The Conversation

A photo from Sea Shepherd allegedly shows a Japanese whaling vessel with a dead minke whale on board. EPA/GLENN LOCKITCH / SEA SHEPHERD HANDOUT

Photographs allegedly showing Japanese whaling operations in the Southern Ocean emerged this week. Coinciding with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Australia, critics have called for greater action from the Australian government on the issue.

Japan has stated that, despite various resolutions at the International Whaling Commission and criticism from many governments about its so-called “scientific” activity, it abides by its own interpretation of the Whaling Convention – the international agreement that governs whaling. This interpretation focuses on Article VIII of the convention, which allows a country to issue its own permits to kill whales for research.

The same issues are raised each summer when Japanese whaling fleets head south. But the apparently obvious questions have complex answers.

Didn’t the International Court of Justice ban Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean?

The 2014 International Court of Justice (ICJ) whaling decision was quite narrow. It ruled that the old JARPA II scientific program was not for the purposes of scientific research.

Therefore, the court deemed that Japanese whaling was a commercial operation, something that had been banned under the Whaling Convention since 1985.

Labor’s former attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, noted that the court had not completely ordered cessation of whaling for all time. And this is correct.

While the judgment gave guidance on what is and what isn’t “for the purposes of scientific research”, it did not ban Japan from conducting further scientific research activity under the convention.

In response to the judgment, the Japanese government abandoned the JARPA II program. The current and very similar NEWREP-A program took its place. This program, in all likelihood, is “not for the purposes of scientific research” either.

Should Australia take Japan back to court?

Following the ICJ case, Japan ruled out the jurisdiction of the ICJ in “any dispute arising out of, concerning, or relating to research on, or conservation, management or exploitation of, living resources of the sea”.

Therefore, Australia could not take Japan back to the ICJ on this issue.

Is the whaling fleet operating in Australian waters?

The waters below 60 degrees south fall under the Antarctic Treaty, to which Australia and Japan are both parties. The treaty was a peaceful territorial compromise between countries (like Australia) that claim parts of the Antarctic continent, and other countries (like Japan) that do not recognise those claims.

Australia claims about 5.9 million square kilometres of the Antarctic continent, and the adjacent ocean out to 200 nautical miles.

However, the treaty “freezes” any arguments over the sovereign claims by Australia, New Zealand, France, UK, Chile, Argentina and Norway, and has developed a complex web of instruments that protect the Antarctic environment and maintain the continent as a place of peace and science.

While Australia does not relinquish its claim to Antarctica under the treaty, it agrees to comply fully with the treaty’s rules and obligations. In turn, this means countries that don’t recognise claims are free to go about scientific research and peaceful activities.

Japan does not recognise Australia’s claim to the Antarctic continent. As such, it views the waters off the Australian Antarctic Territory as the high seas, which are governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Antarctic Treaty’s Environment Protocol also explicitly states that it does not affect the rights of countries under the Whaling Convention.

In almost all cases, only Australian citizens are bound by Australian law in Antarctica. If there are any issues of jurisdiction under the provisions of the treaty, countries must resolve them peacefully, or refer them to the ICJ.

Didn’t the Australian Federal Court say whaling is illegal?

In 2008, the Humane Society International took Japanese whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha to court over whaling in Australia’s Antarctic waters, which Australia calls the Australian Whale Sanctuary.

The Federal Court held that whaling in Australia’s maritime claim was illegal under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act.

It’s not up to the Federal Court to question Australia’s claim to Antarctic waters, so it applied Australian law in a consistent manner. The EPBC Act is also one of the few that extends to non-Australian citizens in Australian-claimed waters in Antarctica.

But remember that Japan does not recognise Australia’s claim to Antarctic waters. Even though the Federal Court recognised this, it held that this was not a reason to withold judgment. In 2015, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha was held in contempt of court orders by continuing to kill whales, and was fined A$1 million.

The Japanese government responded to the case, stating that “this issue relates to waters and a matter over which Japan does not recognise Australian jurisdiction”. Therefore, the restraining orders and injunction on further whaling are still outstanding and will likely remain so.

Should we send Australian ships to confront the whalers?

The Australian and Japanese governments are under an obligation to prevent Antarctica becoming a place of discord. Any confrontation on the high seas would be seen as an incredibly aggressive and potentially illegal act.

The Australian vessel Oceanic Viking was sent to monitor the fleet in 2008 to compile evidence for the ICJ case. It did not intervene physically with the whaling fleet, likely due to its potential illegality, aggressiveness, concern for the safety of lives at sea, and environmental reasons.

Japan is transparent about its catches and reports all its activities (including the number of whales it kills) to the Whaling Commission as part of its self-issued scientific whaling permit. Countries that are members of the commission therefore have access to all the information on Japanese activities.

The Greens are calling for the Australian Border Force to be sent to Australia’s Antarctic waters, but, for the reasons above, this is likely to be futile.

What now?

Australia appears to have exhausted most legal options. Professor Tim Stephens noted, however, that the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea could be a forum where Japan is challenged over its activities.

Obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention include mandatory dispute resolution, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and duties to cooperate.

Several alternative courses of action have been suggested and new resolutions at the Whaling Commission have yet to be implemented. However, the decision to stop Japanese whaling is, in reality, likely to come only from the Japanese people themselves.

Indi Hodgson-Johnston receives scholarship funding from the University of Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.

In our recent study we found that 40% of 203 Sydney homes we sampled contain lead in garden soil above the Australian health guideline of 300 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).

This presents a hazard because soil lead can adhere to or get absorbed into edible plants. An additional pathway of exposure occurs when contaminated soil dust enters homes and is accidentally ingested. Lead is a potent neurotoxin that affects childhood development.

Urban agriculture and VegeSafe

Urban agriculture is becoming more popular across Australia. Almost half (48%) of all households in metropolitan areas are now growing some form of edible produce.

Most lead contamination is a result of the historical use of lead petrol and lead-based paint (now phased out) and previous industrial emissions. Scientists and regulators are well aware of these legacy issues, but the general public remains underinformed about the potential risks.

To help urban gardeners assess contamination risks associated with their garden soils, we started the community science initiative VegeSafe in 2013. This program offers free soil metal screening to participants.

Each participant receives a formal report on their soil metal results and advice about what to do next if soils contain elevated concentrations of metals. We have provided 5,500 free soil metal tests to over 1,300 homes and community gardens (Australia-wide), the largest program and study of its kind in Australia.

What did we find?

As well as the 40% of Sydney gardens containing soil above the 300 mg/kg Australian health guideline, approximately one in seven homes had soils lead levels greater than 1,000 mg/kg. Soil metal concentrations were typically greatest around drip lines.

Soil lead concentrations were greatest in the City of Sydney and former local government areas of Leichhardt Municipal Council and Marrickville Council, which had mean soil lead concentrations of 883 mg/kg, 960 mg/kg and 689 mg/kg, respectively.

Soil lead concentrations of vegetable garden soils from 141 Sydney homes. Map represents one of four areas around homes (front yard, drip line, back yard and vegetable garden) in this study. Source: Rouillon et al. 2016

Homes with painted exteriors built before 1970 were more likely to have soils contaminated with lead. The highest levels are at homes 80 years or older. This is likely to have been caused by lead-rich paint, which contained up to 50% lead prior to 1970. Lead in paint was reduced to less than 1,000 mg/kg (0.1%) by 1997.

We observed the environmental benefit of the withdrawal of lead from paints and leaded petrol (removed in 2002) in our study. Garden soils at newer homes contain the least lead. Soil lead concentrations decrease with distance from Sydney’s city centre, where there are more old homes and greater density of traffic and industry.

Cross-section schematic of a typical inner-Sydney residential home with median soil Pb (lead) concentrations for painted pre-1970 homes, non-painted pre-1970 homes, post-1970 homes and reference homes. The vegetable garden is displayed at the rear of the back yard, as this was the case for the majority of homes. Source: Rouillon et al. 2016 Public health

Lead exposure is especially detrimental for children because their neurological and skeletal systems are developing. Adults are also adversely affected, with studies showing increased blood pressure and hypertension associated with sub-clinical exposures.

Toxicological evidence also shows that exposure reduces semen quality and extends the time to pregnancy. In short, lead is detrimental to all human systems and exposures should be avoided or minimised at all times.

Our study demonstrates lead contamination in garden soils is greater at painted homes than non-painted homes. Many pre-1970 Australian homes still contain paint with up to 50% lead on exterior walls, fences, eves, doors and window frames.

The main risk of exposure arises when lead-based paint deteriorates or is removed improperly. Indeed, many home renovators unwittingly expose themselves and others due to a lack of knowledge of lead hazards.

Paints containing lead are no longer used in Australia, but remain on countless homes. Reducing exposure

The United States Environmental Protection Agency introduced legislation specifically targeting houses with lead paint to prevent contamination and to minimise avoidable lead exposures.

Unfortunately this regulatory gap has not been filled in Australia. Despite the widespread historic use of lead-based paints and the high proportion of exposure related to it, our data reveals a concerning legacy of soil lead contamination in older suburbs.

We recommend that people residing at or planning to purchase or renovate homes built before 1970 should get their soils and paint tested for lead. Using a qualified lead-abatement decorator in older homes would also help prevent exposure. Where parents and homeowners think they may have caused exposure, their GPs can provide a blood lead test.

Reducing even low-level exposures is critical, as demonstrated by Bruce Lanphear’s “prevention paradox” (see the image below). The graphic illustrates that the most IQ points across a population are lost from low-level lead exposures.

Bruce Lanphear’s prevention paradox. The majority of IQ points lost to lead exposure occurs in children who have low-to-moderate exposure to lead. Adapted from Reference (Lanphear 2015) What can gardeners do?

Where non-food-growing soils exceed the Australian soil metal guidelines, we recommend maintaining year-round cover of lawn or mulch to minimise dust generation.

Where metal guidelines are exceeded in food-growing soils, we recommend either replacing existing soil with new, uncontaminated soil, or relocating the food garden to an above-ground vegetable plot (again with new soil).

In this way, gardeners can exercise our motto, which is to carry on gardening knowing their soils are clean.

The VegeSafe program is ongoing for all Australians. Gardeners can send their soil samples to Macquarie University for free soil metal screening of their soil. We do, however, take donations to help sustain our program – so please support your citizen science.

Mark Patrick Taylor is affiliated with: Broken Hill Lead Reference Group. LEAD Group Inc. (Australia). NSW Government Lead Expert Working Group - Lead exposure management for suburbs around the former Boolaroo (NSW) Pasminco smelter site, Dec 2014–ongoing. Appointed by NSW Environment Minister to review NSW EPA’s management of contaminated sites, October 2015–ongoing. The VegeSafe project receives funding support via voluntary donations from the public. The VegeSafe study published in the journal Environmental Pollution was completed during a period of cash and in-kind support for a broader evaluation of the use and application of field portable XRFs for the assessment of environmental contamination. This funding support came from two sources: OIympus Australia Pty Ltd and the National Measurement Institute, North Ryde, Sydney.

Louise Kristensen, Marek Rouillon, Paul Harvey, and Steven G George do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

If you're feeling hot this summer, consider a retrofit. Fan image from www.shutterstock.com

Sitting at home in the summer heat, your mind may start to wander to that fancy new air conditioner.

But when it comes to making your house comfortable and sustainable, prevention is better than cure. By prevention we mean simple retrofits that will set you on the path to comfort and sustainability.

As we spend more than ever on maintaining and improving our homes, we’re also becoming more aware of how their design and use impact on our health and society. Add to this climate change and rising energy costs.

There are many ways to reduce energy and stay comfortable (for instance here and here). Numerous reports suggest it should be possible to reduce your energy use by 50-80% using existing and available materials and appliances.

Appliance are the easy bit, and you can find the most efficient appliances using energy star ratings. But before you go out and buy that air conditioner, consider the following principles that can help you decide what you need to create a comfortable home.

Prevention better than cure

For a long time the perfect “room temperature” was considered to be around 21℃. But we now understand that as humans we like temperature variations rather than vanilla indoor environments.

