If you wondered if the writing is on the wall for climate change adaptation strategies what better declaration other than to say we need a new super department and call it the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
As of 26 March 2013 the transition has started in a move the Australian Government hopes will be seen as logical and a way to portray that climate change is taken seriously across all of government and across all portfolios. In asking the question will it work? Consider:
Logical – The movement of Energy Efficiency to Resources; energy and emission reduction policies best fit is with Climate Change.
Illogical – the same super minister overseeing mining companies will manage renewable energy.
Means – the urgent need to decarbonize the economy.
Ends – to cut funding to over 140 projects across 33 universities around Australia. To affect more than 100 researchers in the ability to carry out critical work on climate change adaptation.
The game is to be seen as promoting innovation. That word innovation is being used as a football – or should we say moneyball.
If you are not aware the opposition is committed to reducing expenditure by $23b and if you think of what the Government has done – it is making that very difficult to do as the expenditure trimming has started and it will be difficult to extract efficiency dividends on already lean departments without stopping practices all together.
Therefore it is a game of tactics as both the government and opposition are committed to strategy for climate change. The tactics appear at this stage to be:
Government – creating a Super department and reducing the Department of Climate Change staffing numbers from about 1000 to around 600, and reducing funding to research facilities.
Coalition – reunite Climate Change and the Environment in a relationship it believes makes more sense, and revisit six green star accommodation at the Nishi building at a cost of $10 million a year.
Co2Land org take s particular note of the coalition stance and where they say it makes more sense – it does for control purposes. However, it will fall into the same traps of the Howard era and quickly be unworkable as a policy instrument. But then again that will allow ‘yes minister’ to continue and compel a review at opportune times. The term then was a ‘broad policy approach’ – history to repeat itself?
Because it is good reading we suggest you research this matter asking the questions:
And what happened to Climate Change Adaptation? Has that once commonly used title now gone altogether? Then follow up on the link –
The ABC did a story last month about the future of the body charged with preparing the nation to meet the challenge of global warming, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.