Issue 10
- greennewsaustralia
- Sep 3
- 37 min read
Letter from the Editor
Nicola Allen introduces the 10th edition of the newsletter.
Welcome to the tenth issue of Green News Australia! Despite the demands of our uni assignments, we're back at it with another fun, informative instalment, written by one of our best teams yet. In this issue, you'll hear from US Foreign Correspondent Ceci on the environmental impact of the second Trump presidency; get up to speed with the latest good news stories from the frontline of environmental action in Australia with Rock; learn about the elusive whale shark from Valerie; discover the extraordinary impact of one's diet on the climate with Soren; and reimagine parliament house with a rodent twist, with Ella and Ivy on the comic strip. I'll also be your political correspondent for this issue, answering the lingering question: how well is the Labor party actually performing on climate change and the environment, so far?
As the editor, my goal is for Green News to prioritise intellectual honesty over blindly jumping on the latest bandwagon. We aim to give readers the tools to think for themselves, rather than promoting a uniform narrative; and we offer the nuanced perspectives necessary to navigate a world rife with misinformation and deception. I'm proud of our contributors for embodying these values. We hold a variety of personal political views, but we're all prepared to put these aside and work towards our common goal: spreading awareness of this, the most fundamental crisis we face as a species.
Thank you for your continued support, and we hope you enjoy Issue 10!
CONTENTS
Foreign Correspondent - Chloe (Ceci) Pualei Chin
Political Correspondent - Nicola Allen (Editor)
Creature Corner - Valerie Monteith
Action - Rock Forrester
Analysis - Soren Arthur
Comic Relief - Ella Purcell & Ivy Rush
Foreign Correspondent
The State of American Environment Protection, by Chloe (Ceci) Pualei Chin.
Aloha mai kākou. To begin, I would like to acknowledge the ‘āina (land) on which I am writing this today. As a non-native member of the Maui and Hawaiian community, I seek to support and uplift the voices and efforts of Kanaka Maoli. I come to you sunburnt from a day of shelling at the beach, as the United States' summer season has just begun to wind down (my sister begins her “junior” year of college this week!) I’m not sure how the rest of the world views our current state of politics - but I hope that it becomes clear to you, dear reader, that I am not in support of the federal action (and lack thereof) that has been taken on the environment in the last year.
It is a scary time to be a student of environmental science in the United States - from practicing science as our administration questions the legitimacy of scientists, to graduating into an actively defunded industry, to defending why we care about the very land on which we live. I often find myself shying away from the news, because it details the crises we’re watching unfold in real time: dying coral reefs and catastrophic wildfires, all framed in inflammatory and deceptive language. Personally, the most difficult aspect to contend with is how divided we have become as a country, over what I believe should be a bi-partisan issue. Our differences of opinion should concern how human societies can live sustainably with the land they’re built upon, not whether or not climate change is occurring. This article will detail just a few of the current administration’s environmental goals, the implications of reaching them, and the overall state of America’s environmental conservation.
The Trump Administration and Project 2025
Authored by conservative thinktank The Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 is a radical political plan that details extreme policy recommendations which could have devastating effects on American environmental protection (American Civil Liberties Union). The current United States president has stated he has no connection to the plan - however, his environmental agenda aligns closely with its stated goals. According to The Project 2025 Tracker, a volunteer-run website documenting specific action items within the plan, the Trump Administration has completed 70% of Project 2025’s environmental objectives. These include but are not limited to (Smith, 23/07/25):
Limiting the “critical habitat” of endangered species
Reinstating Trump’s executive order to manage wildfires by reducing vegetation and increasing logging
Expanding gas infrastructure
Ending funding for offshore wind projects
Removing the U.S. from any association with the U.N. (or other) efforts to push for sustainable food production
Reversing support for consideration of environmental, social and governance principles
Vacating the Biden-era order to protect 30% of U.S. land and water by 2030 (30x30)
Eliminating the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights
Project 2025 also refers to climate action as an “alarm industry,” and a scare tactic to advance the left-wing agenda. This reflects a common view among right-wing voters that the left makes climate change out to be a much larger issue than it actually is.
One of Project 2025’s actions included revoking California’s right to enact policy on Vehicle Emissions Standards. California is a leader in US environmental protection, and Matthew Sanders (Stanford Environmental Law Clinic’s acting deputy director) states, “What California does impacts what the rest of the nation does. In that sense... decisions about how to effectuate the Clean Air Act mandates are technology-forcing for much of the nation, and isolating California and eliminating its ability to do that will have profound consequences.” (Smith, 23/07/25) Typically, conservative views support state over federal governance, so this effort might seem unaligned with tradition. However, this push aims to curb environmental protections and line the pockets of gas suppliers across the country by beginning with a smaller target.
Trump has been vocal about his disdain for alternative energy sources. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' begins the phaseout of tax credits for wind and solar projects, and the president recently ordered construction to halt on a nearly completed offshore wind farm. Revolution Wind is the most recent target of Trump’s tariffs, in line with his efforts to focus American spending on American-made goods. Once completed, Revolution Wind would deliver electricity to Rhode Island and Connecticut - but with Danish company Orsted as the developer, it was flagged for national security concerns. This was done despite the project’s ability to “reduce energy costs, strengthen regional production, [and] build a more secure energy future” (Hughes, 25/08/25), not to mention the 4,200 jobs it has created across all development phases. Pasha Feinberg, an offshore wind specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says “This is, I think, more looking for a reason to discredit offshore wind.” (Hughes, 25/08/25)
Another directive focuses on “breaking up” NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) by laying off staffers, closing offices, and cutting research funding. In combination with shifting disaster relief into the hands of individual states, this could have disastrous implications for human health and welfare. Recent examples of natural disasters including the flooding of the Guadalupe River with 136 fatalities (as of July 19) demonstrate why agencies like NOAA are so desperately needed.