As explored in Lisa Heschong’s book Thermal Delight in Architecture (1979), most of us are not looking for a beige thermal environment after all. So to start with, we need a change in attitude. Bring back the cardigan for winter and the shorts for summer!

The next point is basic knowledge about your climate zone. For instance, in Melbourne there are more heating days (159) than cooling days (35). So, if you are retrofitting in summer, remember the main annual task is actually letting the sun in in winter.

Even with climate change, Melbourne will still require heating on more days than cooling for decades to come, whereas in Brisbane the priority is keeping out the heat and catching the breeze.

So Melbourne homes need reversible sunblock. You can use plants with seasonal foliage to shade summer windows, or temporary techniques like temporary sail shades or movable window awnings can work. Plants can also cool outdoor spaces through evapotranspiration, which helps combat the growing “urban heat island” problem and makes the backyard a more pleasant place to be.

Despite some bad press over the years, insulating ceiling, floors and walls where possible remains the best way to address 50-80% of heat gains/losses. In many homes ceiling insulation is cheap and easy to fit and can even be topped up. Insulated homes have also been found to perform better during extreme weather events and are quieter, more comfortable and natural places to be.

In summer sun, black roofs are bad news. Coating surfaces can reflect excess heat. Coating technology has been employed in paint products for your walls and roofs, and is also being developed in landscaping materials for the backyard.

Single-glazed windows are responsible for 10-35% of heat gains/losses in our homes. A range of double-glazed window products is now available, or you can even get a secondary glass pane to place over existing windows.

Double-glazed (or triple-glazed) homes are more comfortable in extreme weather, and are also quieter and more comfortable. Add drapes and blinds for added temporary use to keep out sun or keep in warmth when needed.

While these preventive passive measures might seem basic, the fact is that (a) technologies, markets and pricing are changing rapidly, so it makes sense to be open to new retrofitting ideas and products; and (b) comfort remains the big-ticket item and it will only get more so as climate change affects all of our homes. Addressing this first will reduce the requirement for other technologies and appliances.

The principles of retrofitting

Another area of technology progress is digital data systems to monitor indoor energy services. Energy supplier portals, temperature loggers and smartphone apps are now widely available.

For the more enthusiastic, if you buy a couple of temperature loggers and place one in your main living area and one in your main bedroom you can collect data at intervals as small as one second. You can use this data to identify how your house is performing and how you are using it. More importantly, you can satisfy yourself that the retrofit you’ve just paid for has made a difference.

We’ve only covered a few focus areas in this article. There are many good options we haven’t dealt with. However, we propose three principles for any retrofit project:

1. prioritise big-ticket items (such as thermal comfort) – what do you need most and what uses the most energy? – to plan and design around your climate zone and home needs

2. prevention is better than cure – focus on passive elements before turning to appliances

3. diversity is better than standardisation – don’t aim for 21℃, aim for controllable comfort, openable windows and adjustable systems room by room. Design in easy adjustment through movable technologies such as fans, curtains, plants and shades.

With all the hard work done, it’s time to sit back and enjoy the new indoor environment, but be aware that, as with our climate, our conventions, routines and expectations of comfort are constantly changing.

Some argue for evidence of a comfort dividend, where occupants of newly eco-retrofitted homes increase their use of heating or cooling appliances (or both).

Undoubtedly, as consumption patterns change and social standards shift, we will need to adjust our eco-retrofit priorities. Homes are not just a material work in progress, but are sites of social and cultural life after all.

Trivess Moore receives funding from the Australian Research Council and built environment and related bodies from time to time to fund research on housing, including sustainable housing retrofit.

Andrew Carre has previously undertaken life cycle assessment studies of buildings for Forest and Wood Products Australia.

Ralph Horne receives funding from the Australian Research Council and built environment and related bodies from time to time to co-fund research on housing, including sustainable housing retrofit.

Pets suffer just as badly as their humans in the heat. Robert Occhialini/Flickr, CC BY-NC

As the weather heats up, Australian households won’t just be cranking up the air conditioning for themselves. Some households will be turning it on for their dogs or cats.

Our research on energy demand and household cooling highlights a recent trend towards air-conditioning rooms or homes for pets. As well as cooling homes occupied by both humans and their furry friends, air conditioners may be left on when dogs or cats are home alone.

Some pet owners also leave doors and windows open for their dogs and cats to move between indoor and outdoor areas. This means that air conditioners have to work harder and use more energy to maintain indoor temperatures.

Our research is consistent with an emerging international trend towards the “humanisation of pets”, which is contributing to energy use in households.

A 2013 study released by E.ON UK (a UK power company) on “hot-dogs and thermo-cats” found that more than half (52%) of UK pet owners turn up the heating for their pets when they go out. Some UK households also leave radios or televisions on for pets so that they don’t get lonely when their owners leave the home.

In other areas of everyday life, cats and dogs now play iPad games, eat specialised diets, have heated mats or air-conditioned kennels, and have their own fashion accessories and electronic toys.

The energy impacts of home cooling

On average across Australia, heating and cooling make up 40% of our energy use in households, not including hot water.

Most Australians who live in southern states use cooling in their homes sporadically, turning it on during hot summer afternoons and evenings when they get home from work or other activities. The rapid growth in residential air conditioning for this purpose has been one of the main contributors to Australia’s peak electricity demand, which has increased energy bills.

Not doing too much is a great way to keep pets cool. Cat image from www.shutterstock.com

Trends in pet cooling could change the energy demand for cooling in homes. Australia has one of the highest rates of pet ownership in the world, with 63% of households keeping an animal as a pet.

According to a 2013 report by the Animal Health Alliance, there are 4.2 million pet dogs and 3.3 million pet cats in Australia. Of these, 76% of dogs and 92% of cats are kept exclusively or partly indoors.

Providing air conditioning for pets during the day when people aren’t at home would raise residential energy demand. It could also extend and possibly increase electricity peaks if more areas of the property (such as kennels or garages) are being cooled for a longer time.

What makes pets hot?

Although cats and dogs differ in their physiology, in general older, sick or overweight pets may be less resilient to the heat. Some breeds may also be more vulnerable than others.

For example, short-snout dog breeds (Bulldogs, Pekes and Pugs) are more likely to suffer from heatstroke. This also applies to short-faced cats like Persians or exotics.

Many things can exacerbate heat stress for pets. For example, people living in apartments may find it more difficult to provide cool outdoor spaces for dogs, or to engage in “waterplay”, as recommended by Pets Australia.

How to keep pets cool

Advice on how to keep pets cool varies and is different for cats and dogs. Pets Australia recommends providing cool spaces such as shade, cold tiles or digging holes in the soil. Other examples include giving dogs cool treats like frozen meat, providing lots of water for hydration and stopping exercise.

Some websites recommend keeping pets inside on hot days, preferably with an air conditioner or fan turned on. Other sites recommend cooling mats or vests such as gel pads, which can be refrigerated or frozen prior to use.

Sometimes you just need a dip. Pamala Wilson/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Murdoch University provides advice on how to recognise heatstroke warning signs, and what to do if you suspect your pet is suffering from heatstroke. The growing market for pet cameras is one way to keep an eye on pets while owners are out of the house.

What needs to be done?

As climate change continues to increase the severity and duration of heat waves, the incidence of heatstroke in pets is likely to increase too. This applies especially to those living in energy-inefficient housing or with access to poor-quality outdoor environments.

There is a clear need to seriously consider pet cooling in the design of energy-efficient housing and in energy policy that targets households.

It may also be timely to reconsider pet types and breeds appropriate for the Australian climate. Siberian huskies, for example, prefer cooler climates and may be more likely to suffer from heatstroke than breeds with smooth or short coats.

More research is also needed to understand how Australian households are changing the ways they keep their pets cool, and what can be done to reduce heat stress in pets without increasing energy demand or electricity peaks in homes.

In the meantime there is a range of advice on how to keep pets cool. Many creative solutions are available that don’t require leaving the air conditioner running.

Yolande Strengers currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Energy Consumers Australia and the Victorian Council of Social Services. She is a member of the Australian Sociological Association (TASA).

Cecily Maller receives funding from the Australian Government and in the past has received funding from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) and the Victorian Government. She is a member of the Institute of Australian Geographers and The Australian Sociological Association (TASA).

Larissa Nicholls receives research funding from Energy Consumers Australia and the Victorian Council of Social Service.

Cancelled flights might be your worst nightmare, but imagine a world with no flights. Flight image from www.shutterstock.com

In Australia, the amount of aviation fuel consumed per head of population has more than doubled since the 1980s. We now use, on average, 2.2 barrels (or 347 litres) of jet fuel per person per year.

This historically unprecedented aeromobility has enormous environmental costs. Aviation is contributing to around 4.9% of current global warming and this is forecast to at least triple by 2050. Domestic aviation in Australia produces around 8.6 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year.

Offsetting schemes, technology solutions and other attempts to lower the carbon emissions of aviation have failed dismally.

The only solution to these intractable environmental impacts is the dramatic reduction, or complete elimination, of air travel. It might be hard to imagine life without the plane, but the idea is not as crazy as it sounds.

Australian aviation fuel consumption per capita 1985-2015. Sources: Australian Petroleum Statistics and the ABS Estimated Residential Population.

Here are nine common objections to grounding planes, and our counterpoints:

1. There are no fast, cheap and clean transport alternatives to the plane.

So we build them. We construct a national high-speed rail network and more efficient intercity, rural and urban transport systems. These projects would involve Australian steel, thousands of new jobs and large-scale regional planning and infrastructure development.

These programs would ameliorate urban congestion, the most pressing priority of Infrastructure Australia, revitalise regional communities and dramatically reduce our imports of crude and refined petroleum.

The continual development of communications technologies, including fast internet and virtual reality, will make much business travel redundant. Investing in virtual technologies and forcing the political and corporate elite to use other transport modes would hasten political support for, and investment in, the development of transport alternatives.

2. What about the economic value of tourism?

If we abandoned all tourist flights, the economy would be A$14.4 billion better off. International visitors spent A$38.1 billion in Australia in 2015-16. But, Australians travelling overseas spent far more – A$52.4 billion – in the same period.

International tourism, both in and outbound, would continue under a no–aviation scenario. As an island nation we will become reliant on ships. Travel by cruise ship is already booming. While cruise ships are currently highly polluting, their conversion to non-fossil-fuel energy, in contrast to the plane, is more achievable.

3. What about our education export industry?

Transnational education, teaching of students by Australian university offshore programs and via online distance education, is already significant, accounting for 30.2% of all higher education international students in 2015. We would invest more heavily in these educational platforms and technologies.

4. What about the jobs in the aviation industry?

Technological replacement and offshoring have decimated full-time jobs in Australia’s aviation industry. The employment generated by growth in domestic tourism and the construction of high-speed rail, ships and other transport alternatives would more than compensate.

Aviation jobs per 1000 revenue passenger kilometres for domestic flights. Sources: BITRE Australian Domestic Aviation Activity data and the ABS Labour Force Survey statistics on employment in the air and space transport industries. 5. What about the needs of farmers and hospitality industries who rely on backpackers?

We would still have a backpacker labour force under conditions of “slow tourism” that uses alternatives to cars and planes. Particularly for longer-stay tourism, arrival and departures by boat would be a small component of a trip.

We could also start using our own population for these jobs by paying higher wages. This might also reduce unemployment and dependency on social welfare and raise additional tax revenue. In the longer term we would transition to agriculture and hospitality industries that are not reliant on exploited and underpaid holiday-workers.

6. What about medical, military and rescue flights?

We need to keep essential flights for medical, rescue and firefighting purposes, and some military capacity. For essential flights, mitigation strategies like offsets may work as emissions would be low in aggregate.

7. What about sport and culture?

Sport and air travel are closely linked. Our national rugby union team is the Qantas Wallabies. Although teams travel, more spectators than ever are staying put – preferring to watch live sports on TV. Technological improvements will continue to produce a better-than-real home experience. And the eSports teams of the future may not have to leave home either.

