Elena Aydos, Kelsey Gray

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 15 (2021), Issue 1, Page 13 - 22

This paper provides an overview of Australia’s main climate policy in the land sector, the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). Section II analyses Australia’s historical role and participation in international climate agreements, as well as the country’s past and present emissions reduction targets. It concludes that while Australia’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement lacks ambition, States and Territories are taking the lead and adopting more stringent emission reduction targets domestically. Section III introduces an important climate policy that preceded the ERF, consisting of a mandatory emissions trading scheme which lasted two years and was originally linked to a domestic voluntary offsets scheme in the land sector, the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). With the dismantling of the emissions trading scheme, the CFI was reformed, and the ERF was implemented. Section IV presents the main features of the ERF and its outcomes to date. Section V briefly contrasts the ERF with other federal initiatives, including the National Reserve System. The paper argues that not only is the ERF costly and unsustainable, but it has also been ineffective in reaching meaningful emissions reductions in the land sector since its implementation.

Elena Aydos, Belinda Charlton, Gabrielle Cornett, Kelsey Gray, Nita Scott

Carbon & Climate Law Review, Volume 14 (2020), Issue 2, Page 98 - 106

A Superior Court in the Australian state of New South Wales refused consent to a coal mine because of its future contribution to global climate change. Rocky Hill illustrates a watershed moment in the consideration of climate change and social impacts in Australia, representing a significant step beyond what the Courts had previously ruled in relation to those matters. The significance of the decision extends beyond its progressive approach to the recognition of the causal link between coal mining and the impacts of global climate change. The case recognises that lay people still play a part in the democracy of planning decisions, giving voice to minority groups such as Aboriginal people and their views on their living culture and heritage.