37 Environmental policy

Environmental policy is a critically important, and intellectually interesting, area of politics and policy.^[1] It is also often highly contested. Environmental policy not only concerns the relations between people and the forms of social co-ordination that they create (i.e. states, markets and civil society and the relations between) but also addresses the fundamental relations between humans and other species (what is our place in the web of life?). Environmental policy re-energises the age-old question of ‘How should we live?’ by reframing it as ‘How should we live on this planet, in ways that sustain it, others, and ourselves?’. Put another way, everything we do as humans (as individuals, as members of a family, as employees or business owners, as consumers of goods and services, as members of a community/ group, as citizens of a country, and as inhabitants of planet earth) has environmental implications (directly or indirectly) – we are part of the web of life.

An example, of the connection between us (and how we live) and the environment can be seen at a very simple level. Have you ever considered the environmental implications of something as simple as washing your face? Where does the water come from? Is it treated? How? What is involved in getting it to your tap? How often do you wash your face? What with? (what packaging does it come in, and how is it disposed of). What ingredients are in the cleanser? Where was it made and how did it get to your house? What packaging did it come in? How is the ‘waste’ water disposed of? Where does it go? and with what effects? (e.g. microplastics in cleaners may end up in the marine environment). More broadly, the extraction of minerals and use of fossil fuels raise more obvious questions regarding the environmental impacts of human activities. Extraction and use of fossil fuels can have local (removal of native vegetation and impacts on native species of animals), regional (potential impacts on regional air quality and water systems) and global (greenhouse gas emissions associated with the burning of fossil fuels).

Given the pervasiveness of human – environmental relations, this chapter provides some conceptual tools for making sense of environmental policy debates, rather than delving into the details of any particular environmental issue.

Origins of the policy domain

Human-environment relations have existed for as long as humans have existed, although these relationships have changed over time (and space). Further, while our current relationship with the environment may seem fixed and immovable, human-environment relations are dynamic, with the way things are not necessarily being the way they will always be. So much so, that what we now know of as ‘environmental policy’ only emerged as a significant, and distinct, field of public policy interest since the late 1960s.^[2] Influential books such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring^[3] contributed to raising public awareness about the environmental consequences of human activities, and the emergence of the environmental movement provided a political constituency around which concern about environmental issues was mobilised.^[4] Many of the major environmental nongovernment organisations, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, also have their origins in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Further, it is important to realise that environmental thought is informed by threads from diverse intellectual traditions,^[5] and that major political ideologies, such as liberalism, conservatism, Marxism and anarchism, have particular perspectives on the politics of the environment.^[6] A distinctly ‘green’ political ideology – ecocentrism (aka ecologism) – has also emerged in recent decades.^[7]

Significant shifts in environmental policy debate and practice coincide with technological, cultural, social, political and economic change, often in complex ways. For example, the widespread influence of neoliberalism and the development of information and biological technologies go hand in hand with increasing knowledge of human impact on the environment. Scientific knowledge can also provide abundant evidence about the impacts of human activities as demonstrated by issues such as biodiversity decline, climate change and the pervasive spread of plastics.^[8] Alongside these matters is the necessity of better meeting the needs and aspirations of the marginalised, displaced and disadvantaged people (wherever they live, including Africa, South America and Asia, as well as Western societies).

Within this broad context, environmental policy debate revolves around widely divergent views about how serious environmental issues are, why they are important, what has caused them, and what may need to be done to address them. What is at stake are competing conceptualisations of the ‘proper’ relationships between humans and the non-human world and between humans and other humans, which have profoundly important implications for how the environment is governed.

This chapter explores these issues, with a particular focus on environmental policy in Australia. The chapter proceeds as follows: Section 1 provides a brief overview of what is at stake in environmental policy debate; Section 2 considers some of the major actors involved in Australian environmental policy; Section 3 explains the place of the environment in Australia’s federal system of government; and Section 4 highlights some areas of ongoing debate/non-debate.