8. Prohibition never works!

Banning things like alcohol has proven historically difficult, even in Canberra. But no-fly zones are easier to enforce – you couldn’t smuggle an A380 into the country and fly it around without anyone noticing.

9. It’s too radical a change – it would cause chaos!

Arguably, the controllable outcomes of grounding aircraft will be far less severe than the chaos of uncontrolled global climate change. A transformed, low-emissions transportation system can be planned for and, while there will be significant readjustment, life will go on.

A “business as usual” climate change scenario will unleash destruction unparalleled in human history, including the genuine threat of species extinction.

As an island nation we are more dependent than most on the aeroplane. Rather than giving us special dispensation, this puts us in a position to be world leaders in sustainable transport. Our proposal to ground planes and dramatically reduce emissions would need tremendous action in terms of civic will, and a state apparatus politically capable of taking radical action.

Liberal democracies are capable of such action, as evidenced by Australia’s Snowy Mountains Scheme. And Trump’s mandate to build infrastructure shows nation-building projects still command public support. An aviation-free Australia is a genuine and necessary alternative.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Six years ago on January 11 2011 a catastrophic flood unfolded in the Lockyer Valley in southeast Queensland. Twenty-two people lost their lives.

Floodwaters spilled out across the Brisbane River floodplains, equal to the area of France and Germany combined. The waters inundated the CBD and inner suburbs and brought the state’s capital to a standstill.

The 2011 flood was reported as “biblical” and extreme in its magnitude.

Our research, based on palaeological flood records, suggests floods of this size may be more common than we think. When the next one occurs is a matter of when, not if. So what can we do to plan better?

Brisbane ferry terminal. State Library of Queensland What is a one-in-100-year flood?

Floods are the most expensive type of natural disaster in Australia. The 2011 flood is estimated to have cost the Australian economy around A$30 billion. This does not include the incalculable cost of declining water quality and ecosystem health in offshore ecosystems such as Moreton Bay.

To manage flood risk, we have to understand the chance of different-sized floods occurring. The chance of a flood event can be described using a variety of terms, commonly including the average recurrence interval (ARI). You’ve probably seen this reported in the media as the “one-in-100-year flood”.

However, the preferred method is now annual exceedance probability (AEP). For example, the one-in-100-year flood has a one-in-100 chance or 1% AEP of being exceeded in any year. Currently, this 1% AEP event is designated as having an “acceptable” risk for planning purposes nearly everywhere in Australia.

Initial estimations of the 2011 event, based on 31 years of gauging records in the Upper Lockyer, indicated an AEP of 0.05%, or an ARI of one in 2,000 years.

But another extreme event in 2013, with five more years of data, reduced this to 1.11%, or one in 90 years. This illustrates a major problem with calculating flood risk: flood prediction is extremely dependent on the amount of data. It is worse in countries such as Australia where European settlement occurred relatively recently.

Finding old floods

One way to extend the data is to incorporate palaeoflood records into flood predictions. Palaeoflood records are obtained from a range of techniques that combine different sources of past flood information from the landscape.

These might include markers on old buildings or bridges which extend further back than the river gauging records. Flood sediments stored high in bedrock gorges or in lowland floodplains also provide a long-term record once we’ve dated them.

In our recent Australian Research Council Linkage Project, The Big Flood: will it happen again?, we’ve been looking at these types of flood records.

Flood deposits. Jacky Croke

The project has produced the first-ever palaeoflood record for the Lockyer Valley, extending it back several thousand years. We’ve produced a timeline of past floods using a technique called Optically Stimulated Luminescence, which estimates the age based on how much sunlight (UV light) is stored in a single grain of sand. UV light produces a luminescence signal that gets trapped inside the lattice of the quartz sand. The amount stored can be converted to produce an age since burial.

This record reveals that flood events like 2011 have occurred at least seven times over the past 1,000 years. We also found a period of high flood activity during the 1700s, which exceeded the size of the historical events of the 1890s and 1974 floods. We can also see clusters of floods within short time periods, such as the cluster in the 1800s, which was highlighted again by the floods in 2011 and 2013.

The record indicates that such extreme flood events may occur more frequently than we thought.

Most importantly, when we incorporate palaeoflood records into traditional flood analysis, the uncertainty in predictions is significantly reduced.

Incorporating palaeoflood records reduces the uncertainty in flood forecasts. The Big Flood project What do we need to do with this information?

Palaeoflood records represent a viable, cost-effective solution to the ongoing problem of flood risk management in Australia. To date, the use of palaeoflood records has not been included in traditional flood analysis nor recognised in planning or policy. In spite of two extreme events in 2011 and 2013, many planning and policy guidelines remain unchanged.

The two extreme flood events in 2011 and 2013 indicate that the level of certainty around acceptable limits of flooding is inadequate. Longer records are needed to reduce flood risk in southeast Queensland. Without this critical next step, Australians remain at risk of extreme flood events.

Given the likelihood of increasing rainfall extremes in the future, it is important we start using the information nature has preserved to better prepare for more frequent extreme floods.

Jacky Croke receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Social media might help you navigate the confusing world of sustainability. ra2studio/shutterstock.com

Facebook has always been controversial, with many users worrying about how the information they post might be used. Lately, the social media behemoth has also been criticised for facilitating the spread of fake news.

But over the past 18 months I have learned that the technology of Facebook groups offers an effective way for people to collaborate on common interests – in my case, on enhancing the sustainability of our homes and lifestyles.

As part of a research project, I created a public Facebook group where members initially discussed and decoded a particularly sophisticated space-heating heat pump (otherwise known on mainland Australia as a reverse-cycle air conditioner). Predictably, our discussions quickly expanded to include other aspects of home economics, aesthetics, comfort and sustainability.

Today the group is called My Efficient Electric Home. Membership has doubled over the past two months. It now includes more than 550 people, from every state and territory of Australia as well as New Zealand and other countries.

It’s global, but it can quickly become local. The other day a member living near Cairns, Queensland, posed some questions about solar panels and tropical swimming pools. Shortly thereafter another member, also from around Cairns, chimed in with (hopefully!) the answer.

My efficient electric home

Our stated purpose is for group members to discuss methods of space heating, water heating and cooking using electricity rather than fossil gas or wood. Our focus on electricity recognises a future in which renewable energy is the fuel of choice, whether it is sourced from a central or neighbourhood grid, or generated and stored at home.

The Electric Home of the Future, as envisaged in the past. Popular Mechanics Magazine, 1939

As a “public” group, millions of Facebook users from anywhere on the planet can find us and passively observe our discussions. For those who wish to engage more actively, becoming a member (by making a request to the group admin) allows users to ask or answer questions, post information and receive notifications about our group’s activity. Some of our members belong to dozens of Facebook groups, but for others, like me, My Efficient Electric Home was their very first.

Ours isn’t the only internet group to discuss sustainability and energy efficiency. Various online resources such as the Whirlpool forum have been around for years, covering topics ranging from computer software to travel. Moderated sites such as the Alternative Technology Association and Choice have covered home-sustainability topics.

And of course we can’t forget the hundreds of comments left by readers of my previous home-energy-related articles right here on The Conversation. However, an attraction of Facebook over simpler message boards is Facebook’s wide range of features.

How it’s working

Members of our Facebook group can upload photos, videos, data files of energy use or generation, research reports, manuals for appliances, energy bills and letters from utility companies, links to other sites, relevant news articles, and more.

Thinking of switching off gas? Tim Forcey

Facebook’s technique of “rolling-up” and “cascading-down” discussion threads means that topics of less interest quickly sink from immediate view (although they are never lost). Months-old discussions are easily resurrected whenever a member adds a new comment or question. For example, subjects such as space-heating can lie dormant during the summer months, but become front-of-mind when winter again approaches.

Unlike some other discussion forums, we encourage commercial contacts and transactions (which are eventually taken offline by the customer and vendor), and subsequent feedback. I recently mined the data available within our group and found that our discussions may have influenced more than A$400,000 worth of member purchases. And we can only guess at the number of other onlooking householders who have been influenced by our publicly-visible discussions.

That said, not every discussion thread at our site centres on commercial transactions or choosing which appliances to buy. Researchers have surveyed our group to gain insight into our membership’s views and opinions. Some members are encouraging others to use their home experiences to join in pushing governments toward more progressive policies and regulations, ranging from removing disincentives for using heat pumps to limiting woodsmoke particulate pollution.

Making sense of sustainability

Many people find it difficult to source reliable information about improving their home’s comfort or reducing their environmental footprint. Every person and every home is different – often there are no simple answers to people’s needs and wants.

As the pace of technological change accelerates, the information available on government and other websites, although originally posted with good intent, quickly loses touch with the current market and may even mislead. The relative prices of gas and electricity can quickly change. Efficient home-energy technologies that have been proven overseas can suddenly appear on the Australian market.

For all its alleged malign influence in the world, information posted to Facebook is undeniably fast, topical and current. Groups like ours might be a useful way for people to find the information they need.

Tim Forcey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

I have never been good at sticking to New Year’s resolutions. Whether it’s to floss my teeth more or to join a gym, I just don’t manage to keep them up. But this year I am setting myself a better goal – one that will save me money, time and be good for the planet. I’m going to start using a meal planning and pantry inventory app.

If you barely have time to scribble together a shopping list, let alone browse recipes or check cupboards before leaving the house, then meal planning apps are a great tool to help manage shopping, cooking and eating.

They have a range of features that help you track what’s in your pantry and fridge, import recipes, create meal plans, generate shopping lists, and sometimes all of the above. They take a bit of time to set up, but once that’s done they can make your life a lot easier.

Why plan meals?

It doesn’t sound very sexy, but planning meals and knowing what’s in your fridge and pantry when you go shopping is a great way to reduce food waste and save time and money.

Globally, one-third of edible food produced is wasted. This puts a strain on scarce resources such as land and water, and generates significant greenhouse gas emissions.

If food waste were a country, it would have the third-highest emissions after China and the US.

Menu planning also means fewer trips to the supermarket and less impulse spending, as well as helping you use leftovers more efficiently.

So what are these apps?

To get you started, I’ve put together an overview of a few useful apps that I came across during my research. Results of a recent survey by MenuForMums in the UK found that 90% of members saved time and money (and by default reduced food waste) by using its online meal planning service.

1.) Pepperplate is a mobile app that helps you to compile and organise your recipe collection, create meal plans, generate shopping lists and cook the recipes that you want to try.

Recipes can be imported by pasting their URL from the web or by entering them manually. They can then be used to create meal plans and interactive shopping lists which allow you to tick off items as you go and share with others. When cooking, Pepperplate will walk you through the recipes, complete with cooking timers. Other similar meal planning apps are BigOven and AnyList.

Recent research has shown that Melbourne wastes 200kg of food per person a year. Food waste image from www.shutterstock.com

2.) Cloud-Freezer helps you create shopping lists like Pepperplate, but focuses on inventories rather than meal planning. It allows you to keep track of the items you already have in your fridge, freezer and pantry, including expiry dates so you can plan what you need to eat first to reduce food waste.

Items can be added to shopping lists from a library of previous entries, moved between shopping lists and inventories, and between the inventories themselves (for example, if you move something from the freezer to the fridge to defrost). The app has a barcode scanner function connected to user-driven databases to help you enter items quickly. There are similar but less sophisticated cross-platform apps called GrocerEaze and Out of Milk.

3.) MealBoard offers the most features and could be life-changing if you take the time to set it up. It’s a combination of Pepperplate and Cloud-Freezer because it enables you to import recipes, plan meals, generate shopping lists and do inventories. Integrating these features turbocharges your ability to organise food activities because it automatically populates shopping lists with what you have to buy, taking into account what you already have at home.

This could save a lot of time and effort, and prevent a lot of duplicate shopping. If you’re prepared to do that, it’s a powerful tool. Another cross-platform app, FoodPlanner, boasts the same features as MealBoard.

So if you have some spare time in the holidays, after recovering from your food coma and before you join that gym, maybe take one of these apps for a trial run. Between Christmas leftovers and forgotten items in the back of your pantry, you may not need to shop for weeks.