Endangering US National Parks
The current Administration’s spending bill (Mathur-Ashton, 25/07/25), set to go into effect over the next year, cuts funding to social safety nets like Medicaid and food benefits, while expanding the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) budget. Rolled into this bill are devastating cuts to the National Parks Conservation Association. A previously promised 267 million USD allocated for park staff has been rescinded, in line with the FY26 budget that plans to let go of over 5,000 national park workers (Schneid, 13/07/25). Unfortunately, large layoffs are not new with Trump - his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has fired workers across agencies, including Education, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Aid (Kinnard, 21/02/25). In February of this year, 1,000 national parks workers were fired, endangering resource protection, public safety, and maintenance while forcing the remaining workers to take on labor they may be unqualified for.
Land itself is also in danger. The Department of the Interior, overseer of national parks and public lands, has experienced severe financial and staffing cuts. In February, Trump signed an executive order (without senate and congressional support) opening up 112.5 million acres of previously protected national forestland to industrial logging, to increase domestic timber and create jobs (American Civil Liberties Union) - claiming the move would also reduce wildfire risk. Of course, simply ensuring there are no trees left to burn is an incredibly short-sighted way to prevent wildfires: these large-scale logging plans bypass environmental protections, seriously endangering old growth forests and biodiversity.
These changes under the current administration are disheartening, but Trump’s efforts can’t halt the global green transition. He has created a temporary setback for renewables and conservation in the US, but I am hopeful that states can step up individually during this presidency to protect nature; and that future administrations will take a more eco-centric stance in policymaking.
Image Sources:
Trump: Trump’s Trial Dates Collide With His 2024 Campaign Calendar - The New York Times
Logging: Logging The Olympic Peninsula - MB Commercial Photography
US national parks: Nationalparks in den USA - das sind die Schönsten | Urlaubsguru
Offshore windfarm cancellation: The Biden administration approves the nation’s first major offshore wind farm. - The New York Times
Political Correspondent
Nicola Allen discusses the performance of the Albanese government on climate change and the environment, so far.
This article is the culmination of three months' research, driven by the desire to determine, once and for all, whether the Albanese Labor government is really doing a good job on climate change and the environment. The full 40-page project, which will be released soon, is divided into 4 main sections: environment, emissions, decarbonisation and fossil fuels. This cover article summarises the most important takeaways from each section.
Section A - Environment
This Section deals with classic environmental issues, such as the conservation of land, water and endangered species, as well as plastic pollution.
Part 1: endangered animals & protected land
Australia is home to 1,447 endangered plants - and 609 endangered animals, of whom 141 are critically endangered. In 2022, Labor launched the Threatened Species Action Plan, containing a list of 110 priority species (30 of which are plants), and plans for a Saving Native Species Program. This program has been allocated $225 M over 4 years in grants to NGOs working to protect priority native species. Estimates from experts (via the Conversation) claim $1.7 B is required to protect all Australia's native species - but this is a good place to start.
Labor has also been working to protect bushland, an important habitat for many of these species - aiming to protect 30% of our land by 2030. In 2022 they put $66.5 million towards growing Indigenous protected areas. The 2023-24 budget also allocated $262 M over four years to address "critical infrastructure needs" in national parks. Then, in 2025, they announced the $250 M Saving Australia's Bushland Program, which will "help organisations buy and protect properties of high biodiversity value," among other operations.
Finally, the Environment Department has been trying to wrestle through reforms to the EPBC Act (the main source of environmental law in Australia) since mid-2024 - facing opposition from the Coalition, hard bargaining from the Greens and threats from mining lobbyists. The pressure came to a head in March this year, as WA Labor Premier Roger Cook grappled with the mining industry during his re-election campaign. As a result, Albanese decided to shelve the project indefinitely - but Murray Watt, the new environment minister, has just raised the issue again, and plans to introduce the reworked bill to Parliament by the end of the year. Hopefully, this time, they'll manage to get it through.
Part 2: regulating plastic waste
There have been two main plastic regulation developments: the EPRS currently in testing, and the ongoing negotiations at the UN Ocean Conference for a global plastic treaty. An EPRS is an extended producer responsibility scheme, which in this case involves the companies that produce plastic being forced to make it viable for circulation in a zero-waste economy - i.e., no more non-recyclable plastic packaging. After industry consultation in 2024, the Design for Kerbside Recyclability Grading Framework was born, and is currently undergoing testing to determine real-world viability.
Meanwhile, environment minister Murray Watt attended the third UN Ocean Conference in June, speaking on Australia's commitment to "the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty" and "the global plastics treaty negotiations" (press release). He also stated that "A global treaty will help us ensure that plastic imports are safe and designed for circularity" and "allow us to increase plastic recycling rates" (ABC). Finally, a house inquiry reported in June that Australia should "investigate a UK-style levy that would require plastics to use at least 30 per cent recycled content, and could be increased over time" (ABC). According to modelling from the Australia Institute, if the government charged producers $1,300 per tonne of virgin plastic packaging, they could raise $1.46 B annually. It remains to be seen whether the government will take such an ambitious step.
Part 3: freshwater & marine conservation
In 2022, Labor claimed to be delivering "$91.1 million for the first round of our $200 M election promise to improve local waterways through the Urban Rivers and Catchment Program," and committed $274 M in 2024 to removing "physical and operational barriers or constraints" on water flow into the Murray Darling Basin. Meanwhile, the Great Barrier Reef is receiving $1.2 B in federal funding (presumably over a 4-year period) as a priority area of marine conservation. Finally, the draft Sustainable Ocean Plan was released for public consultation in 2024, and is currently being finalised. This plan is a roadmap for ensuring 30% of our marine territory is also protected by 2030 (latest stat is 22% highly protected).
Section B - Emissions
This Section unpacks Australia's carbon emissions, including domestic emissions so far, projections for the next 15 years, and fossil fuel exports - setting the stage for Labor's action on climate change, discussed in Section C.