Understanding what is at stake in environmental policy debate

Environmental policy is challenging (as well as incredibly important and interesting)! According to public policy scholar B. Guy Peters, environmental policy is politically and technically complex.^[9] Reflecting this, Stephen Dovers proposed that environmental issues have attributes which make them especially challenging, namely: temporal scale (issues emerge over time and responses may take time to work); spatial scale (what happens in one place can affect somewhere else); limits (going beyond thresholds can result in catalytic and cascading effects); irreversibility (extinction is effectively forever); urgency (timely responses can be critical); connectivity and complexity (ecological and biophysical systems are complex and connected – e.g. carbon cycles, water cycles, and the web of life); uncertainty (there will never be complete certainty); cumulation (some issues are like ‘the straw that breaks the camel’s back’ or ‘death by a thousand cuts’, where a large number of small actions can have large consequences); moral and ethical dimensions (they involve important philosophical questions about who or what is worthy of consideration); and novelty (humanity hasn’t faced the kinds of questions that we now face – e.g. human induced climate change). For Dovers, these attributes matter because:

Existing processes, which have evolved around problems that do not as commonly display these attributes, can be suspected to have limited ability in coping with problems that do [such that] the shortcomings of current responses to sustainability have a structural basis, being the products of unsuitable processes.^[10]

Dovers suggests that such responses result in policy being ‘ad hoc’ and exhibiting ‘policy amnesia’, which means that policy making is not systematic and policy learning does not occur in the ways that it needs to.

In a similar vein, Carter, identifies seven core characteristics that distinguish the environment as a policy issue, as summarised in Table 1. In broad terms, these views are informed by the understanding that humans are dependent upon nature for their survival and that ecological systems and processes do not conform with human boundaries.^[11]

Perspectives on ‘nature’ and the ‘environment’

Appreciating the different ways in which ‘nature’ or ‘environment’ can be represented is critical for understanding environmental policy. For some people, the environment is simply ‘our surroundings’, which means that our cities, suburbs and homes are part of ‘the environment’. Similarly, nature is often considered to be anything that is non-human, but, as we are mammals, we are also part of nature.

In other words, it can be difficult to conclusively separate us from nature. A good example is that our survival requires the presence of beneficial stomach bacteria which call our bodies home. For the purposes of this chapter, it is enough to simply illustrate some of the many ways in which ‘nature’ and ‘the environment’ can be understood, and to highlight that these are often deeply ingrained, and so frequently taken for granted.

In terms of ‘nature’, environmental historian William Cronon considers that ‘the natural world is far more dynamic, far more changeable, and far more tangled with human history than popular beliefs about the “balance of nature” have typically acknowledged’ and that ‘nature is not nearly so natural as it seems’.^[12] For example, viewing nature as ‘Edenic’ portrays it as something that is pure and perfect. Clearly, such a view would be unlikely to be held by people who experience disasters such as earthquakes, fire, flood and drought. In relation to the ‘environment’, Barry identifies four ‘environments’: wilderness, countryside/garden, urban environment, and global environment.^[13] These suggest that the environment can be partitioned in different ways for different purposes. These kinds of themes are evident in a study by Coffey, whose investigation of national park policy and management in Victoria, Australia, revealed nature variously thought of as: something to be managed; something to be improved upon; a frontier or source of adventure; Eden; and a source of balance, calmness and harmony. For Coffey, these representations, which were associated with neoliberal-inspired reforms to national park management, were evidence of a commodification of nature, whereby ‘nature was portrayed in ways which targeted consumers for whom a visit to national parks had become synonymous with a recuperative respite from urban life’.^[14]

This raises the question about where the environment begins and ends: for example, are suburban backyards or nature strips part of the environment? Further, the environment is often considered simply as a ‘resource’ which is there solely for the benefit of humans. It is very commonplace to hear waterways, forest ecosystems, landscapes and minerals considered simply as natural resources, which brackets and therefore minimises consideration of important ecological (e.g. rare and endangered species) and cultural (e.g. Indigenous cultural heritage) factors. In effect, positioning the environment as a resource privileges economic value over the intrinsic ‘value’ of the environment. In other words, it assumes the only thing that matters is whether or not someone can make money out of them. Such viewpoints are often a feature of debates about mining in Australia, where proponents may emphasise the revenue to be gained from selling gold, coal, bauxite, iron ore, or some other mineral, while overlooking the other ‘values’ associated with the site.