The time you save might make it easier to stick to all your other resolutions, and your wallet and the planet will thank you for it.

Seona Candy is a research fellow on the Foodprint Melbourne project, which is funded by the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation. Project partners include the City of Melbourne and the peak bodies representing the local government areas in Melbourne's city fringe foodbowl. She has previously received funding from an Australian Research Council Linkage grant on the project ‘Modelling policy interventions to protect Australia's food security in the face of environmental sustainability challenges’ (LP120100168), a collaboration between researchers at the Victorian Eco-Innovation Lab (VEIL) at the University of Melbourne, Deakin University and Australian National University. She is currently also receiving funding from the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living for a project investigating urban innovations for post-carbon resilient cities.

For Australia’s climate, 2016 was a year of two halves. The year started with one of the strongest El Niño events on record in place in the Pacific Ocean, and the opening months of 2016 were generally hot and dry, especially in northern and eastern Australia.

From May onwards there was a dramatic change in the pattern, with heavy rain and flooding a regular feature of the middle months of the year.

Overall temperatures were the fourth warmest on record in 2016, capping off Australia’s hottest decade. We track these events and more in the Bureau of Meteorology’s annual climate summary released today.

Dry to start

At the start of 2016, many parts of Australia were significantly affected by drought. Long-term drought had existed since 2012 through much of inland Queensland and adjacent northern areas of New South Wales, while shorter-term drought affected Tasmania, central and western Victoria, and parts of South Australia.

While some rain fell between January and April in these areas, it was generally not enough to have much impact on the rainfall deficiencies. Tasmania was hit especially hard, with low water storages restricting hydroelectric production, and long-lived and extensive bushfires in central and western parts of the state a feature of the summer period.

January to April, normally the wettest time of the year across Australia’s far north, was also much drier than normal with rainfall well below average in the Kimberley, the Northern Territory Top End, and on Cape York Peninsula.

It was the least active Australian tropical cyclone season since comprehensive satellite records began in 1970, with only three cyclones in the region, none of them severe, and only one of which made landfall.

The rains are here

Widespread heavy rains began in May – something well predicted by seasonal forecast models - as the El Niño ended and conditions in the Indian Ocean became very favourable for Australian rainfall, with unusually warm waters between Western Australia and Indonesia. Each month from May to September was wetter than average across most of the continent, with heavy rains extending into areas such as inland Queensland where the winter is normally the driest time of the year.

The wet conditions culminated in September, when nationally averaged rainfall was nearly three times the average. It was the wettest September on record for New South Wales and the Northern Territory, and in the top four wettest for every state except Western Australia and Tasmania.

May to September was the wettest on record over Australia, with some locations in inland New South Wales breaking previous records for the period by nearly 200 millimetres. Rainfall returned to more normal levels in eastern mainland Australia from October onwards, although Tasmania remained wet, and a tropical low brought widespread heavy rains extending from the Kimberley south through central Australia as far south as South Australia and Victoria in the year’s final days.

Despite flood damage in places and some rain-affected harvests, the wet conditions were generally positive for agriculture. They also led to large increases in water storage levels in many areas, especially in the Murray-Darling Basin and in Tasmania.

Flooding and storms were also a feature of this period. In early June, an East Coast Low affected almost the whole east coast from southern Queensland southwards.

Northern Tasmania saw some of its most severe flooding on record, and the Sydney region suffered significant coastal erosion with some property damage. The heavy September rains led to major flooding on several inland rivers, particularly the Lachlan River in central New South Wales, and went on to produce the highest flood since the early 1990s on the Murray River in South Australia as the waters moved downstream.

An intense low-pressure system in South Australia at the end of September caused major wind and flood damage there. In Tasmania, which had further flooding in November, the seven months from May to November were the wettest on record, after the seven months from October 2015 to April 2016 had been the driest on record.

Over Australia as a whole, it was the 17th wettest year on record with rainfall 17% above the long-term average. Tasmania had its second-wettest year on record, despite the dry start, and South Australia its fourth-wettest. Below-average rainfalls in 2016 were largely confined to parts of the northern tropics, coastal areas of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales, and some parts of coastal Western Australia. Heavy rains in the year’s final week were enough to lift Adelaide to its second-wettest year on record, while Uraidla, in the Adelaide Hills, had the largest annual rainfall total at any South Australian site since 1917.

The heat is on

It was the fourth-warmest year on record for Australia, with temperatures 0.87℃ above average nationally, 0.33℃ short of the record set in 2013.

The year got off to a very warm start; it was the warmest autumn on record for Australia, and the first half of the year was also the warmest on record, although there were no individual heatwaves on the scale of those experienced in 2013 or 2014.

The second half of the year was less warm. During the wet months in mid-year, heavy cloud cover led to cool days but warm nights, then a cool October resulted in spring temperatures almost exactly matching the long-term average. A warm start and cooler finish is typical of a post-El Niño year as rainfall typically changes from below to above average.

It was the warmest year on record in many parts of the northern tropics, along much of the east coast, and in parts of Tasmania. Darwin, Brisbane, Sydney and Hobart all had their warmest year on record. The warmth on land in these coastal areas was matched by warmth in the oceans.

Sea surface temperatures in the Australian region were the warmest on record, with the first half of the year especially warm. The record warm waters contributed to extensive coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, and also affected fisheries in Tasmania.

Temperatures were closer to average in other parts of the country, including inland areas of the eastern states, South Australia and most of Western Australia. In a few parts of southern Western Australia, which had its coldest winter since 1990, temperatures in 2016 were slightly below average (one of only a handful of land areas in the world where this was the case), and there was some frost damage to crops in what was otherwise a very productive year for Australia’s grain-growers.

2016 continues a sequence of years with Australian temperatures well above average. While 2016 did not set a record, the last four years all rank in Australia’s six warmest, and the last ten years have been Australia’s warmest on record. 2016 is also almost certain to be the hottest year on record globally.

Blair Trewin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Seed-eating birds like this male king parrot enjoy birdbaths - but they like food even more. Glenn Pure

This summer, when a rainbow lorikeet or kookaburra comes to visit your home, what will you do? Will you offer them a slice of apple, or simply watch until they take flight?

It brings many people joy to provide food and water for birds, to encourage them to stay a while and be given the chance to observe them more closely. But some people are reluctant to interact with birds in this way because they’re worried it might damage the birds’ health.

In contrast with other countries, little research has been done on the effects of feeding birds in Australia. As a result, there are no established guidelines around how to feed and provide water for local birds.

Kookaburra having a snack. Photo supplied by Wanda Optland, provided by author.

That’s why we ran the Australian Bird Feeding and Watering Study. We asked nearly 3,000 people to monitor the birds that visited their feeding areas and birdbaths. We wanted to know if there was a difference in the species that visited different types of gardens.

We examined the numbers and types of birds visiting:

• birdbaths where no food was provided
• birdbaths where food was provided
• bird-feeders where birdbaths were provided
• places where only food was provided.

The early results from the winter stage of the Australian Bird Feeding and Watering Study suggest that if you provide food and water, you will get more birds in your garden. But the species you attract will depend on what exactly your garden has to offer.

Common bronzewings like to eat seeds. Glenn Pure, CC BY-NC Providing different combinations of food and water will attract different species. Granivores

Granivores are seed-eating birds. They include species such as parrots, crested pigeons, sulphur-crested cockatoos, crimson rosellas and galahs.

Gang gang cockatoos refresh themselves in a garden. Glenn Pure

We noticed a spike in the number of granivores in gardens where both food and birdbaths were provided. But when food was on offer, fewer granivores chose to use the birdbath. We don’t yet know exactly why this is, but it could be because these seed-eaters need less water, or they can get it more easily from other sources than they can food.

Also, most of the bird food sold in shops is seed-based. People who buy these products will naturally attract more seed-eating birds to their garden.

We were, however, surprised to see crested pigeons visiting gardens where food was provided. These birds are only recent urban arrivals, and were previously restricted to semi-arid environments as opposed to the more urban areas where most of our citizen scientists lived. But crested pigeons are very adaptable and now compete fiercely for food and territory with the introduced spotted dove in some Australian gardens.

Many people derive great joy from feeding Australian birds. Nectarivores

“Small” nectarivores are nectar-eating birds that weigh less than 20 grams. The main birds in this group are New Holland honeyeaters, eastern spinebills and Lewin’s honeyeaters.

The early results of our study suggest small nectarivores prefer gardens with birdbaths more than their granivore and insectivore friends. In fact, it seems that these small nectarivores like birdbaths so much, they will choose birdbaths over food when both are provided.

“Large” nectarivores are nectar-eating birds that weigh more than 20 grams. These species including noisy miners, rainbow lorikeets and red wattlebirds – seem to prioritise food over birdbaths. This may be because they’re looking for a source of protein that they can’t easily find in their natural environment.

Rainbow lorikeets seem to prioritise food over birdbaths. Photo supplied by Wanda Optland, provided by author.

Honeyeaters – such as Lewin’s honeyeaters, blue-faced honeyeaters and noisy miners – will forage on nectar but will eat insects as well. They switch from one to the other, but once they have found their meal they will defend it vigorously from other birds.

Honeyeaters – such as Lewin’s honeyeaters (above), blue-faced honeyeaters and noisy miners – will forage on nectar but will consume invertebrates as well. Photo by Wanda Optland, supplied by author. Insectivores

Insectivores feed on insects, worms, and other invertebrates. Some insectivore species include superb fairy-wrens, willie wagtails and grey fantails.

Insectivores are most attracted to gardens where both food and water are provided. While superb fairy-wrens were frequently found in gardens where food was provided, willie wagtails and grey fantails preferred to visit gardens where only water is provided.

The striated thornbill feeds mainly on insects. Glenn Pure, CC BY-NC

Many people have told me how confident fairy-wrens and willie wagtails can become around houses and gardens. These tiny birds can be bold and aggressive, and can work together to get what they want. A mum and dad fairy-wrens will conscript their older children into looking after younger ones – and siblings who refuse to help find food and defend territory may even be kicked out of the family. So these tough breeds have a competitive advantage in their new urban environments, and aren’t afraid to mix with or even chase off bigger birds.

Fairy wrens can become surprisingly bold around gardens and houses. Photo by Wanda Optland, supplied by author. Bolder than they look – a fairy wren eats from a citizen scientist’s hand. Peter Brazier

You may be wondering exactly what type of seed to put out to attract which granivore, or which meat attracts a carnivore like a Kookaburra. I’m afraid we can’t yet say for sure, as we are yet to analyse the data on this question. Watch this space.

We don’t yet know exactly what offering will attract which bird. Janette and Ron Ford Could birds become reliant on humans for food?

Many people worry that birds will become reliant on humans to provide food for them. But this mightn’t be as big a concern as we once though.

The birds turning up at feeding areas and birdbaths are species that are highly adaptable. Many Australian birds live long lives, and relatively large brains when compared to their European counterparts. Some experts have argued that some Australian birds have evolved a larger brain to cope with feast and famine conditions in the Australian environment.

White browed scrubwrens feed mostly on insects. Glenn Pure, CC BY-NC

Many Australian bird species can switch easily between estates and gardens in one area, be semi-nomadic, fully nomadic or seasonally migratory. This ability to adapt and switch between diets makes Australian bird species very resourceful, innovative and adaptable.

Of course, Australia also has birds that have highly specialised diets or habitats, and they’re the ones usually most threatened or limited to one territory – birds like the regent honeyeater or ground parrot. In this study, we’re concentrating on birds that are adapting to urban areas and turning up at birdbaths and feeding areas in gardens.

A crested pigeon tucks in. Brad Walker Building our knowledge of bird feeding behaviour

We plan to develop guidelines around providing food and water for birds in a way that has the highest conservation value for our feathered friends. But before we can do that, we need more data from you.

So please take part in the summer stage of the study and pass the word around to others who may wish to be involved.

The summer survey will run for four weeks, beginning on January 30 2017. Visit feedingbirds.org.auto download the complete report on our early findings or to register to take part in our summer study.

Different species may congregate at a feeding spot. Brad Walker

Grainne Cleary receives funding from MARS BirdCare through a grant.