Part 1: emissions so far
In 2005 - the year used as a baseline for our emissions reduction goals - we emitted 612 Mt, but our emissions actually peaked in 2006 at 684 Mt. Since then, they have steadily declined; the latest data we have is from 2023, estimating our national domestic emissions to have been 453 Mt. This represents a reduction on 2005 levels of 26%, or 159 Mt, and gives the Albanese government 7 years (from 2023) to achieve the final 105 Mt of emissions reduction needed to reach their goal of a 43% reduction on 2005 levels by 2030, putting us at 349 Mt total.
On the surface, these numbers seem promising, but as I'm sure many of you are already aware, the graph of our overall emissions doesn't tell the full story. LULUCF (Land use, Land-use change and Forestry) is the only sector whose emissions have significantly declined. LULUCF covers a wide range of carbon transfers ranging from 'land converted to forest land' to 'forest remaining forest.' In Australia, LULUCF emissions have been steadily decreasing since 2005, and have been negative since 2015, thanks to reduced deforestation. This is encouraging - but it creates the appearance of an overall decline, while in reality every sector apart from LULUCF practically stagnated between 2005 and 2023. Many activists are highly critical of the inclusion of this sector in emissions calculations, as it allows politicians to avoid spurring on the renewable transition.
For any government to achieve a meaningful reduction of Australia's emissions, they have to focus on the largest contributor: Energy. The energy sector made up 76% of our national emissions in 2022-23, excluding LULUCF. Within this, electricity generation makes up 31% of our total emissions (40% of the Energy sector), making Labor's goal of 82% renewable electricity generation by 2030 crucial to their 43% emissions reduction aim.
Part 2: exports & international emissions
While the Paris emissions inventory uses the territorial accounting method, many activists prefer the extraction-based method. (Territorial takes into account what is emitted in a country, while extraction-based takes into account what fossil fuels are dug up in that country, whether they're then burnt internationally or at home.) We are the 5th largest miner and the 3rd largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world (according to the Australia Institute, as of 2019), meaning that our extraction-based emissions are far higher than our territorial emissions.
Using the extraction-based method, according to an ABC Fact Check article, we're responsible for about 4.4% of global emissions (4.5% according to Climate Analytics), compared to the 1% from our domestic emissions alone. However, that territorial 1% still makes us the 15th largest emitter of GHG (greenhouse gases) in the world, since China makes up 1/3 of international emissions, the other countries of the top 10 make up the next 1/3, and the other 183 countries make up the remaining 1/3.
So, however you look at it, our emissions make an impact, and are well worth reducing, particularly when exports are taken into account. But there's also a purely economic argument for reducing our fossil fuel and high carbon-intensity exports. According to research from BZE (Beyond Zero Emissions), fossil fuels make up around 25% of our annual export value, which will become increasingly problematic, as our biggest export markets all have net zero targets. International mechanisms like the EU's new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will also look at the embodied emissions of exports, targeting many other Australian products, like iron, aluminium, beef and fertiliser. This will leave around 60% of our export value vulnerable to the green transition, while BZE claims there is a $333 billion profit to be made from Australia switching our exports to things like hydrogen and green steel.
Part 3: projections
According to the Federal Environment Department, based on policies already implemented by the Albanese government, Australia is almost on track to reach our 43% reduction goal at a total of 349 Mt in 2030, as we are currently projected to emit 352 Mt that year. As you can see in the second of the two graphs below, unlike the reduction we've experienced since 2005, this reduction will come almost entirely from the Energy sector, rather than increased offsets from LULUCF - in fact, LULUCF offsets are projected to become less impactful, while Energy emissions will decrease by over 100 Mt.
According to Climate Analytics, the domestic emissions reduction range compatible with the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degrees of warming limit is 44-61% on 2005 levels by 2030, including the LULUCF sector. The Paris Agreement then requires a total emissions reduction on 2005 of 76% by 2035. These targets would require Australia to reach 343 Mt by 2030, and 147 Mt by 2035. Labor hasn't yet released a formal emissions reduction goal for 2035, but it doesn't appear we're on track to comply with Paris' second requirement.
Climate Analytics summarised Labor's level of climate ambition in a paper published before the 2022 federal election, claiming that, "the Liberal National Party targets are consistent with 3˚C of global warming (bordering on 4˚C), the Labor Party’s target is consistent with 2˚C, and… [the] Greens consistent with 1.5˚C of warming." In other words, while Labor's goals may not quite reach the ideal level presented by the Greens, they are still far preferable to the total indifference of the Coalition.
Section C - Decarbonisation
Now that we know what the government should be focusing on, let's go over what they've actually achieved in the way of climate action so far.
Part 1: the renewable transition
A major part of Labor's transition is the Capacity Investment Scheme - a revenue underwriting agreement announced in November 2023, which originally aimed to deliver 23 GW of renewable generation and 9 GW of storage capacity by 2030. Labor increased the CIS by 25% in July this year, to raise their storage goal to 40 GW. According to The Land in December 2024, "Nineteen large-scale renewable energy infrastructure projects will be built across four states after winning approval in the first taxpayer-funded Capacity Investment Scheme auction." Meanwhile, according to Energy Insider, "The 24/25 federal budget provided $96.6m over four years to support timely environmental approvals," by creating "additional regulatory capacity." $20m of this was specifically allocated to streamlining the approval of 'priority projects' - the list of these priority projects was released in March this year, and included 24 transmission projects and 32 generation and storage projects.
To help build all this new infrastructure, in August 2022, Labor committed "$100 million over four years to 10,000 new clean-energy apprentices," delivering "payments of $2000 [every six months] for the duration of the apprenticeship" (Eco Generation).
Labor has also been encouraging the uptake of rooftop solar. The 2022-23 federal budget included $100 million co-invested with state governments to pay up to 50% of the costs of 85 community solar banks across the country - a program specifically designed to help those living in apartments access solar energy, and expected to power 25,000 households (294 per bank). The government also allocated $200 million to install 400 community batteries across Australia, powering up to 100,000 households (250 per battery). This initiative was administered via ARENA and the Business Grants Hub. Then, in May, Labor announced the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, making households and small businesses "eligible for around a 30% discount on the upfront cost of installing typical small-scale battery systems," declining gradually to 2030.