More conceptually, there is interest in ‘social-nature’, which can be understood as a perspective that seeks to explore the dynamic interplay of, mutually shaping, relations between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, which focuses attention on the myriad ways in which humans conceptualise nature and how nature might influence humans.^[15] Relatedly, there is considerable interest in, and opportunity to learn from, Indigenous and First Nations peoples, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, given their knowledge and deep cultural connections to ‘country’.^[16]

Clearly, there are many ways of understanding and categorising the world in which we live, and our place in it, each with strengths and weaknesses (and obviously not all are equally desirable). Politically, views about nature and the environment are enlisted in particular ways to either promote or marginalise environmental concerns. Some of these diverse understandings and perspectives are clearly summarised in the work of Dryzek, who identifies and discusses nine overarching (albeit western oriented) approaches to environmental issues, as summarised in Table 2.^[17]

Peoples’ concern for the environment may be informed by diverse motivations, which reflect different philosophical foundations.^[18] For this discussion, it is sufficient to highlight five broad sources of environmental concern discussed by Eckersley (1992) and summarised in Table 3. Debates around whether or not native animals (e.g. kangaroos) should be used for human consumption illustrate why it is important to be aware of the diverse philosophical motivations underpinning the different arguments being made. For example, resource conservationists may support human consumption of kangaroo meat (it would be wasteful not to eat them), animal liberationists may oppose culling (on the basis of animal rights), while some ecologists may not oppose human consumption of kangaroo meat because kangaroo farming may be less ecologically damaging than grazing sheep.

What causes environmental problems?

Another important element of environmental policy debate concerns the ‘identification’ of the cause, or causes, of environmental problems. For Stone, such debates involve competing ‘causal stories’ which means that part of what is at stake in political debate is what is considered to be the cause of the problem: identification of the cause of the environmental issues is as much political as it is technical.^[21]

At a systemic level, environmental degradation has been attributed to factors such as overpopulation, technology, production and consumption, Western science and patriarchy, and the Judeo–Christian tradition. Paterson’s analysis of international relations literature discusses some of the different ‘causes’ of global environmental issues identified and the implications of these different framings for the types of solutions advocated. For example: liberal institutionalists see global environmental issues as being caused by an inter-state ‘tragedy of the commons’^[22] with no systematic pattern of winners and losers, with these issues able to be addressed through the building of international institutions. Realists see discrete trends such as population growth or technology as the cause, with these amenable to solution through a focus on security. Eco-socialists see capital accumulation as the cause of global environmental issues, with the solution being the overthrow of capitalism. Deep ecologists have philosophical outlooks which see the domination of nature as being the cause, with their response being grassroots resistance to create decentralised, egalitarian, self-reliant communities.^[23]

Further, Caldwell identified three ways in which environmental problems can be interpreted as a political issue. First, environmental disruptions can be seen as accidents or miscalculations and thus amenable to admonition, education, indoctrination and a few legal sanctions such as anti-litter laws (which may be amenable to incremental responses). Second, environmental problems can be seen as caused by inadequate or inappropriate organisation and management of economic and public affairs (which can be amenable to operational and managerial responses: i.e. better management). Third, environmental issues can be seen as a direct consequence of the socio-economic systems currently in operation (which require systemic responses: changing the way economies are organised and operate).^[24]

Responsibility for environmental problems can also be assigned to individuals, groups and organisations, such as past and present governments, the failings of bureaucracy, or the operations of particular businesses or industry sectors. For example, Coffey and Marston explored how the causes of environmental issues were represented in a sustainability framework developed by the Victorian government. Their analysis showed that the government placed the primary responsibility for Victoria’s environmental challenges on the everyday choices made by Victorians, rather than the policy settings established by governments or the activities of industry and business.^[25]

Clearly, how the causes of environmental problems are interpreted influences how environmental problems are understood. Analyses of environmental policy, therefore, need to be alert to the implications of different causal stories, because of the way in which they focus attention and enable and constrain the possibilities of what can and/or should be done. For example, economic interests may seek to have environmental issues defined in ways that avoid them being blamed.

What should be done, and by whom?

Environmental issues also involve debate around what should be done and by whom. At its simplest, such debates centre on what type of policy instrument, or instruments, should be used to address an issue. Policy instruments are ways in which governments take action and may involve:

• Advocacy: advocating for something or providing information and advice to inform and educate people
• Networks: bringing people together to develop collective responses
• Money: spending and taxing
• Government action: direct provision of services and infrastructure by government
• Law: regulation.^[26]

For example, during times of drought a government may respond by: encouraging people to take shorter showers and turn off dripping taps (advocacy); charging people according to how much water they use or providing subsidies for the installation of water tanks and other water-saving devices (money); introducing water restrictions so that people are no longer allowed to water their lawns using sprinklers or wash their cars using a hose (regulation); or constructing a water desalination plant to produce fresh water (direct provision).