The average German household contains 10,000 items. That’s according to a study cited by Frank Trentmann in his sweeping history of consumption, Empire of Things. We’re “bursting”, he says, with the amount of stuff that we have - while all of this consumption is steeping us in debt and dangerously depleting the planet’s resources and systems.

So after Christmas, and the Boxing Day sales, it seems like a good time to ask: what is the purpose of all this consumption?

The consumption cake

If consumption is about facilitating quality of life, then quantities of money, materials, energy and so on are merely ingredients. They’re not the end product.

If I was baking a cake, would it make sense to use as many ingredients as possible? Of course not.

Yet “more is better” remains the narrative of modern society, and therefore of the economic system we use to make it happen. This makes sense while there is a sustainable correlation between quality of life and material resources consumed.

But this correlation is weakening. There is growing evidence that we are on a trajectory of diminishing returns on quality of life. A growing spate of titles such as Affluenza, Stuffocation and How Much is Enough? speak to the phenomenon.

Yet in the midst of unprecedented wealth, and unprecedented threats (from climate change and mass extinction, to inequality and social fragmentation), is the opportunity to move on to better things – to move beyond the consumer machine, and gear the future economy towards what we are really after in life.

So what are we baking? And what are the optimal amounts of ingredients we need?

Optimising consumption to maximise quality of life

What is the optimal level of income, for example, and of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a country? What about energy use per person? We scarcely even ask these questions.

Take energy, for example. Around a decade ago, the UN noted that beyond a certain point, increasing energy use does not lead to increases in the Human Development Index (HDI).

Indeed, Canadian scientist Vaclav Smil had shown that the highest HDI rates were found to occur with a minimum annual energy use of 110 gigajoules (GJ) per person. This was roughly Italy’s rate at the time, the lowest among industrialised nations and around a third of the US figure. He noted no additional gains past that point, with diminishing returns past the threshold of only 40-70GJ per person.

Tim Jackson reported a similar pattern in his 2009 book Prosperity Without Growth. In a study from the year 2000, life satisfaction measures were found to barely respond to increases in GDP per person beyond around $15,000 (in international $), “even to quite large increases in GDP”. He noted that countries such as Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand and Ireland recorded as high or higher levels of life satisfaction than the United States, for example, with significantly lower income levels.

By way of comparison, at the time of that study, GDP person in the United States was $26,980. Denmark’s was $21,230, Sweden’s $18,540, New Zealand’s $16,360, and Ireland’s $15,680. Australia’s was $18,940, also with a comparable life satisfaction measure to the United States.

It has long been recognised that GDP is not only a poor proxy for measuring a society’s wellbeing, but that from its inception we have been warned us against doing this. As Ross Gittins put it recently:

It defines prosperity almost wholly in material terms. Any preference for greater leisure over greater production is assumed to be retrograde. Weekends are there to be commercialised. Family ties are great, so long as they don’t stop you being shifted to Perth.

On a related note, in the context of self-reported perceptions of subjective wellbeing in Australia, Melissa Weinberg of the Australian Centre on Quality of Life at Deakin University reported in a presentation earlier this year that once incomes rise above A$100,000 per year, there is little discernible gain in subjective wellbeing.

How can we move beyond the consumer machine?

There is no inherent or fixed notion of optimal wealth or consumption. It is for us to create ways of deciding together what is most important to us at any given time and place. Indeed, there are growing efforts around the world to do just that, as part of developing better measures of quality of life.

These include national projects in countries such as Canada, France, the UK and of course Bhutan with its Gross National Happiness. There are also broader projects such as those undertaken by the OECD, the New Economics Foundation and the Genuine Progress Indicator.

Unfortunately, Australia recently did away with its official effort, although the proposed Australian National Development Index (or ANDI) seeks to further the agenda locally, ultimately aiming to become our primary set of national accounts.

Why is this important? Well, given that we’re finding our optimal levels of resource use and income appear far lower than commonly assumed, it is clear that a “good life” does not depend on the continual expansion of these things. Reducing the negative consequences associated with excessive consumption comes with the genuine prospect of improving our lives.

However, in scaling back consumption growth, the good life may also serve to reduce GDP; that is, it may be an inherently recessionary pressure. And that scares us.

But what if we find our broader aspirations for a sustainable quality of life are tracking well, while GDP slows or even contracts? The new measures we decide upon can help anchor our confidence in the necessary changes to how we deal with money, work and consumption. After all, there would be little point in preserving GDP growth at the expense of our actual goal.

What does this mean for the holiday season?

It doesn’t necessarily mean you should buy nothing. This isn’t about avoiding or demonising consumption. It’s about asking what would happen if we looked to optimise it and to maximise what is most important in life.

We could focus more on giving the gifts of quality time, good health, less debt, less stress and a flourishing planet to each other. Perhaps even create the space to give more to those less fortunate.

And what if, in 2017, we resolved to explore and hone in on our optimal levels of income, work hours, energy use, GDP and so on? Perhaps even support the development of those new measures mentioned here.

Above all, it is clear that we no longer need to feel compelled by outdated narratives of excessive consumption being good for us, or for the economy generally. There is more to being human, and now more than ever it is time to organise ourselves to that end. After all, the cake that we are baking is a better life for each other. That would be something worth celebrating.

Anthony James does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

You shouldn't have to crank up the aircon. chanus/shutterstock.com

Whether you’re a boatie or not, everyone realises the importance of keeping the water on the outside when you go sailing or fishing. The less leaky the boat, the less you have to rely on devices like bilge pumps to stay afloat.

What does this have to do with houses? Well, Australia’s homes are notoriously “leaky” – allowing the uncontrolled flow of heat into and out of the building. Our answer has been to put in more and more pumps, in the form of air conditioning. This is often promoted as a feature, rather than an indication of a poor-quality building!

Air conditioning is promoted as a feature rather than a design flaw. Wendy Miller

This creates problems for everyone.

We all know that some houses are hotter than others in heatwaves, and that well insulated and designed homes cost a lot less to operate throughout the year because they don’t rely heavily on air conditioners or heaters to provide comfort.

But did you know that relying on air conditioners to stay cool on hot summer days affects the price of electricity for everyone, all year round?

Pumping heat from one place to another takes a lot of energy, which makes air conditioners particularly power-hungry appliances. The more leaky the house, the more heat needs to be pumped out. On hot days, when lots of aircon units are operating at the same time, this creates a challenge for the electricity infrastructure.

It costs money to build an electricity network that can handle these peaks in demand. This cost is recovered through the electricity unit cost (cents per kilowatt hour). We all pay this cost, in every electricity bill we get; in fact the cost of meeting summer peak demand accounts for about 25% of retail electricity costs. This is more than twice the combined effect of solar feed-in tariffs, the Renewable Energy Target and the erstwhile carbon tax.

A house that has been well designed for its tropical climate. Wendy Miller

This means that people living in houses that are built to handle their local climate are effectively subsiding those who live in poorer-quality buildings and relying solely on the air conditioning to stay cool. Perhaps even less fairly, those who struggle to afford air conditioning and have to cope with overheating are also paying this subsidy via the electricity they do use. All this is because many people still live in leaky, poor-quality buildings.

Does this mean that air conditioners are evil and should never be used? Of course not – there is a role for very efficient air conditioners (heat pumps) in extreme weather events. But it does raise some interesting questions. Can we design and build homes that are great to live in and don’t cost the Earth to run? And, if so, why aren’t these homes the norm, rather than the exception?

You get what you ask for

The good news is that comfortable, quality homes that put minimal strain on the electricity grid are certainly possible. What’s needed is a combination of design that takes account of the local climate, appropriate building materials and quality construction practices. Some homes consume less than a quarter of the energy of their contemporaries in the same climate – it’s just frustrating that they aren’t more common.

In the past, the housing industry would say that it’s simply building the homes that people want – that Australians are mainly interested in size and location, not energy performance. Recent research, however, seems to indicate that the perspectives of real estate agents and other property practitioners could be limiting how, or if, they promote energy efficiency and other sustainability features to potential clients.

Are Australians still mesmerised by the surface bling of granite benchtops, a theatre room, or automatic gadgets? Are we starting to consider weightier issues such as operation costs, resilience and comfort? Or are we waiting until the first heatwave or the first electricity bill to realise just how good or poor our purchase decision was?

Some savvy buyers – before they sign a contract – are starting to ask about insulation, but not the more fundamental questions, like “how hot does this room get?” or “can I afford to run this house?”.

The housing sector seems to assume that if you don’t explicitly ask for something, it is not important to you. They also seem to assume that the building regulations set the standard – despite the fact the building regulations are minimum requirements, not best practice for comfort and value.

Some also actively lobby for lower standards, arguing that energy efficiency has “questionable benefits” and that requiring information to be passed on to consumers is an “unnecessary burden”.

Buyer beware – you’re on your own

What does this mean? When buying a used car or a new phone, it’s relatively easy to get the information you need – and there are quite a few consumer protection laws in place. But when we inspect a home for sale or rent, we can see the number of rooms, test the taps and light switches, and measure how far it is to the shops or school or work, but there is a huge amount we can’t see and are not told.

A real estate agent is not acting in the prospective buyer’s interest (or even necessarily in the seller’s. The seller wants the highest price in the shortest time, and the agent wants the biggest commission for the least effort. And contrary to practices in the European Union, no one is obliged (in most parts of Australia) to tell prospective buyers or renters about the home’s running costs.

There have been successes and failures in state government attempts to ensure that home buyers and renters have access to information about comfort and running costs at the time of purchasing or renting. Queensland’s Sustainability Declaration, introduced in 2010, was very short-lived, with an incoming government declaring it “useless red tape”.

In contrast, the ACT government has required an Energy Efficiency Rating for the sale or rent of residential properties since 1999, with multiple reports showing the benefits to property value and to reduced running costs. New South Wales plans to introduce a voluntary disclosure scheme in 2018, and to make it mandatory in 2020.

These schemes not only make it easier to identify homes that cost less to run, but can also drive demand for energy-efficient renovations and put downward pressure on electricity prices.

The distribution of information about housing in Australia is flawed. Real estate agents, valuers, financiers and electricity industry operators are making decisions based on very little or no information about how the quality of houses impacts on their clients, their business processes and electricity infrastructure investment.

Most importantly, owners and renters are not being informed about the quality of the houses they are buying or renting, and the impacts that particular dwellings will have on their health, comfort and wallets.

What can you do?

So is the housing sector right? Do you care about the quality of the building you live in? What is a sensibly designed and well-constructed house worth to you? What dollar value do you put on your health, safety and comfort? What value is there for your family to able to cope with heatwaves, or to pay off the mortgage sooner because of the money you save on power bills?

Which house would you buy in this suburb? Wendy Miller

You don’t need to wait for government to act. If you are looking at buying or renting a new home or apartment, ask to see the energy certificate for the dwelling. Such a certificate would have been created as part of the building approval process.

It could also be useful to ask for a thermal imaging report and air leakage report. These are tests the builder can have done to prove his quality of construction.

Is the insulation properly installed? Wendy Miller

For existing homes, you can ask the seller for a Universal Certificate, or a copy of their energy bills, or evidence of features they have installed to enhance the comfort of the house (such as receipts for insulation or window tinting).

And next time you’re visiting a friend or neighbour with heat radiating from the walls, windows and roof, and the aircon cranked at full blast, enjoy the nice cool air – because you’re helping them pay for it.

Wendy Miller receives/has received funding from the Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre, the Australian Research Council and the National Climate Change Adaptation Fund. She has conducted industry funded research on building performance and the electricity network for the Australian Glass and Glazing Association, Ergon, ERM, Brisbane Airport Corporation, Metecno and various government departments.

The climate debate can give you a headache at the best of times. Confused person image from www.shutterstock.com

If you thought the climate debate has been ugly, you haven’t seen anything yet. In 2017 Australia will review its climate policies, and the process is not off to a good start.

To recap: with the release of the climate review’s terms of reference at the end of 2016, the federal environment and energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, appeared to place on the table an emissions intensity scheme (a widely supported form of carbon pricing). He then wisely went to Antarctica.

