Australia relies heavily on the readily available natural resources. Our nation’s ability to exploit this asset has drawn the attention of the United States Government’s Energy Information Administration, who describes Australia as being ‘rich in natural resources with significant petroleum, natural gas and coal reserves.’ However, the opposite has become a reality. In the past Australia may have had an abundance of petrol, gas and coal but, due to our increasing dependency and increasing expectations of high living standards this is no longer the case. Due to our vast landscape, we can play a vital role in transforming the world into a green one, where renewable energy is more readily available than fossil fuels though. If properly implemented, Australia can derive between 60-80% of its energy in 2020 from renewables and by 2050 be solely reliant on green energy. Australia has the opportunity to lead should it implement such a scheme, it should also incorporate the governmental, social and economical factors into an inherent environmental problem.
Australia is not the only country that faces such a dilemma. Bar Scandinavian and small countries, other developed countries, like America are still slow in their introduction of sustainable practices. It is important to recognise that all nations must work together to stop climate change and the disastrous effects that occur when left untamed. Australia has the opportunity to act as a catalyst by setting a high standard, and spurring other nations into action.
Environmental issues are often portrayed by the media, government and non-governmental organisations as notions too complex for the average person to comprehend, resulting in ambiguous science and vague implications. The general public is encouraged to partake in events such as Earth Hour, where they feel good despite the lack of tangible outcomes. Millions will turn off their lights but, how many will change their lives? A realist perspective asserts that there is no proof, scientific or otherwise, to show that Earth Hour leads to systemic lifestyle changes. Whilst this does not discredit the noted event, it presents us with the pressing question about what should instead be done. Society needs to be educated about the ramifications of not acting on climate change, and that small contributions, such as shorter showers and energy saving appliances, are only a small facet of solving the bigger problem at hand. These bigger and wide reaching changes are to be achieved through lobbying the government, otherwise it is probable that they may never eventuate.
Changing Australia, or any nation, into a green energy community is no easy feat. No one denies that Australia has a complicated and insufficient energy grid, our vast land mass should be seen as advantageous though. We possess a great capacity to effectuate various forms of renewable energy. 18% of Australia is desert land which can be used to generate wind or solar power. In a twenty-four period, Australia accumulates enough solar radiation to supply the population with one-third of its energy demands. As an island, we are surrounded by water which could also be used to generate wave power. When combined with factors such as wind and geothermal power, Australia could begin the transition from coal dependency to coal independency.
Becoming sustainable is a costly process. The principles of a free market, when regulated, have made solutions appear viable though. The free market works on the premise of a fluctuating economy, where an equilibrium could be reached through supply and demand. Essentially, in context of this solution, the output of renewable energies will match the demands and vice versa. In an unregulated situation, the market is free to operate despite any problems. This is the case in Australia, where the demand for renewable energy is not being matched by the amount currently supplied. Hence, the government needs to regulate such a situation through legislative means, which should effectively fix this market deficiency.
Environmental planning, a possible form of regulation, is seen as aspirational. Society will always question the practical application of any given solution and its possibility of increasing living standards. This is an inherent societal flaw, where our own material means ought to increase despite the possible environmental and social justice consequences. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has added substantially to this predicament. Solving climate change will financially worsen the situation in the short term, thus individuals may be less inclined to understand the urgency of the issue. Interestingly, for every year that a recession takes place, with a hypothetical 5% reduction in the market, there is a correlation in the percentile of greenhouse gas emissions reduced. Logically it makes sense; when a market makes a profit then productivity increases, which implies an increased usage of machinery and technology by humans, which in turn increases greenhouse gas and so forth. Hence, when the market slumps into a recession, productivity decreases as does the subsequent quantity of green house gas emissions. This scenario implies that whilst the GFC may produce negative financial short term effects, perennially it may provide a solution to saving our planet.
Moving to a greener Australia immediately could have a positive repercussion on the economy in the future. By beginning the gradual progress now, we can ensure that industries like tourism, which raises a revenue of over ten billion dollars annually, is not lost. The loss of tourism will equate to a depleted economy and society, through the loss of jobs and livelihoods for many communities. The Kakadu National Park is a prime example of a far reaching dependant landmark.
Despite the social and economic problems associated with the transition towards sole dependency on renewable energies, Australia can overcome such problems through the implementation of governmental legislations. This would resultantly increase the amount of funding and resources allocated to green infrastructure, such as wind turbines and solar panels. In the future Australia could take two paths; it could remain the world’s largest coal exporter or it could become the world’s largest solar power exporter. Which option seems more sustainable to you?
Popularity: 38% [?]