Thanks in part to this support, the Clean Energy Regulator was able to announce in December 2024 that Australia had reached 4 million small-scale renewable energy systems, with 1 in 3 Australian households having rooftop solar installed. Minister Bowen also announced in March this year that Labor had approved a "record" 77 renewable projects since 2022, enough to power 10 million homes, covering almost all the households in the country (10.8 million). Power Technology reported in March that renewables now powered 46% of the electricity grid. While this may not appear to be on track for our 82% renewable generation target, since many of the projects approved in the last three years are scheduled for completion around 2030, it's likely we'll see a surge of renewables entering the grid around then.
Part 2: innovation (and hydrogen in particular)
The 2025 Future Made in Australia (FMA) legislation commits $22 billion to renewables over the next decade, including a $1.7 billion innovation fund. $523.2 million of this is going towards the Battery Breakthrough Initiative, while another $750 million is allocated to the development of 'green metal projects,' including green hydrogen. $13 billion of the main FMA fund is also going towards critical minerals and green hydrogen. According to Renew Economy, "Hydrogen producers will get a tax incentive of $2 per kilogram of renewable hydrogen produced between 2027/28 and 2039/40." This is because, since releasing their 2024 National Hydrogen Strategy, Labor has had the stated aim of making Australia a "global hydrogen leader," using it to decarbonise our exports - green iron produces 20 times less CO2 than normal iron (the Conversation), making it attractive to trade partners dealing with carbon restrictions on imports.
However, hydrogen is a problematic fuel, for a number of reasons. Its scalability is currently unknown, and many investors are put off by uncertain returns. According to renewable energy expert Giles Parkinson, "This is one of the problems about the whole sort of green energy transition is that [shareholders] say, 'OK great, you're a leader but don't go so far out in front that we can't see you… then we kind of get worried…" Other problems with hydrogen include embrittling the pipes used to transport natural gas; the need to convert it to ammonia for shipping; and the fact that no one - not even pioneer Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest - can yet produce it in a commercially viable way.
Part 3: other climate policies & initiatives (and the SGM in particular)
The Powering Australia Plan is Labor's wholistic strategy for transitioning the energy sector. Within this, the $20 billion Rewire the Nation Fund will update Australia's electricity grid; the first $3B of this program was delivered in the 2022-23 budget. The now-concluded Energy Efficiency Grants for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Program (catchy title, I know) opened in March 2023, delivering $56.7 million to small businesses making an effort to reduce their emissions. Labor also increased funding to the RET, ARENA and the CEFC (the latter doubling). But the main focus of this part of the article is the Safeguard Mechanism, as it's an important and divisive policy.
The aim of the SGM, developed under the previous Coalition government, is to reduce emissions from Australia's largest 215 industrial facilities, collectively responsible for 30% of our national emissions. Except, under the Coalition, it didn't appear designed to do this at all: the caps on what facilities were allowed to emit before paying in carbon offsets or fines were far above what they were actually emitting, and there was no legislated annual decline on the cap.
Labor made major reforms to this policy in 2023, including a 5% annual reduction on the cap, and the removal of aggregate headroom between caps and actual emissions, (visible in the graph above) but several problems remain. First, there are so many 'flexibility options' built into the policy that many companies have so far been able to completely avoid reducing their emissions; and second, (as discussed further in the Action segment) a lot of questions have arisen in recent years as to the legitimacy of various carbon offset programs, including some bought by companies covered by the SGM. However, it's possible that at some point, these companies will decide to stop paying fines and buying offsets, as it will simply make more economic sense to decarbonise their operations.
Section D - Fossil fuels
Part 1: fossil fuel policy
According to Climate News Australia, "Labor is in favour of approving new coal mines, as long as they meet certain environmental standards," and doesn't intend to "phase out Australian coal production for export…" However, they have no plans for new coal-fired power stations, and most of our current fleet is due for retirement by 2034: so they do seem to be quietly phasing out the use of coal for electricity. Meanwhile, their Future Gas Strategy, released in May 2024, voices the party's support for natural gas, as a 'transition fuel.' Minister for Resources Madeleine King has said, "gas will remain an important source of energy through to 2050 and beyond… we will need continued exploration, investment and development in the sector to support the path to net zero." According to Minister King, the key roles of gas will be firming renewables, and powering "hard-to-abate sectors… until such time as alternatives are viable and can be deployed."
How necessary is this use of natural gas? According to the AEMO's Integrated System Plan 2024, we'll need to increase our 2024 renewable capacity six-fold by 2050, in order to fully transition the grid, as well as keep up with increasing demand. In this "optimal development path (ODP)," AEMO suggests that, "by 2050 grid-scale solar capacity would be 58 GW and wind 69 GW." However, they also call for "15 GW of gas-powered generation to ensure the NEM remains resilient under a range of power system and extreme weather events." In other words, to help avoid blackouts.
According to the ISP, this requires us to build around 12.8 GW of gas generation capacity before the current coal fleet and gas plants retire. But the ISP also crucially states that, "this gas generation… is not forecast to run frequently. A typical gas generator may generate just 5% of its annual potential, but will be critical when it runs." In other words, 15 GW of gas capacity does not equate to 15 GW of our energy coming from gas - by 2050, it's expected to be nothing more than a backup. Unfortunately, this still requires large reserves to use in emergencies, hence the need for further exploration.
Part 2: fossil fuel project approvals & extensions
In late 2024, independent journalist Michael West used EPBC and NOPSEMA data to determine that 2 carbon capture projects, 11 coal mine extensions, 3 new coal mines, 3 offshore oil or gas projects, and 3 onshore gas projects had been approved since 2022. This makes a total of 22 fossil fuel projects, counting the CCS - and according to Michael, only 14 of them were approved by Labor. Only 5 days later, a Greens blog post claimed Labor had approved 28 fossil fuel projects. The EPBC portal contains 21 fossil fuel project approvals between May 2022 and July 2025. While this doesn't include data from the NOPSEMA portal, it's safe to say Labor's approved closer to 20 than 30 projects.