After its day in the sun, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull swiftly backtracked in part due to pressure from conservatives within the Coalition. By allowing a small group of politicians to take the most cost-effective policy off the table at the outset, Turnbull has made the coming year(s) that much harder to manage.

In the same week, Chief Scientist Alan Finkel reported his initial findings on the security of the National Electricity Market. He stated that his review “will continue to analyse all the options to ensure future security of power supply and compliance with climate obligations”.

And that was only 2016…

Reviews galore

The Finkel review of the National Electricity Market will be released in 2017. At the same time, the government will begin its climate policy review.

Unless the political circumstances change dramatically, the review will conclude by the end of this year.

Every step of the way will see protests, media stunts, hostile leaking and lobbying – public and private – by big actors. Climate and energy will consume the national news agenda, which will leave voters and viewers exhausted.

The terms of reference state that the review will look into:

• the role of international carbon permits in reaching targets

• a long-term emissions-reduction goal after 2030

• asking the department to look at the impact of state-based policies, including the states’ own ambitious renewable energy targets, and whether this helps or hinders the national approach

• the impact of policies on jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households and regional Australia

• Turnbull’s move to combine the energy and environment portfolios and whether this is the best way to tackle climate policy.

That there is nothing in this about an expanded and lengthened Renewable Energy Target will mean nothing to groups who want it discussed.

What can the government actually achieve now?

Now the government has ruled out the most promising policy option, who will be willing to lead the hamstrung review? Watch this space.

And what is left on the policy table? There are a couple of options:

• expanding the large-scale Renewable Energy Target (RET) – this seems unlikely, given the amount of grief Turnbull and Frydenberg have been giving South Australia and Queensland over their own renewable targets of late

• regulating the closure of coal-fired power stations – this seems unlikely too, given the failure of the “cash for closures” scheme under the Gillard Labor government

• further restrictions on land use (unlikely to make the National Party very happy) and research into methane reductions from livestock (cue headlines about cow farts).

But asides from not making environmentalists particularly happy, these will not resolve the questions of grid security and energy pricing, both of which have the potential to cause political and economic mayhem.

Sharpen the pitchforks

Labor will use climate as a “wedge issue”, perhaps more gingerly and cautiously than Kevin Rudd did ahead of the 2007 election.

The government’s relations with the state governments will stay fraught. South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has mooted a states-based emissions intensity scheme, but there is little appetite from other states, and business appears unenthusiastic

However, Weatherill may now be tempted to deflect blame for any South Australian energy problems onto Turnbull, who has made himself into a piñata.

Business is fuming and some odd coalitions are forming. The policy uncertainty (caused of course in no small part by the business sector’s failure to defend Gillard’s carbon tax) is aggravating them and scaring away investment. The worst possible outcome for business – a patchwork of state laws causing more work and less profit – is a distinct possibility.

Meanwhile, the gas industry has had its beady eye on electricity generation for well over a decade. It wants some sort of emissions trading scheme badly, so it can be in pole position as lots of coal-fired plants are closing soon.

Expect to see a “gas versus coal” battle, with coal pointing to gas prices rising, because it fetches more on the international market. The question of reservation policy – hated by many – may attract some strange allies.

The environmental movement will struggle over this. They are still bruised over the Rudd and Gillard policy battles, and an emissions intensity scheme is numbingly technical. In her excellent PhD thesis at the University of New South Wales, Rebecca Pearse argued that many activists have moved on to either supporting community-based renewables or contesting fossil-fuel infrastructure projects.

Of course, anti-green groups will also be hard at work, perhaps led by Coalition MPs Cory Bernardi and George Christensen and the Institute of Public Affairs. All have argued that Australia should do much less on climate change.

Expect anything

Finkel’s final electricity review is due in March. It will be interesting to see if the attacks that have happened to other scientists involved in climate and energy happen to him.

At some point in 2017 Al Gore will release a sequel to his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Expect to see reactions to that.

The next big international negotiations, chaired by Fiji but hosted by Germany, will take place in November 2017.

Will President Trump have taken the United States out of the Paris Agreement by then? Will the US pull out of the entire climate convention? Or will Trump settle for just sending the office junior to the negotiations, while gutting his Environmental Protection Authority?

Nobody knows, probably not even the president-elect himself. A recent ANU study points to Trump-style disaffection taking hold in Australian politics.

There’s a hoary old Machiavelli quote that gets dragged out in articles like these about the political pain that transitions cause:

It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.

In these dire times, it is unclear who could call an end – or a ceasefire – to what Guardian journalist Lenore Taylor calls “the stupid barren years of the carbon wars”. It’s what some public policy theorists call a “hurting stalemate”.

This is going to be bloody.

Marc Hudson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Despite international efforts, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to grow. Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

Cabinet papers from 1992 and 1993 released today by the National Archives of Australia confirm that Australia was a reluctant player in international discussions about climate change and environmental issues under Prime Minister Paul Keating.

Internationally, it was an exciting time for the environment. In June 1992, the UN Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro. Here the world negotiated the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (which last year gave us the Paris Agreement) and opened the Convention on Biological Diversity for signing.

So what was Australia doing?

Australia stumbles towards climate policy

Domestically, the focus was on Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD), a policy process begun by Prime Minister Bob Hawke. Working groups made up of corporate representatives, environmentalists and bureaucrats had beavered away and produced hundreds of recommendations.

By the final report in December 1991, the most radical recommendations (gasp – a price on carbon!) had been weeded out. Democrats Senator John Coulter warned of bureaucratic hostility to the final recommendations. Keating replaced Hawke in the same month.

The August 1992 meeting, where the ESD policies were meant to be agreed upon, was so disastrous that the environmentalists walked out and even the corporates felt aggrieved.

Two interim reports on the ESD process from the cabinet papers fill in some of the detail.

The first interim report, in March 1992, said that government departments had not been able to identify which recommendations to take on board. Cabinet moved the process on, but the only policies on the table were those that involved:

…little or no additional cost, cause minimal disruption to industry or the community, and which also offer benefits other than greenhouse related.

By May, federal ministers were told that the states and territories weren’t committed to either ESD or greenhouse gas policies.

The policy process rumbled on after the walkout, finally producing a National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development and a National Greenhouse Response Strategy. The greenhouse strategy contained only – surprise! – toothless voluntary measures, which proved ineffective in keeping emissions down to 1990 levels.

The November 1992 minutes mildly note that:

Most major interest groups have voiced concerns about their lack of involvement in the drafting of the NGRS [greenhouse strategy] document. Officials made provision for community input through the public comment process and a public consultative forum held in August [the one the environmentalists walked out of]. Reaction from conservation groups is likely to be negative, given the limited changes made to many of the responses in the revised strategy. They are likely to want to see more concerted efforts in areas such as fuel efficiency and renewable energy sources.

Indeed.

With equal prescience, the document warns:

Coal producers and resource-intensive industries (eg. aluminium) may express concern about their prospects in the medium to long term.

There are not many surprises here. The dithering over climate and environmental policies has been well covered by Clive Hamilton, David Cox, Joan Staples and numerous academic papers (see here, here, here, and here).

And while we won’t know officially who said what for another 30 years, there are tantalising hints in Neal Blewett’s A Cabinet Diary. Published in 1999, it reveals the antagonism between the environment minister and others in the Keating cabinet.

The international stage

International climate policy was dominated by the US threat, under President George Bush senior, not to attend the Earth Summit if the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) included specific emission-reduction targets. The US attended, and the UNFCCC didn’t include targets.

In Australia, the cabinet papers point out, not for the first or last time, that:

Australia is the only developed megadiverse country; it is a major user and exporter of greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels and energy intensive products; it could be significantly affected by global environmental change.

In May 1992 cabinet endorsed in principle support for the UNFCCC. There are three ironies here.

First, it was a major concern that the media statement to accompany Environment Minister Ros Kelly’s signing should be amended to include the fact that:

The Convention does not bind any signatory to meet any greenhouse gas target by a specified date.

Second, the minutes note that:

A decision by Australia not to sign the Convention would be criticised by domestic environment interests and could also attract international criticism, particularly in the Pacific region.

In later years, Prime Minister John Howard would not worry about this when repeatedly nixing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

Third, an emphasis on assisting developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region with climate adaptation looks odd given there had been zero mention of greenhouse gases in a March 1992 discussion document of aid to Cambodia (that country is feeling the effects already).

Keating’s willingness to let Kelly sign the convention may have been related to the following:

The Convention contains several safeguards which protect Australia’s interests … [A]llowance is made for “the differences in Parties’ starting points and approaches, economic structures and resource bases, and the need to maintain strong and sustainable economic growth, available technologies and other individual circumstances”. Additionally, Parties are obliged to take into consideration the situation of Parties with economies that are highly dependent on the production, processing, export and use of fossil fuels. These two provisions will give relevant countries, including Australia, flexibility in fulfilling their obligations under the Convention.

And they probably thought they had more time than they actually did. The May 1992 note argues:

[The UNFCCC] is likely to take some years to obtain the necessary ratifications to bring it into force.

It took two. Australia ratified the treaty in December 1992, but not before noting that the UNFCCC would worry industry for being too strong, and environmental groups for being too weak. So no changes there.

What happened next

At least when it comes to climate policy, there are no real secrets worthy of the name. We have always known that the Australian state quickly retreated from its already hedged promise to take action, and told us all along that this was because we had a lot of coal.

While Australia’s international credibility has flatlined (with a brief bump from 2007 to 2009), two other things have soared over the last 25 years: Australia’s coal exports, and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Both look set to continue their upward trend.

Reading the documents, it is striking how concerned the cabinet was to minimise its financial commitments (unsurprising, perhaps, given the overall state of the economy at the time), and just how unimportant the climate issue was to leaders who ask us to trust them on the long-term future of the country. It seems it was a distant abstraction that many didn’t really think was real. How times have changed.

Marc Hudson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

As urban populations around the globe skyrocket and the demand for housing grows, space is increasingly at a premium in cities. Unfortunately, despite some notable efforts to include green space in cities, native wildlife is not often a priority for urban planners, despite research showing the benefits it brings to both people and ecosystems.

It may seem that bringing biodiversity back into cities would require large areas of land set aside for habitat restoration. But it is possible to use relatively small spaces such as transport corridors, verges and the edges of sporting grounds. Think of it as “land sharing” rather than “land sparing”“.

The idea of transforming public areas in cities into green space is not a new one. Allotment vegetable gardens, which have long been a staple of British suburban life, are enjoying a revival, as are community gardens in Australia.

These gardens are obviously great for sustainable food production and community engagement. But we think similar efforts should be directed towards creating green spaces filled with native vegetation, so that local wildlife might thrive too.

Benefits for biodiversity

Cities can be hostile environments for wildlife, and although some rare species are still present in some cities, the destruction of habitats and growth of built-up areas has led to many localised extinctions. Often, species are left clinging on in particular reserves or habitat remnants. "Green corridors” through the built environment can link these habitat fragments together and help stop urban species from being marooned in small patches – and this is where native gardens can help.

Cities are often built in fertile areas on coasts, and because of their fertility are often home to large numbers of species, which means that planting native vegetation in public spaces can potentially help a wide range of different species.

A study in Melbourne found that native vegetation in urban green space is essential for conservation of native pollinators, as introduced plants only benefit introduced bees. But with the right habitat, even small mammals such as bandicoots can survive in urban areas.

Benefits for people

Native green space in cities can also be used to educate communities about their wildlife. Community gardens can be a very effective way to bring people together and create a sense of identity and cohesion within a community.

Native landscaping in playgrounds. Simon Pawley, Sustainable Outdoors

Many people in cities have little or no contact with nature, and this “extinction of experience” can make them feel apathetic about conservation. Green space lets city dwellers connect with nature, and if these spaces contain native rather than introduced plants, they have the added benefit of familiarising people with their native flora, creating a stronger sense of cultural identity.