There is also considerable debate about the merits or otherwise of regulation, subsidies, carbon taxes and emissions trading as preferred mechanisms to manage greenhouse gas emissions. In such debates, mainstream economists are more likely to advocate for market-oriented approaches and ‘user pays’, industry may advocate for subsidies and voluntary approaches, while welfare advocates may desire regulation, subsidies and information-oriented approaches. Importantly, ideological underpinnings inform policy actors’ views about the merits or otherwise of different policy tools, even if they deny this is the case.

Environmental policy debate is also concerned with how much change is required, as is illustrated in the three types of responses – incremental, operational and systemic – identified by Caldwell.^[27] Peter Hall used similarly useful framework in an analysis of policy change in the UK under the Thatcher Government. It focuses on three distinct kinds of policy change:

First order change: policy instrument settings are changed in light of experience and new knowledge, while overall policy goals and instruments of policy remain the same

Second order change: the instruments of policy as well as their settings are altered in responses to experience although the overall goals of policy remain the same

Third order change: a simultaneous change in all three components of policy: the instrument settings, the instruments themselves, and the hierarchy of goals behind policy.^[28]

Drawing on Hall’s typology, Carter suggests that ‘although incremental changes in environmental policy are possible within the traditional paradigm [i.e. incremental approaches to policy] an accumulation of first and second order changes will not automatically lead to third order change, because genuinely radical change requires the replacement of the traditional policy paradigm with an alternative’.^[29] Third level change seems to align with the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services views about (the need for) transformational change which they understand as a ‘fundamental system-wide, reorganisation across technological, economic, and social factors including paradigms, goals and values’.^[30]

Debates about what should be done also inevitably involve debates about who should be doing it. In broad terms, in recent decades, the relative roles and responsibilities of government (and other institutions of the state), the private sector (private companies and industry sectors) and the community (the general public or members of particular groups or communities) have attracted considerable attention.^[31] In relation to government and the broad apparatus of the state, central questions relate to the role and capacity of government (and the state) in dealing with environmental issues. Views about the role and capacity of the state are contested.^[32] There are also questions about the disposition of governments to intervene in policy matters, as highlighted by debates between Keynesian and neoliberal perspectives on the role of government.^[33] However, there are limitations in using these terms in discussing the role of government in environmental policy issues (Keynesian and neoliberal), as they both remain wedded to promoting economic growth, and only differ in terms of their perspective on the role of government. By contrast, there is considerable interest in the desirability of moving beyond the paradigm of economic growth.^[34] The ‘public’ may also occupy various roles in relation to environmental matters and can be viewed as either consumers (where their only form of agency is through spending decisions) or citizens (where people have important rights and responsibilities within democracy).^[35] Finally, the role of the private sector in environmental matters is also subject to considerable debate, with a central issue being whether business is ‘part of the problem’ or ‘part of the solution’. Business is often viewed as central to economic growth, and hence the cause, or at least part of the cause, of environmental problems, although some people consider the potential role of business positively (e.g. free market environmentalists).

Actors and politics of the domain

Given the diversity of environmental issues (e.g. biodiversity decline, climate change, water pollution, water quantity, air quality, soil erosion, invasive species, toxic waste, microplastics, etc.) and the range of levels at which environmental policy debate occurs (e.g. local, regional, state, national, international and global) it should come as no surprise that environmental issues involve a diverse and dynamic range of ‘policy actors’, where policy actors are understood as ‘any individual or group able to take action on a public problem or issue’.^[36] Effectively every person, individually or as part of a group, has the potential to inform environmental policy debate. Within the context of Australian environmental policy, Table 4 illustrates some of the actors involved.