So, according to this data, there have only been about 7 approvals per FY that Labor's been in power so far. By contrast, according to data from the Climate Council, while fossil fuel project approvals stalled in 2020 and 2021, presumably due to Covid, the Coalition approved 13 fossil fuel projects in 2019, 14 in 2018 and 18 in 2017. The total for that 3-year period was, of course, more than double Labor's first term. While this still doesn't excuse the fossil fuel approvals under Labor, it is interesting to compare the performance of the two parties.
Part 3: fossil fuel tax exemptions & subsidies
'Fossil fuel subsidies' from the federal government in 2024-25, according to the Australia Institute, totalled $12.5 billion. The Fuel Tax Credits Scheme (FTCS), created in 1999 under the Howard Liberal government, and currently valued at $10.2 billion, is the largest single component of federal government fossil fuel subsidies. But there's a slight problem with the Australia Institute (and several other organisations) calling it a fossil fuel subsidy. In 2023-24 around $1.3 billion of the FTCS went to metal ore mining, over $1B to coal mining, and $500M to other fossil fuels. This still leaves $7.4 billion for other industries, making the Australia Institute's claim misleading. However, they also argue that since these subsidies help to keep down the price of fuels like coal and gas, by reducing production costs for the manufacturers, the FTCS imperils the green energy transition by artificially making fossil fuels competitive with renewables, which is a fairer point.
Is there anything Labor can do about this scheme? Several options have been floated by Clean Energy Finance (CEF) - not to be confused with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). The CEF advocates for a $50 million cap on subsidies to individual corporations, while ACOSS (the Australian Council of Social Service) suggests simply cutting the $1.5 billion 'handout' to fossil fuel companies in particular. Quite apart from potential economic ramifications, either of these would be a bold political move, bound to be divisive - but it could also win the respect and renewed trust of a great portion of the population.
_____________________
As you can see, there's still a lot of work to be done for Australia's renewable transition, but it's encouraging to know how much progress has been made so far. Let's push the Albanese government to do even better in their second term, and make Australia a global leader in the green transition.
Image Sources:
Endangered animals: Top 10 Most Endangered Animals in Australia - Animals Around The Globe
Plastic waste: Plastic waste in Australia - The Australia Institute
Water conservation: Cruise the Great Barrier Reef | CruiseExperts.com Blog
Coal exports: Australia’s Coal Exports by Volume Set to Rise on Asian Demand - Bloomberg
Solar: Australia's biggest solar farm at Coleambally sets new production records | RenewEconomy
Rooftop solar: Australia breaks another rooftop solar record | The Fifth Estate
Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest: Mining billionaire Twiggy Forrest buys Harvey Beef - Beef Central
Coal mine: The future of coal-producing regions in NSW - Australian Mining
Gas extraction: Offshore Gas — Sources — Student Energy
Trucks: What You Need to Know to Become a Long-Haul Truck Driver
Creature Corner
Whale sharks: the gentle giants of the sea, by Valerie Monteith.
The whale shark (Rhincodon typus) is the largest fish in the sea, growing to around 12-18 metres in length. They are about the size of a bus and weigh up to 20 tonnes. Despite the slightly confusing name, whale sharks are not whales: they are sharks. Funnily enough, a close relative of the whale shark is the far smaller leopard shark, at only 1.5 metres long. The whale shark is a migratory animal, and lives mostly in warm, open waters. They live for 80 to 130 years, reaching sexual maturity at around 30 years of age. They can dive to around 1000 metres, though they prefer to stay on the surface to feed on plankton and krill.
The oldest whale shark species lived up to 255 million years ago, in the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods. The modern whale shark was discovered in 1828 when a 4.5 metre specimen was caught off the coast of South Africa, but there were fewer than 350 sightings of these unique animals before the mid-1980s.
Each whale shark has a distinct pattern of spots on their 14 cm thick skin - the thickest skin to be found on a shark! Marine biologists identify them through a mixture of information: from the unique spots on their skin, to tags that have been attached to the whale shark by scientists, and environmental DNA analysis.
There are two main sub-populations of whale sharks: one in the Indo-Pacific, which holds approximately 75% of the world’s whale sharks, and another in the Atlantic Ocean. Whale sharks are also commonly spotted (pardon the pun) along Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia - and because of this, it is a very popular destination for tourists. Last year, I was lucky enough to be one of those tourists!
While we know that whale sharks are migratory, it is unknown where they are born and raised, and there have only been a few sightings of mating. However, a 38cm whale shark was found trapped on a beach in Sorsogon, Philippines - the smallest specimen ever found. This led scientists to believe that the Philippines is not only a feeding ground, but also a nursery and birthing ground for whale sharks.
As well as the Philippines, it is thought that the Galapagos Islands may also have some reproductive significance. One study conducted from 2011-2013 showed that 91.5% of whale sharks around Darwin Island in the Galapagos were females, many of which were pregnant. Whale sharks are ovoviviparous, meaning the embryos will develop inside an egg in the mother until they are ready to hatch. In the early stages of growing, the males will develop faster than the females, but will normally be smaller than the females when mature. Sadly, only around 10% of whale sharks make it to adulthood.
As previously mentioned, whale sharks are well-known as filter feeders, one of only three sharks that use this feeding style. (The other two filter-feeder sharks are the basking shark, the second largest shark on the planet, and the megamouth shark.) Whale sharks mostly eat a mix of krill and copepods, as well as larger marine life such as squid, jellyfish and sardines. They will also swallow clouds of eggs during coral and fish spawning events. They have even been found to eat a type of macroalgae called Sargassum, consequently making them omnivores.
