The Australian Experience with Environmental Offsets: An Illusory Tool for Addressing Biodiversity Loss and Climate Change?

Recent studies, including by administrative integrity bodies, Parliamentary committees and former ‘insiders’ of Australian regulatory bodies, show serious shortcomings in the operation of biodiversity and carbon offsets in Australia. Specifically, the benefits attributed to the offset mechanism in both contexts have been criticised as illusory in practice. This leads us to question whether it is possible to accomplish carbon emission reduction and biodiversity conservation goals through a governance framework that includes offsetting. We assess the evolution of offsets as a regulatory and voluntary mechanism, offering a critical perspective on the Australian experience. Australia has been an enthusiastic early adopter of both forms of offset, and may be perceived internationally as an exemplar. While we welcome the Australian Government’s recent commitments to international climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation goals, we argue that, by continuing to pursue offsets as part of its biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation strategies, Australian lawmakers may be committing to a course of action that will prevent it from meeting those same commitments.

Publication Details

Journal
eYLS (Yale Law School)
Published
2024-12-01
Primary Topic
Environmental Conservation and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Australian Experience with Environmental Offsets: An Illusory Tool for Addressing Biodiversity Loss and Climate Change?

eYLS (Yale Law School)
Environmental Conservation and Management
article

The Australian Experience with Environmental Offsets: An Illusory Tool for Addressing Biodiversity Loss and Climate Change?

article en

Abstract

Recent studies, including by administrative integrity bodies, Parliamentary committees and former ‘insiders’ of Australian regulatory bodies, show serious shortcomings in the operation of biodiversity and carbon offsets in Australia. Specifically, the benefits attributed to the offset mechanism in both contexts have been criticised as illusory in practice. This leads us to question whether it is possible to accomplish carbon emission reduction and biodiversity conservation goals through a governance framework that includes offsetting. We assess the evolution of offsets as a regulatory and voluntary mechanism, offering a critical perspective on the Australian experience. Australia has been an enthusiastic early adopter of both forms of offset, and may be perceived internationally as an exemplar. While we welcome the Australian Government’s recent commitments to international climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation goals, we argue that, by continuing to pursue offsets as part of its biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation strategies, Australian lawmakers may be committing to a course of action that will prevent it from meeting those same commitments.

eYLS (Yale Law School)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 35%
Environmental Conservation and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The Australian Experience with Environmental Offsets: An Illusory Tool for Addressing Biodiversity Loss and Climate Change? · eYLS (Yale Law School) (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS