Search

Over two centuries of economic growth have put undeniable pressure on the ecological systems that underpin human well-being. While it is agreed that these pressures are increasing, views divide on how they may be alleviated. Some suggest technological advances will automatically keep us from transgressing key environmental thresholds; others that policy reform can reconcile economic and ecological goals; while a third school argues that only a fundamental shift in societal values can keep human demands within the Earth's ecological limits. Here we use novel integrated analysis of the energy-water-food nexus, rural land use (including biodiversity), material flows and climate change to explore whether mounting ecological pressures in Australia can be reversed, while the population grows and living standards improve. We show that, in the right circumstances, economic and environmental outcomes can be decoupled. Although economic growth is strong across all scenarios, environmental performance varies widely: pressures are projected to more than double, stabilize or fall markedly by 2050. However, we find no evidence that decoupling will occur automatically. Nor do we find that a shift in societal values is required. Rather, extensions of current policies that mobilize technology and incentivize reduced pressure account for the majority of differences in environmental performance. Our results show that Australia can make great progress towards sustainable prosperity, if it chooses to do so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss the need to prioritize long-term protection of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia from climate change. They explain that GBR is the world's largest coral reef system and its condition is poor and deteriorating. The authors believe that improving the governance and management of GBR could reverse its rapid decline by changing policies that promote fossil fuels and economic development in the Reef region.

The Murray-Darling Basin is Australia's national food bowl, home to almost half of the national income from food production, as well as internationally significant wetlands, iconic red gum forests, endangered flora and fauna, and approximately 40 autonomous indigenous nations. Persistent severe drought and extreme flooding episodes have presented new challenges in the region. Chief among these challenges is the establishment of a legitimate framework to sustainably manage water resources that finds common ground between environmental, indigenous and commercial interests. A powerful approach to examine these processes is through the theory of diffusion and adaptation of policy innovations. Here, we describe an approach to place this theory on empirical ground using Q methodology. We elucidate patterns of subjectivity, to explore the perceptions of expert advice, subsidiarity and local knowledge to better understand the interests in play. We find that respect is held for local practitioners (water managers and farmers) and indigenous knowledge, but while policy innovations are being generated, the diffusion of policy is contested. We identify the potential, though limited, for common ground through substantive and respectful consultation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change is a significant environmental, social and environmental problem that has been identified by scientists in consensus internationally. The Australian Government’s response is considered by environmental non-government organisations (NGOs) to be inadequate. NGOs are ‘change agents’ of society, and in this role they are agitating to influence political decision-making on climate change response. This paper outlines the campaign strategies being used by Australian NGOs to attract public and political attention to the issue of climate change. Using seven NGOs as case studies, the archival materials of these organisations were accessed and analysed. Current academic and other literature also was used to reflect on their effectiveness. Four campaign themes and, within these, fifteen activities were identified. The results indicate that the notion of whether NGOs are undertaking an ‘revolutionary’ or ‘incremental’ approach, or any other narrow strategic approach put forward by various scholars is too simple for analysing campaigns: none of the NGOs appear to intentionally favour one type of strategy. The question raised by this finding is whether the NGOs’ current ‘multi-strategic’ approach is effective. This research contributes to filling the information gap with regard to NGO campaign strategies on environmental issues, and highlights the need for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]