Introduction by Croakey: An exhaustive review examining more than 2,000 studies on the global human impact on biodiversity leaves no doubt about the devastating effects of our species, through habitat change, pollution and climate change.
The study, published in Nature yesterday by researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag) and the University of Zurich, has been described as “one of the largest syntheses of the human impacts on biodiversity ever conducted worldwide”.
Meanwhile, events in events in Parliament House this week underscored the yawning gap between the urgency of action for our environment and planetary health – and the level of political will to tackle these crises.
The Albanese Government passed a controversial bill to protect the polluting salmon industry in lutruwita/Tasmania at the expense of the environment, in a move that many fear will also make it harder for communities to challenge destructive coal, gas and deforestation projects.
In a further blow to those who want action on the environment, there was little joy in this week’s Federal Budget, as Dr Timothy Neal writes below, in an article first published at The Conversation.
Timothy Neal writes:
Commentators have branded the 2025 Federal Budget as an attempt to win over typical Australian voters concerned about the cost of living, ahead of what is expected to be a tightly fought federal election.
The Budget’s big-ticket items included tax cuts and energy bill relief, plus measures to make childcare and healthcare cheaper.
There was little in the Budget dedicated to stemming Australia’s environmental crises. Given this, one might assume the average voter cares little for action on conservation and curbing climate change.
But is this true?
Polling suggests the clear answer is “no”. Voters consistently say they want more government action on both conservation and climate change.
As the Federal election looms, Labor is running out of time to show it cares about Australia’s precious natural environment.
Environmental spending
The main spending on the environment in the Budget had been announced in the weeks before.
It includes:
- A$250 million over five years to help protect 30 percent of Australia’s land and waters by 2030
- $2 billion over 19 years to help Australia’s aluminium smelters transition to renewable electricity
- $1 billion over seven years to support new facilities and supply chains for “green” iron.
These measures are welcome. However, the overall environment spending is inadequate, given the scale of the challenges Australia faces.
Australia’s protected areas, such as national parks, have suffered decades of poor funding, and the federal budget has not rectified this. It means these sensitive natural places will remain vulnerable to harms such as invasive species and bushfires.
More broadly, Australia is failing to stem the drivers of biodiversity loss, such as land clearing and climate change. This means more native species become threatened with extinction each year.
Experts say conserving Australia’s threatened species would cost an extra $2 billion a year. Clearly, the Federal Budget spending of an extra $50 million a year falls well short of this.
And global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. This contributes to ever-worsening climate change, bringing heatwaves, more extreme fires, more variable rainfall and rising seas.
Contrary to what the federal budget priorities might suggest, Australians are concerned about these issues.
Voter perspectives
Results from reputable polling provide insight into what the average voters want when it comes to environmental policy and spending.
When it comes to conservation, the evidence is clear.
Polling by YouGov in October last year (commissioned by two environment groups) estimated that 70 percent of Australians think the Labor government should do more to “protect and restore nature”. The vast majority of voters (86 percent) supported stronger national nature laws.
Essential Research polling in October 2023 found 53 percent of voters think the government is not doing enough to preserve endangered species. About the same proportion said more government action was needed to preserve native forests, and oceans and rivers.
On climate change, the average voter appears to have views significantly out of step with both major parties. The Australia Institute’s Climate of the Nation report last year found 50 percent of voters believed the government was not doing enough to prepare for and adapt to climate impacts.
The report also found 50 percent of voters supported a moratorium on new coal mines in Australia, 69 percent support charging companies a levy for each tonne of carbon pollution they emit, and 69 percent are concerned about climate change.
Also in 2024, a Lowy Institute poll found 57 percent of Australians supported the statement that “global warming is a serious and pressing problem, and that we should take steps now to mitigate it even if it involves significant costs”.
There’s a caveat here. As the cost-of-living crisis has worsened, the issue has edged out all others in terms of voter concerns at the upcoming election.
For example, in January this year, Roy Morgan polling found 57 percent of voters considered cost of living one of their top-three issues of concern. Only 23 percent considered global warming a top-three issue.
However, global warming was still more of a concern for voters than managing the economy (22 percent), keeping interest rates down (19 percent) and reducing taxes (15 percent). It was tied with reducing crime (23 percent).
It’s also important to note that climate change and cost-of-living pressures are not separate issues. Research suggests that as climate change worsens, it will cause inflation to worsen.
Labor’s unmet election promises
The singular focus on the cost of living in the Federal Budget means environmental spending has been neglected.
Context matters here. Labor has utterly failed to deliver its 2022 election promise to rewrite federal environmental protection laws and create an environmental protection agency.
The Government could have used this budget to repair its environmental credentials going into the next election – but it didn’t.
The many voters concerned about the environment might well wonder if Labor considers the environment a policy priority at all.
The upcoming election result may show whether minor parties and independents better reflect the Australian electorate’s views on this important issue.
• This article was first published at The Conversation, under the headline,’The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment’.
About the author
Dr Timothy Neal is a senior lecturer in Economics / Institute for Climate Risk and Response at the UNSW Sydney.
See Croakey’s archive of articles on the environmental determinants of health