This diverse range of policy actors, particularly non-government organisations (NGOs) and think tanks, not only occupy different niches within the environmental policy ecosystem, they also draw on diverse resources (e.g. economic power, information and expertise, capacity to mobilise people or attract attention) and deploy, either willingly or by necessity, particular strategies^[37] in their efforts to shape environmental policy. For example, NGOs may seek to influence policy using a mix of direct and indirect strategies. Contacting a relevant minister or public servant, making a submission to an inquiry, or responding to a call for comment are direct forms of influence, while contacting reporters, writing letters to the editor, arranging strikes or marches, undertaking direct action (e.g. blockades) or holding public meetings and so forth are indirect ways to influence policy actors.

One thing to note is that environmental policy debate is not the sole preserve of ‘environmentalists’. Many policy actors with sectional/sectoral interests are also actively involved (i.e. industry associations and associated actors), and arguably have been more influential in shaping environmental policy. Over recent decades, this would seem to be the case with respect to Australia’s policy position. For example, Clive Hamilton^[38] and Guy Pearse^[39] have identified various actors that they see as having played a role in shaping climate change debate and policy in Australia, in ways that limit effective action. While the election, and re-election, of the Albanese government (who are recognised as accepting the science about human-induced climate change) offers the prospect for more ambitious action on climate change, much remains to be done, particularly if the influence of fossil fuel interests and climate deniers is to be marginalised.

How is environmental policy made in Australia?

Australia’s Constitution provides the formal institutional context within which environmental policy is made. The first thing to appreciate about this is that there is no explicit head of power in our Constitution, which formally articulates the role of the federal government in environmental matters. This is because state governments existed before Australia (as a nation) existed and negotiations to establish the Commonwealth resulted in the federal level of government only being granted specific powers (these powers are specified in section 51 of the Australian Constitution).

By contrast, state governments create the basic legislative settings relating to development, such as land tenure, planning schemes, primary industries, public utilities and the environment (for example, environment protection, biodiversity and national parks legislation). Hence, many environmental policy decisions are made at the state level within decision-making processes established by the state government. Nonetheless, the federal government can have considerable influence on environmental matters, should it choose to exert itself, by virtue of decisions by the High Court and the federal government’s dominant financial position (termed the vertical fiscal imbalance). In effect, a range of strategies have increased the reach of the federal government on environmental matters, through levers such as the powers over external affairs, foreign investment, and corporations. In this context, Buhrs and Christoff argue that:

Over the past three decades the Commonwealth [federal] government has gained greater formal control over environmental protection and resource development through the Constitution’s powers relating to external affairs. These enable national laws enacting treaties including international environmental agreements to ‘override’ the States. But, the States retain the capacity for policy implementation, and therefore real influence in these matters largely remains with them.^[40]

However, the federal government’s willingness to exert influence has waxed and waned since the 1980s when there was considerable conflict between the federal government and subnational governments over issues such as the proposed damming of the Franklin River and protection of wet tropical rainforests in Far North Queensland. An Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment was negotiated in the early 1990s as a way to improve intergovernmental consideration of environmental issues (including through Ministerial Council processes). In addition, a significant attempt was made to establish a national strategy for ecologically sustainable development (NSESD) in the early 1990s, although it is clear that much more could have been achieved.^[41]

Importantly, Australia’s federal system of government may not be the sole, or even primary, cause of Australia’s inability to make effective national environmental policy. While challenges such as those associated with the Murray Darling Basin Plan and the lack of a strategy for sustainability point to the role of government and politics, further factors must also be considered. For example, the lack of effective environmental policy may be due to the influence of non-state actors preventing or delaying appropriate policy action, with Australia’s approach to climate change being the obvious example.

Another feature of environmental policy making in Australia is that each state has a relatively unique approach to local government, and there is no recognition of local government in the Constitution. This shapes the ways that council-level environmental policy plays out, sometimes with tensions between state and local governments.^[42] Put simply, local governments are the creature of state government which means state governments determine what roles and responsibilities are formally granted to local government): for example, in Queensland, the Brisbane City Council has a role in water management, whereas in Melbourne, water is primarily managed by Melbourne Water and various government-owned water retailers. However, local government can engage in progressive environmental policy.^[43]

Environmental policy in Australia is also influenced by the ways in which the federal government participates in international negotiations and processes, such as those dealing with climate change (the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change) and biodiversity (the Convention on Biological Diversity, and other treaties dealing with migratory species, wetlands of international importance, and ozone depleting substances). Australia’s contribution to such processes varies considerably depending upon the orientation of the government in office at the time. This variation in commitment to being a ‘good global citizen’ is clearly captured in the title of an article by Christoff, ‘From Global Citizen to Renegade State: Australia at Kyoto’.^[44] Debate about climate change in Australia has been so contested in recent decades that it has been characterised as ‘the climate wars’.^[45]

