Australia’s commitments to cut emissions are on a collision course with urban growth. We need a much more comprehensive strategy to make the transition to a sustainable built environment.
Millions of people worldwide are either indifferent to a carbon tax or opposed. If citizens were motivated by potential carbon dividends, maybe politicians would finally take action on climate change.
Australia is facing an increase in extreme heat, fire danger weather, floods and marine heatwaves, according to the latest biennial snapshot from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO.
Three years after the Paris Agreement, negotiators have finally agreed (most of) the rules for its implementation. But there is still no way to compel countries to deepen their climate ambitions.
Most consumers underestimate the greenhouse emissions associated with different foods. But environmental labels, similar to existing nutrition information, can help us make lower-impact choices.
Achieving climate objectives is economically realistic, but won’t be possible without the support of a real transition strategy that is still lacking at all levels of government in Canada.
For decades, economists have pondered the ‘social cost of carbon’ - the price worth paying to avoid the future costs of greenhouse emissions. But a new analysis suggests this quest is impossibly complex.
Despite politically powerful coal communities helping elect a president who vowed guarantee their continued prosperity, their future remains more uncertain than ever.
A wealth tax would put a price on past emissions and could be used to mitigate the negative effects of poverty, including vulnerability to climate change.
Peter Newton, Swinburne University of Technology; Christina Ting, Swinburne University of Technology, and Wendy Stone, Swinburne University of Technology
Australian cities are world-leading – in the worst sense – for resource use and greenhouse emissions. China-born residents have embraced these consumption patterns, which is bad news for the planet.
Amazon, Facebook and Google have lofty goals for their effects on global society. But people around the world are still waiting for the positive results. Here’s what the tech giants could do.
Burning natural gas produces less greenhouse gases than coal or oil. But the methane emissions associated with natural gas production and liquefaction threaten to erode its environmental benefits.