Whale sharks have around 3000 tiny teeth, but they are not used for biting or chewing. There are two ways they ingest food, both using the filtration system in the whale shark’s gills. (This is not dissimilar to the baleen filtration system of whales.) One way is that the shark will swim forwards whilst holding its mouth open, and the other way involves the animal opening and closing its mouth repeatedly. In both cases, the shark will use the filters on its gills to expel the water without any food loss. An adult whale shark eats around 21kg of food a day.
One species of fish regularly observed hanging around (or in this case, hanging off) whale sharks is the remora. The remora and the whale shark have formed a symbiotic relationship, in which it keeps the whale shark parasite-free and clean, and in return it receives food, protection, and a mode of transport. Remoras, part of the family Echeneidae, are also called suckerfish. They have a suction cup organ on the top of their head that allows them to attach to large marine animals, boats or even divers.
Unfortunately, whale sharks are currently considered by scientists as endangered. It is estimated that there are around 130,000-200,000 whale sharks left, but this number is declining. In the last 75 years, the world's population of whale sharks has halved. This is primarily due to human activity: every year, hundreds of whale sharks are hunted down for their meat or fins, or killed as bycatch in industrial fishing nets. They are also affected by pollution - including sound pollution. We are undeniably their main mortal threat.
Something must be done to stop these beautiful creatures from getting killed at such a rate, or they may die out. We can’t let these gentle giants, who have been around for millennia, dwindle so suddenly.
If you’d like to help protect the future of whale sharks, you can donate to support their conservation via the Australian Marine Conservation Society (starting at $6) and the Marine Megafauna Foundation (starting at $3).
Action
Rock Forrester covers 3 recent good news stories of environmental action in Australia.
It’s been a stressful year so far for Australia’s climate future, including a political tug-of-war over nuclear power and developments of the Northwest Shelf. With Labor pulling off a landslide victory, we can hopefully continue to see their pivot towards clean energy go smoothly. But beyond the bureaucracy that reformers have to contend with at the federal level, what has the rest of the country been up to recently in the fight against climate change?
In this Action segment, we’ll firstly discuss the recent legal victory of ‘Parents for Climate’ against Energy Australia, in which the company was left legally bound to remove their Go Neutral package due to misrepresenting the methods they used to 'negate' carbon emissions. Next, we’ll be talking about the work Damon Gameau and his team, The Regenerators, have been doing to reduce Australia's carbon emissions and push for a more sustainable economy.
Finally, we’ll be talking about a development that’s been far longer in the works: the regeneration of NSW’s Murray Darling Basin and Wetlands by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holders and the Murray Darling Wetlands Working Group - including their collaboration with First Nations peoples, and how this form of carbon sequestration is actually far more effective than the carbon sinks we typically envision.
The Fight Against Greenwashing - Parents for Climate v Energy Australia
The independent not-for-profit organisation ‘Parents for Climate’ - a group created to represent the interests of working parents and their children - has recently won a substantial lawsuit against Energy Australia. Energy Australia is known as a ‘gen-tailer’, meaning they work in both generating energy from a range of energy sources, and supplying the energy to residential and industrial customers: being one of the three largest energy companies in Australia also means they are the third-largest domestic emitter of greenhouse gases (equity generation lawyers). The lawsuit concerned Energy Australia’s highly misleading ‘Go Neutral’ package, advertised as a carbon-conscious alternative energy plan for customers who wished to reduce their emissions. They primarily used ‘carbon-offsetting’ in this deal, similar to the Emissions Trading Scheme or the Safeguard Mechanism, wherein businesses gain carbon credits per tonne of CO2 stored or avoided by a project.
There are many problems with this system. Firstly, there's simply the fact that companies like Energy Australia, with their ‘Go Neutral’ package, buy carbon credits from other companies to justify or equalise the emissions they put out. This is an inherently flawed idea - to quote Energy Australia itself, “Burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas emissions that are not prevented or undone by carbon offsets.”
Secondly, many of these carbon credits are actually far shoddier than they seem. For example, the company NIHT - which sold credits to massive organisations like the Sydney Opera House and Nespresso - claimed to create credits by preserving swathes of rainforest in Papua New Guinea. In reality, they had been underpaying locals immensely and still allowing logging to go on in the region. This is just one example of how this system is wrought with deceptive loopholes, while the damaging actions of industry are allowed to continue.
As part of the settlement with Parents for Climate, Energy Australia was made to remove their ‘Go Neutral’ offer and has been legally prevented from releasing any kind of similar package. Nic Seton, the CEO of PFC, understands the dangers of this form of marketing greenwashing, stating that it is “costing families money, delaying climate action, and eroding trust.” (ABC interview)
Ultimately, this form of ‘carbon-neutral’ greenwashing, apparent across many economic sectors within Australia and around the world, is incredibly dangerous and misleading; and continues to bog down critical, large-scale change in the transition towards clean energy. The PFC sees many failures within the group that Energy Australia was part of - ‘Climate Active’ - and has asked the Australian government to “see the writing on the wall and dump (their) ‘carbon neutral’ certification.” It’s evident that although government legislation is incredibly important, the action of grass-roots organisations, representing the people, is critical in the fight against greenwashing and climate change as a whole.
Damon Gameau and his mission to ‘Regenerate Australia’
Damon Gameau, famous for making the documentaries ‘That Sugar Film’ and ‘2040’, has embarked on a mission of trying to save the planet. He helped found the ‘Regenerators’, a community of like-minded people from all walks of Australian life who have been consistently fielding money and research for solutions to climate change and the damaging effects of late-stage industrialism. The mission is widespread: from planting trees, (65,000 so far!) to introducing climate awareness into Australian curricula, their multi-pronged strategy focuses on spreading awareness and action all throughout Australia.