Finally, environmental policy making in Australia involves diverse actors from across the political spectrum (recall the above section on ‘actors and the politics of the domain’), and plays out in multiple settings. Given this, it is not possible to provide an unequivocal explanation of how environmental policy is made (and implemented) in Australia, beyond stating that it is political, and involves particular actors advocating particular ideas, through particular processes, in particular circumstances: the devil really is in the detail, and this is why detailed analyses of different issues is so useful.

Debates and non-agenda issues

Environmental policy debate in Australia is almost invariably couched in terms of development versus the environment, which serves to frame environmental debate in a very narrow and conflictual way – you are either ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ development, there are no shades of grey. The discourse of ‘balancing’ economic and environmental objectives is also often used to undermine effective environmental policy and governance. Useful insights into how these terms of debate play out in particular cases are well canvassed in a variety of edited collections.^[46] Read together, these collections provide excellent (albeit dated) introductions to the major lines of debate and non-debate that animate the politics of the environment in Australia, with useful coverage of issues such as climate change, the Murray Darling Basin, natural resource management, forest conflict, and coastal management, to name but a few.

Two clear themes from this literature are particularly worth noting because they highlight recurring issues. First is Walker’s notion of ‘statist developmentalism’^[47] which he considers is both a ‘state of mind’ and a ‘development strategy’ in that: It embodies the assumptions that ‘development’ is (1) imperative, (2) popular, and (3) has self-evident advantages [which] ignores evidence that development damages ecologies and diminishes amenity for the population at large [and instead] assumes that ecologically rational policies will be costly and will eliminate jobs.^[48]

Walker’s accounts explore the dominance of ‘statist developmentalism’ in Australia from the First Fleet through to recent times. Statist developmentalism is still alive and well, if recent debates about the reform of Australia’s national environment legislation is any indication, with (at the time of writing – October 2025) the prospect for progressive environmental policy reform appearing constrained by an unwillingness to seriously accept that Australia’s approach to ‘development’ needs to change.

Second is Dovers’ view that Australian environmental policy suffers from policy ‘ad hockery’ and amnesia, the idea that ‘what we do at a given time often appears uninformed by previous experience, and often, previous policy and management attempts are not even recognised’.^[49] This highlights that environmental policy making in Australia cannot be described as proactive or systematic in any substantive way. Even worse is the sense that this ‘forgetfulness’ is intentional – part and parcel of statist developmentalism. Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that many of Australia’s environmental high profile achievements (e.g. halting sandmining and logging on Fraser Island, preventing the damming of the Franklin River, establishing the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, and not proceeding with gold mining at Coronation Hill) were only achieved through extensive public campaigns by the environmental movement, which highlights the need for ongoing defiance of environmentally destructive policies and practices.^[50] Into the future, systemic change is required, alongside increased effort and better management.

Conclusions

This chapter has introduced the politics and policy of the environment, highlighting that environmental issues are not only incredibly interesting, but are also fundamentally important: our survival as a species depends upon how well we learn to live on this planet with other people and species. In broad terms this chapter has introduced some of the major questions that are debated in environmental policy, outlined some of the key types of policy actors and the institutional context they operate within (i.e. Australia’s federal system of government), and discussed some of the recurring themes of Australian environmental policy debate. While this may make for bleak reading, it should not be imagined that it has always been this way, or that such a situation is set in stone. Progressive environmental politics and policy making and implementation can, has, and hopefully will continue to flourish into the future with glimmers of hope evident in diverse places, ranging from successful grassroots campaigns, to efforts by some individuals, groups, and businesses, to actions by different levels of government.

References

About the author

Dr Brian Coffey is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Centre for Policy Futures at the University of Queensland. His research centres on environmental politics, policy and governance, with a particular interest in how issues are conceptualised in policy processes, and the implications this has for how they are addressed. Brian has taught courses on public policy, environmental politics and policy, and environmental economics. He previously worked at RMIT University and Deakin University. His PhD in policy studies was awarded by the University of Queensland in 2010. Prior to this he worked in the Victorian public sector, in a variety of environmental policy and planning roles.