Australia has long struggled to reconcile its environmental ambitions with the structure of its economy. The country is both a global biodiversity stronghold and a major exporter of resources, agricultural commodities, and energy. A new study led by Paul Elton of the Australian National University suggests that this tension is embedded not only in land use but in fiscal policy. Public spending, the authors argue, continues to favor activities that degrade ecosystems at a scale far exceeding efforts to conserve them. The paper, Biodiversity-harmful subsidies in Australia, offers the first systematic estimate of “biodiversity-harmful subsidies” at the federal level. Using a framework developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the researchers examined direct payments and tax concessions in the 2022–23 budget. They identified A$26.3 billion in subsidies judged by experts to cause at least moderate harm to biodiversity. That amounts to about 1.1% of Australia’s GDP and, by their calculation, far exceeds current federal spending on conservation. The idea of a harmful subsidy is broader than it may sound. Governments rarely pay explicitly to destroy habitats. Instead, they lower costs for activities that transform landscapes or intensify resource extraction. Subsidies can underprice energy, encourage land clearing, sustain fishing effort that would otherwise be uneconomic, or make transport cheaper in ways that expand infrastructure footprints. According to the study, the largest share of damaging support flows to fossil fuel production and consumption, followed by transport infrastructure and support for sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. Biodiversity-harmful subsidies by…This article was originally published on Mongabay

From Conservation news via This RSS Feed.