Over the last few years, Federal climate change policy has emerged as a crucial point of difference between the major political parties, creating uncertainty around Australia’s measures to meet its commitments under the Copenhagen Accord. The difference is grounded in perceptions not only of the scientific evidence for the phenomenon but, perhaps more importantly, of the economic implications of our response to it – the future Carbon Tax announced on 10 July 2011 was met with widespread protests on these grounds. For much of 2011, the controversy has played against a background of dramatic natural disasters, including an extraordinary rush of severe weather events at the start of the year (floods throughout the eastern states, the inundation of Brisbane; bushfires in Perth; a heat wave in SA; historic snowfall in Europe and USA, heatwaves in USA and Japan) which served as sharp reminders of our peculiar vulnerability – as one of the driest continents and most coast-hugging societies in the world – to climate change impacts. Over the same time, state and local governments have been quietly (or otherwise) progressing their own agendas and measures to mitigate and/or adapt to these threats. Indeed, much of the initiative on climate change policy in Australia, particularly in building adaptive capacity, has been taken at these ‘lower’ levels of government for some time, especially prior to 2007 when Australia was not signatory to the Kyoto protocol (Betsill/Bulkeley 2006). Preferred responses at the state level seem to have fallen into a small number of categories: subsidising ‘green’ technologies for industries, infrastructure, residential developments and homes; promoting more ‘energy efficient’ urban forms; and risk management for storm surge and sea level rise (Byrne et al. 2009). As the second of these categories indicates, metropolitan planning has been clearly identified as a site for climate change response, by governments and scholars alike (Australian Government 2011; Matthews 2011; Gasper et al. 2011). This is realised in the COAG agreement of December 2009, which requires not only the publication of all metropolitan planning strategies by 2012, but also that they address climate change mitigation and adaptation among other ‘nationally-significant policy issues’ (COAG 2009). In this paper, therefore, we interrogate those metropolitan strategies completed so far – SEQ (Queensland 2009); Adelaide (SA 2010); Perth (WA 2010) and Sydney (NSW 2010) – to identify how each treats the issue of climate change. The special focus of this analysis is whether – and, if so, how – climate change is imagined as a social issue, rather than as a purely environmental and/or economic one.

•

The State of Australian Cities (SOAC) national conferences have been held biennially since 2003 to support interdisciplinary policy-related urban research.
This paper was presented at SOAC 5 held in Melbourne from 29 November – 2 December 2011.

SOAC 5 was hosted by the University of Melbourne, RMIT University, Monash University, Swinburne University of Technology and Latrobe University as well as the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the Grattan Institute, the Victorian State Government and the City of Melbourne.
Three plenary panels brought researchers from across the country to address ‘big issues’: place-based disadvantage, the design and form of Australian cities, and metropolitan governance. Over 175 papers, in 46 themed sessions, cover topics ranging from planning and governance for environmental sustainability, to housing affordability and adequacy in the context of an aging population. Healthy communities, better public transport, high quality open space, participatory planning, and issues affecting the peri-urban fringe are also strong sub-themes within this conference.
All published papers have been subject to a peer reviewing process.