How useful is the genuine savings rate as a sustainability indicator for regions within countries? Australia and Queensland compared

This article shows how macroeconomic indicators of sustainable development can be applied to the Queensland economy. While recognising the complex and contentious theoretical and practical issues in deriving the Genuine Savings Rate (GSR) to serve as such an indicator, we use the World Bank's methodology, which includes only mineral depletion, deforestation and carbon dioxide emissions as environmental terms, to estimate GSRs for Queensland for the period 1989 to 1999, and compare these to World Bank estimates of Australia's GSR for the same period. We find that Queensland has a higher rate of natural resource depletion and a lower GSR than the whole of Australia. We also examine how well the World Bank GSR performs as a 'headline' measure of overall sustainability, review criticisms of the GSR, and compare its implicit policy implications with those of net state savings, and of the GSR plus a suite of other indicators.

Sustainability metrics for coal power generation in Australia

The basis of this work was to investigate the relative environmental impacts of various power generators knowing that all plants are located in totally different environments and that different receptors will experience different impacts. Based on IChemE sustainability metrics paradigm, we calculated potential environmental indicators (P-EI) that represent the environmental burden of masses of potential pollutants discharged into different receiving media. However, a P-EI may not be of significance, as it may not be expressed at all in different conditions, so to try and include some receiver significance we developed a methodology to take into account some specific environmental indicators (S-EI) that refer to the environmental attributes of a specific site. In this context, we acquired site specific environmental data related to the airsheds and water catchment areas in different locations for a limited number of environmental indicators such as human health (carcinogenic) effects, atmospheric acidification, photochemical (ozone) smog and eutrophication. The S-EI results from this particular analysis show that atmospheric acidification has highest impact value while health risks due to fly ash emissions are considered not to be as significant. This is due to the fact that many coal power plants in Australia are located in low population density air sheds. The contribution of coal power plants to photochemical (ozone) smog and eutrophication were not significant. In this study, we have considered emission related data trends to reflect technology performance (e.g., P-EI indicators) while a real sustainability metric can be associated only with the specific environmental conditions of the relevant sites (e.g., S-EI indicators).