Gameau’s documentary ‘2040’ raised $2 million for climate solutions, influenced over 50,000 teachers to shift their curriculum, and even contributed to the birth of seaweed farms that tackle carbon emissions. His newest documentary, ‘Regenerating Australia’, is a film set on New Year's Eve 2029 which reflects on the potential green future we could have if more was done for the climate. Made in collaboration with the World Wildlife Fund, it lends viewers the opportunity to ‘innovate to regenerate’ by proposing that any innovative business ideas could be funded by WWF’s $2 million seed fund.
One problem Gameau has identified with a lot of messaging around climate action is that it can ignore people’s own interests and become rather ‘prescriptive’, especially when you just tell people to “...eat less meat or ride your bike to work. [And] not everyone agrees with that.” The range of issues The Regenerators are working on, “whether it’s soil and wanting to get back into agriculture, whether it’s in energy…” is so broad that it invites innovation from all kinds of people, from all walks of life.
This is the crux of it: the mission of The Regenerators is, in a sense, to help bring people together and realise how similarly minded we all are. Damon Gameau and his Regenerators want people to understand that the gripes we all have, whether you’re left or right or centrist or upside down or who-knows-what, are not with each other, but with the system we have all been unwillingly inhabiting. In Gameau’s words, “...we are just being grotesquely misled by a very small group of powerful people with lots of money, keys to the kingdom. And they are having their way with us… no more. It’s time to reclaim and power ourselves.”
The collaboration that’s defending NSW’s integral wetlands
There’s been a major push over the past couple of years towards wetland restoration and improvement. From the Bellarine Peninsula in Victoria, to Armidale in WA and the St. Lawrence Wetlands in Queensland, this important element of Australia’s natural landscape (including saltmarsh, mangroves and seagrass) has incredible effects on the overall environment. For example, restored wetlands are able to hold far more moisture than wetlands damaged by over-industrialisation, agricultural runoff, and pollution. This means that restoring wetlands combats a common and destructive phenomenon, where shrubbery dries up, providing the perfect fuel for rampant wildfires.
In particular, the work carried out by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, (CEWH) and the Murray Darling Wetlands Working Group, (MDWWC) has been instrumental in defending wetland marshes around the Middle Wetland and the Murray Darling Basin, the lifeline for agriculture in Australia’s south-east. Their efforts, via population release and re-watering wetlands, have led to the reintroduction of the threatened aquatic species, the Murray Hardyhead, into Little Frenchman’s Creek. They had been considered extinct within NSW for over a decade, before the MDWWC and CEWH’s reformation of the landscape and the transport of the fish species from South Australia’s Riverland. This decade-long collaboration has led to the delivery of 6,000 megalitres of water to wetland sites in southern NSW: a massive effort, considering how much collaboration has been required both with local landowners and aboriginal communities.
There are clear benefits for strengthening this vital Australian catchment, for fire defense, resource availability and endangered species habitat protection. But what about carbon emissions? Well, a recent study conducted by RMIT’s Centre for Nature Positive Solutions found that restoring wetlands can cut carbon emissions by 39% within a year of the restoration. "By comparison, net carbon emissions from unrestored control wetlands increased by 169 per cent in the same period." (ABC) This form of aquatic carbon sequestration - the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by storing it into plant life - is called ‘blue carbon’ storage. Although rainforests are seen as the embodiment of a carbon sink, ‘blue carbon’ storage through maritime and wetland environments is far more effective as the water quantity means they can store carbon at a faster rate.
The Murray Darling Wetlands Working Group's next plan of action, a development which will last until at least 2028, will warrant a major increase in restorative efforts. Their expansion into wetlands in South Australia and Victoria will continue this transformation on a national scale, and their continued and respectful collaboration with First Nations people will further their decision-making power around how water within their local communities can be used. Primarily, the two groups will allow communities to take note of just how important effective water usage is, and help them take their first steps towards redeveloping wetlands - giving local groups the power to make change in their environment instead of waiting around for state and federal laws to be reformed.
With each passing year comes more and more news telling us how our climate is being irrevocably destroyed. But it’s critical to remember the important steps towards a clean environment being taken right here on our doorstep. From Parents for Climate’s lawsuit dismantling greenwashing attempts amongst energy industry giants like Energy Australia; to Damon Gameau’s Regenerators and the innovation they've been spurring on; even to the preservation of wetlands right here in NSW: there are millions of small steps being taken every day in the right direction. If you ever feel powerless in the fight against climate change, just remember how much of a difference we can make together, if we all commit to resist, regenerate, and restore.
Image Sources:
Climate protestors: Australia fires: Thousands demand bold action on climate change as protests sweep nation - The Washington Post
Energy Australia: Landmark ‘Greenwashing’ Legal Case over ‘Carbon Neutral’ product closes with EnergyAustralia apology to customers - Parents for Climate
Carbon offsets: Planting trees as carbon offsets is trickier than it seems | Popular Science
Regenerators: What next: a review of Damon Gameau's 2040
Mangroves: The State of the World’s Mangroves 2022 - Wetlands International
Murray-Darling: Murray-Darling Basin research: how Charles Sturt helps it flow
Analysis
Soren Arthur discovers the important role our diet plays in our carbon footprint.
Pause for a moment. Let’s all take a deep breath... And release it. Allow your body to relax, and your mind to reset.
At the moment, there’s so much going on in the world it’s rare to be able to get one's head above water and take a look at the bigger picture. Between the mess of the Middle East, democratic collapse in the US, and the Russia-Ukraine war, there are so many ongoing humanitarian crises that we simply lack the bandwidth for a meaningful conversation about climate change. So, let’s all take a moment to reset, and find a bit of calm in the storm, as we discuss the most effective, and yet most overlooked lifestyle change we can adopt to reduce our own carbon footprint.
When asked what we can do as individuals to reduce our impact on climate change, most of us feel like we have a pretty good answer: recycle diligently, avoid single-use plastics, make green investments, minimise travel by car and plane, and purchase your energy from renewable sources. With these changes, you’d be doing a pretty good job at keeping your carbon footprint to a minimum. But what if I told you there’s one simple lifestyle change you can make that will be more effective than all of these strategies combined?