Where to share

There are many places in urban areas that can be tinkered with to encourage native species, with little or no disruption to their intended use. Picture the typical Australian park, for example: large expanses of grass and some isolated gum trees. Biodiverse systems are more complex, featuring tall trees, smaller ones, shrubs, herbs and grasses, which together create diverse habitat for a range of species. So by building native garden beds around single trees, at the park’s edges, or within designated areas (even among playgrounds!), we can gain complex layers of habitats for our native animals without losing too much picnic space.

We think of verges as places to park our cars or wheelie bins, but these grass borders are another underused area where we could plant native gardens. This not only improves the aesthetics of the streetscape but also reduces water use and the need to mow.

Verge gardens. Simon Pawley, Sustainable Outdoors

Australia is a sporting nation and our sports grounds are cherished features of the urban landscape, yet there are plenty of opportunities here for native vegetation. The average golf course, for instance, only uses two-thirds of its area for actual golf (unless you’re a very bad shot). The out-of-bounds areas nestled between the fairways offer plenty of space for native biodiversity. Likewise, the boundaries of sporting ovals are ideal locations for native vegetation borders.

Even infrastructure corridors such as train lines, electricity corridors, and the edges of highways have the potential to contribute to the functioning of local ecosystems.

Making it happen

As the existence of community gardens and Landcare groups shows, there is already a drive within local communities to make these ideas a reality. In fact, some groups of “guerrilla gardeners” are so passionate about urban greening that they dedicate their own time and resources towards creating green public space, often without permission.

But urban gardening doesn’t need to be illegal. Many councils in Australia have policies that encourage the planting of native plants in private gardens, with some even offering rebates for native landscaping projects.

Ultimately we need to both share and spare urban landscapes. By conserving habitat fragments and planting native gardens to connect these patches, we can bring native plants and animals back into our cities.

Lizzy Lowe's Endeavour Postdoctoral Fellowship is funded by The Australian Government Department of Education and Training

Margaret Stanley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Australia is world-famous as a swimming nation. We have a celebrated beach culture, not to mention more privately owned pools per person than any other country. Yet few urban Australians would consider swimming in their city’s river.

Almost every major Australian city sits on the banks of a large river. But judging by online reactions to the suggestion of a dip in the Brisbane River, most people are worried about everything from ear infections to a painful death from brain-eating amoebae.

Melbourne’s Yarra River has been the butt of many jokes, most famously when Norman Gunston extolled its virtues as the river where you could go fishing and land a catch pre-wrapped in newspaper. In Sydney and Perth people just prefer the beach.

MELBOURNE, VIC. 1943-11-17. Lieutenant A. M. Dennis and sergeant D. Lawson, members of the Australian Women’s Army Service (AWAS), do high dives during the AWAS swimming parade in the Yarra River. Australian War Memorial

It wasn’t always like this. Our modern distaste for river swimming is a stark constrast with a history where urban rivers provided a venue for sport, recreation and entertainment – all within easy distance of shops, offices and public transport.

There were clubs such as the North Adelaide District Swimming Club, formed in 1905, and open water swimming competitions such as those held on Perth’s Swan River from 1912. The Yarra River’s three-mile swim was held from 1917 to 1964, and at its peak was the largest open water swimming competition in the World.

There was spectacle as well as sport, with feats of aquatic derring-do that made swimming look like vaudeville theatre. In the Yarra, Annette Kellerman – one of the first women to reject pantaloons in favour of a one-piece bathing costume – swam her way to a world record between Church Street bridge and Princes Bridge in 1904. After leaving Australia she developed her own swimwear line and went on to become an author and renowned Hollywood actress. The Yarra was her unlikely springboard to global celebrity.

Sidney Nolan takes a dive into the Yarra, 1942.

Endurance was similarly tested by “Professor” Alec Lamb in 1907 who swam 7 miles (11km) and dove from eight bridges, stopping for sustaining glasses of milk and whisky from his trainer’s boat. As the Argus newspaper faithfully noted, the first of his bridge dives was so high that the force of the impact tore off his swimming costume. Harry Houdini also famously attracted a crowd of 20,000 to watch him emerge triumphant from chains, handcuffs and the Yarra mud in 1910.

Melbourne’s river even hosted innovative fund-raising events. In 1910 the Royal Life Saving Society used it to stage a fake near-drowning, with a society member throwing himself off Princes Bridge before being “rescued” by a “policeman”. A third member then produced a megaphone to request donations from the concerned crowd of onlookers.

An arguably less brazen charity appeal centred on Solomon Islands swimmer Alick Wickham’s record-breaking dive of 250 feet (76m) into the river in 1917, attracting 50,000 spectators with the proceeds going to the Soldiers Amelioration Fund.

Several lengths behind

Some projects are now aiming to recast Australia’s urban rivers as fun places to swim, including Our Living River in Sydney’s Parramatta River, and the Swim Thru Perth open water swimming event to be held in the Swan River. Meanwhile, the Yarra Swim Co. is planning to revive the three-mile race and build a river-fed swimming pool on the Yarra’s banks.

Fears about pollution are understandable, but can be managed by websites such as Yarra Bay Watch and the New South Wales Office of Environment Health . While important, the official advice inadvertently adds to the view that Australian urban rivers are little more than an extension of the stormwater system.

Compare that with the renaissance of river swimming internationally. British writer Caitlin Davies swam of the length of London’s Thames to uncover a multitude of present and historical swimming cultures. And municipal governments in Copenhagen, Portland, Berlin, New York and Boston have all embraced river swimming.

The Swiss must surely be the world leaders, even advocating for river swimming in international diplomacy. Every year, large Swiss cities host mass swimming events like the Rhineschwimmen in Basel.

As the Swiss have already realised, to swim in an urban river is to reclaim, one stroke at a time, a public space and a wilder romantic past. It is no coincidence that the same country that zealously promotes urban river and lake swimming can also lay claim to a distinguished environmental record. Our regular, primary contact with this most primal of elements can act in a way to force change in the way our rivers are managed, helping both people and the environment to be a bit healthier.

This article was coauthored by Sally McPhee, based on her honours thesis for RMIT’s Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning.

Marco Amati does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

A juvenile dingo on Fraser Island. Eloïse Déaux, CC BY-NC

As I visited a wildlife park in New South Wales in 2011, the keeper at the daily “dingo talk” confidently told us that “pure dingoes don’t bark”. After five years studying dingoes’ vocal behaviours, I can tell you that this is a myth. Dingoes do bark!

While travelling around Australia to study dingoes, I have had the opportunity to meet and talk with all sorts of people. One thing I realised is that the “dingoes don’t bark” belief is widespread – and it isn’t the only unproven dingo myth out there.

Lots of people in Australia take these three myths as hard facts:

1. “pure” dingoes don’t bark

2. “pure” dingoes are all ginger

3. dingoes are “just dogs”.

But none of these are actually true and here’s why.

Myth 1: dingoes don’t bark

Anyone who has been around dingoes for long enough will tell you that they do bark, but not like domestic dogs. Dingoes’ barks are generally harsher, and given in short bursts.

Domestic dogs will bark anytime, anywhere, for anything (often to their owners’ or neighbours’ chagrin). This is not the case with dingoes. They will generally bark only when alarmed – such as when researchers trap them to fit a radio tracking collar, or if you stumble across one in the bush.

Dingo barking sequence. Eloïse Déaux, CC BY-NC-ND133 KB (download)

Dingoes can also bark if they get very excited (about food, for example) but this is quite uncommon. The rarity of these events probably explains the prevalence of the “no barking” myth – wild dingo barking just doesn’t happen often enough for most people to witness it.

Another associated misconception is that captive dingoes will learn to bark from listening to domestic dogs. Although humans are very good at learning new sounds – indeed, that’s how we acquire our language – most other species (including canines) can make only a limited range of vocal sounds, and can’t learn new ones.

So the fact that captive dingoes bark actually confirms that they have barking abilities right from the start. It is, however, possible that by listening to nearby domestic dogs, captive dingoes learn to bark more often and in more situations than they otherwise might.

It is easy to see how this myth might harm efforts to protect dingoes. Imagine a well-meaning pastoralist shooting or baiting anything that barks, in the mistaken belief that it’s not a dingo.

Myth 2: all pure dingoes are ginger

The “typical” dingo that people picture in their minds – think Fraser Island – will be ginger (or tan) with white feet and a white-tipped tail. But dingoes, like people, come in a variety of shapes and colours.

Importantly, although ginger dingoes make up about three-quarters of the population, there is genetic evidence that their coats can also be black, black and tan, black and white, or plain white.

A black and tan dingo… Tim Pearson …and a white one. Tim Pearson

There is also a lot of variation in the size and shape of white patches and these may even be absent altogether. It’s often thought that dingoes that lack ginger fur or white patches are dingo-dog hybrids, but this is not necessarily true.

Like the no-barking myth, misconceptions about coat colour can potentially harm dingo conservation. If we were to protect only ginger dingoes, we would unwittingly reduce the natural genetic variation of the population, making it more vulnerable to extinction.

Myth 3: dingoes are just dogs

This is perhaps the hardest belief to address, because it can vary depending on whether we look at their behaviours, ecology or origins. But this concept is arguably even more relevant to their conservation and management.

So is a dingo a dog? Although dogs’ evolutionary origins are still unclear, we know that dingoes are descendants of animals domesticated long ago somewhere in Asia and then brought to Australia. Dingoes are thus an ancient dog breed and so, yes, dingoes are dogs.

However, we also know that dingoes arrived in mainland Australia roughly 5,000 years ago and have since been isolated from all other canines right up until European settlement. Some experts argue that this makes them distinct enough to warrant protection from hybridisation with domestic dogs.

As dingo researcher Ben Allen puts it, “pure ones need to be distinguished from hybrid ones somehow, and it is the pure ones that have conservation value as a species”.

But as fellow dingo expert Guy Ballard points out, dingoes are undeniably a type of dog, so arguably all that really matters is that their function as top predators in the ecosystem is preserved.

But there’s a catch (as Ballard has acknowledged): we do not know whether dingoes, feral dogs and hybrids behave similarly – or in other words, whether all three can perform the same ecological role.

We do know that India’s free-ranging dogs behave very differently from Australian dingoes: they are inefficient predators, do not form packs and do not breed cooperatively. This suggests that, in terms of their behaviours, dingoes may be very different from other types of dogs after all.

Until we know more, the best approach to safeguarding dingoes and their role in the ecosystems might be to view and treat them as completely separate and distinct from other free-ranging dogs in Australia.

Far from being “just dogs”, dingoes really are unique dogs.

Eloïse Déaux received funding from the Hermon Slade Foundation.

If 2015 ended on a note of hope, with the successful conclusion of the Paris climate talks, the overriding impression of 2016 is that last year’s optimism has been answered with a large reality check.

The Paris Agreement was meant to herald a year in which politicians would finally cut through the stalemate and start saving the planet. Instead we watched aghast as swathes of the Great Barrier Reef were killed by climate change, while the political uncertainty only grew. Donald Trump completed his improbable climb to the US political summit, and Australian climate politics stayed mired in the trenches.

Nowhere was that more evident than in the unseemly blame game over the statewide blackout that plunged South Australia into darkness on a stormy night in September.

With fingers being pointed at the state’s reliance on wind power, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull used the incident to call for an end to Labor states setting their own agendas on renewable energy. That was despite analysis showing that the blackout was due to 22 transmission towers being knocked over.

The planned closure of Victoria’s Hazelwood power station prompted more argument over cheap brown coal versus expensive electricity. The debate culminated in the Turnbull government’s 24-hour dalliance with the idea of an emissions intensity scheme for power stations (a policy that Labor took to July’s federal election).

The episode was seen as a slapdown for minister Josh Frydenberg, who in July had been handed the “superportfolio” of energy and environment in an overdue acknowledgement that these issues are now one and the same.

One of Frydenberg’s biggest tasks for 2017 will be handling the planned review of climate policy. Figures released quietly before Christmas underline the fact that Australia is on course to miss the government’s 2030 emissions target of 26-28% below 2005 levels. This year’s events proved that the electricity sector, the biggest source of emissions, is in serious need of reform.

