{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010666666666666666, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035555555555555557, 'mean_word_length': 5.361581920903955, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Employment Effects of Sustainable Development Policies

As ecological economists we research passionately those issues that will give us a clearer understanding of the complex interaction between the economy and the environment. We believe this to be vital for implementing environmental policies that will have fewer unanticipated or irreversible side effects. However, this paper will argue that whilst we are absorbed in this task, we are tending to ignore some of the simpler political realities associated with attempts to implement sustainable development. When governments reduce access to a threatened natural resource such as groundwater or forests, those who do not share the ecological economist’s views, or those who simply have not stopped to think about it, see only the immediate impacts of the loss of jobs and reduced income multiplier effects in regions. Media reporting of only the most explosive aspects of issues exacerbates a loss of popular support for conservation measures. The debate surrounding the Tasmanian timber industry in the 2004 federal election in Australia provides a graphic example.