When evaluating our personal environmental impact, we can break it down systematically into four domains: water use, greenhouse gas emissions, waste production and resource usage. Going through each one at a time, it becomes clear that our diet, though not the most obvious target, hides the biggest portion of our carbon footprint in the form of animal products.
Water Usage
Water usage is a common topic among environmentalists. Fresh water is both a vital and scarce resource – competition for its control has shaped much of history, from the strategic damming of the Tigris in ancient Babylon to conflicts over privatisation and damming in a modern context. An often-cited tactic for limiting our water usage is cutting our showers short. This is an effective strategy, right? As it turns out, showers actually only make up a small fraction of our water usage. In fact, following a diet free of animal products for just one year, one could expect to save the same amount of water as not showering at all for close to a hundred years!1
To get a better handle on these numbers, an average five-minute shower uses about 45-95 litres of water2. At the same time, 20,864 litres of water are required to produce one kilo of beef, 3,981 litres for one kilo of eggs, 1,000 litres for one litre of milk, and 7,511 for one kilo of cheese3, 4, 5.
At first, this sounds improbable. Where is all this water going when I buy a pack of hamburgers? The crucial fact is that raising the animal creates a trail of “hidden” resources and labour which typically goes unnoticed. What we see at the checkout is just the end product, but behind every bite lies a long chain of feed crop irrigation and thirsty animals, all drawing from the same limited well. When we shift our diet, we don’t just change what's on our plates, but take some pressure off one of our planet’s most vital and fragile lifelines.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gases constitute the greatest concern among environmental activists, and in themselves are an effective way of evaluating one’s own environmental impact. Traditionally, we talk about cutting out flights and time spent driving, improving energy efficiency within the home, using renewables, and buying local products.
Yet again, one of the largest players in this picture is often left out. Animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation, which makes it the third largest portion of the global carbon pie, after energy plants burning coal, oil and gas (26%), and materials production (19%).6 (NB: according to a study published after this article was written, the methane emissions of cattle change depending on their diet)
To give you an idea of the scale of this problem, cows alone produce 568 billion litres of methane per day7,8 – a greenhouse gas with a warming potential 86 times that of carbon dioxide across a 20-year time frame.9
By simply switching to a plant-based diet, a person could expect to eliminate up to 15% of their total carbon footprint, depending on their lifestyle. That’s the equivalent of cutting out international flights, switching to green power, and never driving again, all in one forkful.
Waste Production
Waste production is an area where significant strides have been made on personal, community, and governmental levels. We sort, compost, and strive toward zero-waste homes. And yet, the scale of waste tied to animal agriculture makes these efforts feel almost insignificant.
A farm with just 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people.10 In the US, livestock generates 130 times more waste than the entire human population, amounting to 1.4 billion tons of animal waste each year.11 That’s around five tons of excrement per person, per year, for every American. Every minute, animals raised for food produce seven million pounds of waste.12, 13
Unlike human sewage, which is treated and regulated, most of this animal waste is not. It ends up in lagoons, sprayed onto fields, or leaching into waterways, contaminating ecosystems and water sources, and accelerating the growth of toxic algae blooms and dead zones. Our diets are quite literally polluting the land and sea – too often out of sight, out of mind.
Resource Usage
Finally, we come to resource use. The scale of land, energy, and biodiversity loss required to support animal agriculture is staggering. Livestock and the crops grown to feed them occupy one third of the Earth’s ice-free land surface.14 One third. Just to raise the animals we eat.
Of course, this land has to come from somewhere: it’s being taken from nature. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction. Rainforests, often invoked as Earth’s lungs, are being choked by the industry. Up to 91% of the destruction of the Amazon is driven by livestock and feedcrops.15 Every day, we lose up to 137 species of plants, animals, and insects due to rainforest clearing.16, 17 These aren't abstract losses – they’re irreversible vanishing acts, happening daily, powered by the decisions we make at the supermarket.
In the ocean, the story is no better. We pull as many as 2.7 trillion animals from the sea each year,18 not just damaging ecosystems but threatening the very stability of marine life itself. Meanwhile, livestock operations on land have created more than 500 nitrogen-flooded dead zones around the world, where nothing can grow or survive.19 In terms of sheer ecological destruction, animal agriculture isn't just a contributor: it’s the single biggest force behind the largest extinction event in 65 million years.20
So here we are. Still breathing.
It’s easy to feel helpless in the face of global environmental collapse, and to believe that only governments and corporations can make meaningful change. But we are not powerless. Every meal is a vote, not just for what kind of world we want, but whether we want a world at all.
In choosing to halt or reduce our consumption of animal products, we don’t just shrink our carbon footprint. We conserve water, protect forests, preserve biodiversity, reduce pollution, and offer our small but meaningful refusal to participate in the machinery of mass extinction. The world is an overwhelming mess, but not all the solutions are complicated - and some begin on your plate.
Image Sources:
Steak: Perfect Grilled Steak
Water usage: Herd health, economics based on water quality | The Western Producer
Emissions: Alabama Pasture to Rail Program - Alabama Cooperative Extension System
Waste causing algal blooms: Algae Bloom Toxic Algae Bloom Prompts Water Warning In View Royal Lake
Overfishing oceans: Fisheries Ministers blamed by the EU for overfishing in 2021 - BirdWatch Ireland
Logging rainforests: Logging and timber harvesting in the rainforest
Comic Relief
Have you ever wondered what a rat parliament would look like? Thanks to Ivy Rush and Ella Purcell's latest comic, we have a pretty good idea.
Fin.
We hope you enjoyed the latest Issue of Green News Australia! The newsletter will return for our January issue, and in the meantime, keep your eyes peeled for the many research projects we have planned...
If you're 10-25, live in Australia and are passionate about climate action, you could be featured in the next issue... If you're interested in contributing an article, testimony or photos, you can reach the editor via the contact page, or message us directly on Insta.
Comments