In the states, Queensland continued to navigate a legal course for the controversial Carmichael coal mine, while SA Premier Jay Weatherill suggested a plebiscite to decide whether the state should build an international nuclear waste dump.

In fact, one of the year’s quietest periods for environmental policy was during the federal election campaign itself – neither climate nor conservation rated more than the briefest of mentions.

Death comes to the reef

The year’s biggest single environmental story was the unprecedented coral bleaching that hit the Great Barrier Reef in March and April. The bleaching affected more than 1,000km of the reef and prompted a storm of media reports – some more accurate than others.

Months later, the damage is clear: two-thirds of corals on the reef’s northern stretches are dead. Researchers are watching anxiously to see how much will bounce back.

Elsewhere on the high seas, there was better news for environmentalists. Oil giant BP cancelled plans to drill in the Great Australian Bight, and Australia’s Macquarie Island research station earned a reprieve after being slated for closure by the government.

In October, nations signed off on creating the world’s biggest marine park in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. Meanwhile, Australia had a win (of sorts) in its battle with Japan’s whaling program, successfully sponsoring a resolution to provide greater oversight of “scientific” whaling.

In reality, however, the voluntary measure will have little effect on Japan’s activities. Perhaps it’s time to admit that whaling cannot be stopped altogether, and maybe even try some “whale poo diplomacy” instead.

Talking Trump

Speaking of diplomacy, when delegates arrived at November’s UN climate summit in Marrakech, they were expecting to begin putting flesh on the bones of the previous year’s Paris Agreement. This came into force with record speed just 11 months after it was signed.

But on its third day the summit was hit by a “Trump tsunami” as the surprise US election result dawned. Perhaps understandably, the conference morphed into a show of defiance towards the new president-elect.

It is still unclear whether Trump will follow through on his threat to withdraw from the Paris deal. For those keen to see global climate action continue, perhaps the most optimistic view is that Trump will be unable to revive the coal economy singlehanded, and that if the United States does relinquish the climate leadership it has belatedly shown under President Barack Obama, China will be more than willing to step up.

Heat and ice

While the political hot air flowed, the climate records kept tumbling. 2016 is set to be confirmed as the hottest year ever recorded, although September did bring an end to the streak of 16 consecutive record-setting months.

In May, the southern hemisphere joined the north in passing the symbolic milestone of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But the good news is that global emissions seem, at long last, to have plateaued – although the picture is less rosy when it comes to methane emissions.

The El Niño came to an end, after helping to push Australia’s summer sea temperatures to record levels. We learned that rising seas have claimed five entire Pacific islands, while the Arctic ice is at record low levels, driven by a freak bout of human-induced warm weather.

Meanwhile, Earth’s last remaining wild places are being crisscrossed by roads, although there was some rare good news in the only place on Earth where tigers, rhinos, orangutans and elephants all live together – a treasured Indonesian forest now saved from logging.

If all that wasn’t enough, we were told that we are officially living in the Anthropocene Epoch, courtesy of nuclear weapons testing – which came to Australia 60 years ago this year.

A more nature-loving 2017?

Having polished off your ethically raised Christmas ham, perhaps now is the time to resolve to engage a bit more with the natural world in 2017.

While you might not be able to sail a scientific voyage around Antarctica, climb trees to save orange-bellied parrots, or discover previously unknown wild gatherings of animals, there are things you can do at home.

You might decide to join in a citizen science program, tend your garden, or get to know some of the fascinating critters who share your home.

You could even get closer to nature while doing the most 2016 thing possible: playing Pokémon GO.

So if the past year in environmental news has left you feeling despondent, look on the bright side – at least you don’t have a ball of 150 huntsman spiders living in your house … or do you?

It's all fun and games until someone cops a fine. Dmitry Kalinovsky/shutterstock.com

Whether a beginner, a serious aviation enthusiast, or just a fan of gadgets, many of you will have received drones as Christmas gifts. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have surged in popularity and affordability in recent years, and there’s no doubt that recreational drone use is on the rise as a result.

But not all recreational drone users know the law – or if they do, they don’t appear to be following it. There has been a string of near misses between drones and other aircraft, and other cases of irresponsible use.

Only last month, a recreational drone user was investigated by Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) after evidently flying a drone over a crowded Bunnings carpark to pick up a sausage at a sausage sizzle.

In the runup to Christmas, UN aviation officials this month warned anyone getting a drone to make sure they learn how to operate it safely. So if Santa has brought you one, here’s what you need to know.

Get on board

In Australia, if you want to fly your drone for fun, you don’t need CASA’s approval – as long as you follow the authority’s simple safety rules. Recreational drone operators must comply with CASA’s rules (known as its standard operating conditions).

You must only fly your drone within visual line of sight – that is, where you are able to see the drone with your own eyes, rather than with the help of binoculars or a telescope, for example. What’s more, you can only fly in visual meteorological conditions, which generally means no night flights.

In most Australian cities, you can only fly your drone up to a maximum altitude of 120 metres – most of this airspace is considered controlled airspace. To fly a recreational drone any higher, you must seek approval from CASA and adhere to any associated conditions.

During flight, you must keep your drone at least 30 metres from anyone who is not directly associated with its operation. The drone must also not be flown over populated areas (that is, areas that are sufficiently crowded that the drone would pose an unreasonable risk to the life, safety or property of someone present). This includes crowded beaches or parks, or sports ovals where a game is in progress.

Better check the rules before going for shots like this. Gustavo Frazao/shutterstock.com

There is a general prohibition on flying a drone in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, person or property. A “hazard” may be interpreted fairly broadly. To be safe, CASA recommends keeping your drone at least 5.5km away from any airfield. Operations within 5.5km of an airfield are allowed in some instances, as long as they are not on the approach and departure path, and would not otherwise get in the way of aircraft using the airfield.

Recreational drone users are also advised to respect personal privacy by not recording or taking photos of people without their consent. While privacy concerns are not within CASA’s purview, operators may find themselves in breach of state and territory privacy or trespass laws, depending on how and where the drone is flown, and whether audio, video or photographic footage is recorded.

High flyers

As a general rule, drones cannot be flown for money or economic reward without a specific licence. There are, however, two new instances where such a certificate is not required: for commercial-like operations over your own land, and for commercial flights with very small drones (under 2kg) provided that the pilot notifies CASA at least five business days beforehand, and adheres to all the existing rules for recreational drone use.

Having considered all the rules, the Bunnings sausage sizzle incident starts to look less like a harmless jape and more like a multiple breach of the rules (although the video’s author has claimed that the video was an edited composite rather than all shot during a single flight).

The video appears to show several breaches of the rules, including: flying a drone out of visual line of sight (assuming that it is being piloted from the backyard hot tub depicted in the video); flying within 30m of people; and flying over a populated area. The operator is potentially facing a fine of up to A$9,000.

If you’re worried your new drone might get you into similar hot water, CASA provides significant guidance to help operators avoid infringing the rules. That way, you can make sure your high-flying gift doesn’t end up ruining your Christmas cheer.

Rebecca Johnston does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

We’re currently having a national conversation about climate and energy, with reviews of climate policy and the National Electricity Market underway. Up for debate is how the states and federal government will share these responsibilities.

Following the recent statewide blackout in South Australia, the federal government pointed the finger at Labor states’ “aggressive”, “unrealistic” and “ideological” renewable energy targets.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews returned: “Rather than peddle mistruths, Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce should start providing some national leadership and focus on developing a renewable vision beyond 2020.”

It might seem to be yet another partisan, ideological stoush between a Liberal federal government and three Labor state governments.

However, the Liberal-led New South Wales government has now also entered the fray, with a 2050 emissions target that will almost certainly require complete decarbonisation of the electricity sector within the next 25 years.

And to achieve this, renewables will have a key, many would argue overwhelming, role to play.

What are the states already doing?

NSW released its climate policy framework in November, joining Victoria, South Australia and the ACT with an aspirational target to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

While NSW didn’t announce a renewable target, the majority of states now have one. Queensland is seeking 50% renewable generation by 2030, Victoria 40% by 2025 and South Australia 50% by 2025.

Tasmania’s generation is already mostly renewable (albeit mostly conventional hydro generation). The Australian Capital Territory looks set to achieve 100% renewables by 2020 and the Northern Territory has announced a 50% target for 2030.

At present, the federal government has a renewable energy target of around 23.5% renewable electricity by 2020 and a 2030 target of 26-28% greenhouse emission reductions from 2005 levels. These ambitions fall way below those of the states.

And way below the almost complete electricity sector decarbonisation by 2040 that the International Energy Agency says is required globally to avoid dangerous global warming.

What does the law say?

Constitutionally, energy policy in Australia is a matter for state governments. The development and implementation of the National Electricity Market over the past two decades has been achieved through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), with harmonised legislation in each state.

State governments therefore have the constitutional scope to act both independently and in consort to achieve clean energy related goals.

Whether they should choose to do this, however, is another question. There is an obvious national context including Australia’s participation in international climate change processes such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

National policy coherence also has value in avoiding uncoordinated policies that can adversely impact investment incentives, increase compliance costs, and generally lead to less efficient outcomes.

While suitably ambitious, nationally consistent, legislation under federal government leadership may be ideal, it hardly seems realistic at present. The apparent divisions within the federal government seem likely to prevent useful progress, even with the two reviews.

It might well be a choice between state leadership or very little leadership over the next few years. And these years will be key to setting Australia on a clean energy path fit for the future.

New South Wales’ climate plan

The NSW climate change policy framework proposes to meet the net zero target through a number of policy “directions” to reduce emissions. It also proposes adaptation measures to cope with the warming that is already underway.

The emission reduction directions include: enhancing investment certainty for renewables; boosting energy productivity (energy efficiency); capturing other benefits of reducing emissions (such as improved health from reduced air pollution) and managing the risks; and growing new industries in NSW.

These are to be advanced through government policy, government operations, and advocacy. Specific initiatives are to be outlined in a set of action plans, including a climate change fund and an energy efficiency plan, which are currently under consultation.

A further advanced energy plan will be developed in 2017. This will include provisions for the future role of renewable energy. Clearly the government will not be able to achieve its aspirational emissions target in the absence of a transformation of the energy system, so how will renewable energy figure in the absence of a state target?

While we can’t preempt the plan, the policy framework defines advanced energy to not only cover renewable generation itself but also how it is integrated into industry structures and adopted by end users.

Given the importance of integration in transitioning the energy system, such a broad focus could usefully complement the activities of other states as well as NSW.

The policy also emphasises collaborating with the commonwealth and other states through COAG.

NSW: a climate advocate?

Combined state action has historically played a key role in federal climate policy. It was bottom up pressure from states that resulted in the Howard government’s initial emissions trading scheme (ETS) proposal in 2007.

The Garnaut review that formed the basis of Kevin Rudd’s ETS was originally commissioned by Labor state governments.

On this point SA Premier Jay Wetherill has taken the lead in calling for a national emissions trading scheme to be implemented through harmonised legislation at a state level.

While this seems unlikely to be a feature of NSW’s advocacy in 2017, continued failure by the federal government to advance climate and energy policy might require such types of coordinated state efforts.

In this light, state government efforts do not appear “ideological”. That would seem to better describe the federal government’s present opposition to even exploring promising emission reduction options.

And while it is too soon to know if NSW’s climate policy is fit for the future, it certainly represents welcome progress, and provides a basis that can be built upon.

Anna Bruce receives funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), Energy Consumers Australia and the Australian Research Council Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living (CRC-LCL), and leads the Australian PV Institute's solar mapping work.

Graham Mills receives funding from the CRC for Low Carbon Living

Iain MacGill is a Joint Director of UNSW Australia's Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets. The Centre has received funding from a range of government sources including the Australian Research Council, Energy Consumers Australia and ARENA. He has also undertaken consultancies for a number of Australian State Governments and the Federal Government on clean energy regulation, markets and policy. He also contributes unpaid expert advice to a number of government organisations, industry associations and not-for-profit groups in the clean energy area within Australia and internationally. Iain's share portfolio includes AGL which owns a range of coal, gas and renewable generation in Australia.