbon pricing scheme leading to a distortion of market processes. Australian industry groups, such as
the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, highlight the costs to consumers and other energy users and are calling for it to be abolished
Federal budget 2012 : a surplus won’t help renewable energy
No full textThere was little excitement on the environmental policy front from this year’s Federal budget. This partly reflects the extensive environmental policy in the government’s Clean Energy Future Policy (CEFP) and partly their obsession with achieving a surplus in 2012/13.
The quagmire of forward estimates, appropriations and the shifting of resources from one portfolio or program to another and trying to gain a quick and reliable understanding of what exactly has happened.
The focus on a surplus is impeding our movement towards a renewable energy future.
In terms of deficits and surpluses it would be much more impressive if the government announced measures to reduce the carbon deficit of the country than measures to increase the budget surplus
Key environment policy still unknown in the NSW election
No full textWith less than a week to go until the New South Wales state election, there are still major concerns about what the election holds for the state’s wildlife and ecosystems. Both major parties have made promises to save threatened species through more funding, and the creation of new national parks. In December 2014, the Independent Biodiversity Legislation Review Panel released their final report on biodiversity legislation in NSW. Recommendations include cutting regulation and increasing the use of offsets that make it easier to clear native vegetation. We don’t yet know what the government thinks of the review’s recommendations, and what they would do if re-elected
- …
