Is intergenerational equity a fallacy?

There's a good chance you've heard more than enough about the current government's latest budget and whether it will or won't address inequity in the housing market for the nation's younger generations. Don't worry - I'm not going there.

While Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese continue on their pre-determined talking points around intergenerational equity for housing and wealth, it's undeniable that housing should be available to all and at a cost that doesn't completely eliminate some form of disposable income. But there's an important piece of the puzzle that is missing completely. Where is intergenerational equity for our experience of the natural world? Of healthy rivers and thriving forests? For a stable climate and flourishing ecosystems?

Albanese was born in the 60s and Chalmers in the 70s. While there have always been people sounding the alarm about biodiversity loss and the impacts of climate change, I'm going to take an educated guess that they both grew up as kids without any form of climate anxiety. As far as I know kids as young as 6 weren't striking from school for the climate back then. I can still remember when Scott Morrison told the vast collective of kids who appeared more future focused than their parents' generation,  "What we want is more learning and less activism in schools."

This year the Biodiversity Council of Australia estimates that only 0.6% of the $833 billion in expenses outlaid will be allocated to environmental outcomes. Meanwhile Defence is allocated 100 times this amount. If you account for inflation, total spending on the environment will actually decrease by 10%. This from the same government that came out with the unrealistic catch-phrase of "no new extinctions." Unrealistic, at least, if you keep the allocations at 0.06% of total expenditure. This number is expected to drop further to 0.04% by 2028-29.

Scientists have calculated that the Australian Government needs to spend at least 1% of total budget expenditure to meet the commitments to prevent further extinctions of native plants and animals, restore 30% of Australia’s degraded lands, and conserve 30% of Australia’s land and sea areas by 2030.

1% of total government expenditure is around $8.3 billion in the next financial year — the estimated revenue from the proposed 25% tax on gas exports is $17 billion per year. So you could fund the required amount suggested by scientists and still have $10 billion to play with. Makes sense to me.

So where to from here? Every year I become more convinced of the idea that relying on government to achieve the environmental change we need, in the time we need it, is a fool's errand. Bureaucratic structures move slowly and government spending has become increasingly short-term focused, subject to the politics of the day. Environmental strategies require long-term, consistent funding and adaptive management so they can shift and change with the natural world. The best way to find that isn't through 2-3 year grant cycles.

While it could be argued that the government is attempting to begin the process of addressing intergenerational equity when it comes to housing, there's a long way to go until the environment — the thing that gives us the air we breathe, water we drink and food we eat — is given the attention it deserves and the resources it needs.

Until then, no matter which way you spin it, the kids will be worse off.