Climate change & Sustainability Grad Roles (Melbourne)

LVuLT on 25/02/2018 - 10:42
Last edited 25/02/2018 - 11:09 by 1 other user

Hey everyone!

I'm in my final year of my Bachelor of Commerce undergrad and I'm looking to get into the environments/climate change/sustainability field. Just wanted to get some ideas for companies and roles I could potentially apply for considering my degree isn't in environments or science.

So far I'm looking at the 'Climate change & sustainability advisory' roles with Ernst & Young and KPMG as well as grad roles in the Environment protection Authority and the Department of energy, land, water and planning.

Appreciate any insight you can give me! Thank you!

Education & Work

Comments

  • richo262 on 25/02/2018 - 10:58
    +1

    Probably not wise to direct your career toward a hoax.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/02/2018 - 11:11
      -1

      Keep that head in the sand.

      • whooah1979 on 25/02/2018 - 12:38
        +1

        a greenshouse earth is just as natural as an icehouse earth. pulling ones head out of the sand isn't going to change a natural occurrence.

    • GregMonarch on 25/02/2018 - 11:18
      +5

      LOL.

      You mean the Greenhouse Effect with the hole in the ozone that should have BBQ'd us all by now. Oops, I mean Global Warming and the drowning polar bears (that didn't drown) and the receding ice (that actually increased). No, I meant… (It changes every decade or so - who can keep track - but yeah, probably best to wait for the next 'scientific' fairy story to be dreamed up, since we must be at the end of the last cycle by now.)

      But oh, I don't know - plenty of other careers are built on lies too (but are easier to get into and much more lucrative): actor, used car salesmen, Nigerian scammer, real estate agent, pyramid schemes, bitconnect, the lamestream fake news media…

      • richo262 on 25/02/2018 - 11:46
        +2

        But it's okay, we can fix this non-problem if only we surrender half our taxes and all of our sovereignty.

      • volcanoeqcycle on 25/02/2018 - 14:06
        +1

        Well said Greg. Global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes in history.

        The fact is, the weather is getting colder, all the raw data suggests this.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/02/2018 - 22:17
          +1

          Please link to this data

        • volcanoeqcycle on 26/02/2018 - 01:39
          -1

          @stormii: The link is, you have 1 missing.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2018 - 10:31
          -1

          @volcanoeqcycle: ah the old Liberal bully instead of back with facts, like I haven’t dealt with that before.

        • volcanoeqcycle on 26/02/2018 - 10:40

          @stormii: I try not to play the victim.

        • bobbified on 26/02/2018 - 11:45
          -1

          @stormii:

          Please link to this data

          Fact is, if you ignore all the mainstream media bullshit, there really is no solid evidence that proves that humans are a main cause of global warming - If you ever watch these "climate scientists" testify about man-made global warming at the US congressional hearings while they're under oath, you can see how full of shit they really are. They cannot even answer the most basic questions about their supposed areas of expertise.

          They keep spewing the line "97% of scientists agree…." How is that even an answer? At one stage, everyone agreed that the earth was flat and the people who thought otherwise were called crazy.

          The question that not one of these single climate scientists can answer is "how much of an impact do humans have on global warming? 0.1? 1%? 10%? 50%?". They can't even give a guesstimate. It's hilarious to watch them get roasted and blame each other!

          Global warming may be real (or not) - the question is whether it's a natural cycle or if we as humans can really stop it. Is it worth throwing billions and billions of dollars to try and change something if it turns out that we can only have a 0.1% impact? Is global warming even a bad thing? There are way too many unanswered questions.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/02/2018 - 06:55

          @bobbified: please eat raw eggs

        • bobbified on 28/02/2018 - 07:10

          @stormii:

          Don't tell anyone! Wouldn't want a vegan to come banging on my door!

        • GregMonarch on 01/03/2018 - 12:12

          @bobbified: There is no evidence of global warming so there's nothing to stop. Not ONE thing that 'Inconvenient Truth' clown (forget his name - the guy that failed to become president so he began scamming the world to replenish his coffers) said in his 'documentary' has come to pass. Variation isn't climate change. It's just the weather cycle.

          Also, they've been using a mathematical constant in their 'climate models' from day one, that was recently found (last two years or so) to be an error. Plus they've been caught manipulating older data DOWN, and manipulating more recent data UP - in order to fit their bias/narrative - to show temp increases, because their models weren't showing 'what we would expect to see, and we know our models must be correct, because GW exists".

          Talk about circular reasoning.

          So it's wrong to say, "We don't know what causes GW/CC." That's a trap they've invented, because the argument (based on a false premise) then becomes: "Well we don't know for sure what's causing it, but we since we 'know' it's happening, we should do something about it." But the embarrassing fact is, once that mathematical error I mentioned above has been corrected, and their DOWN manipulation of older data, and UP manipulation of more recent data have been corrected - the data actually shows virtually ZERO change. I only saw the figure once a while ago so I forget now… But I do remember it was a fraction of 1 degree. (I'm thinking it was 0.4 but I'm uncertain.)

          Younger people believe what they're taught. And as an infamous person once said, if you repeat a lie enough times, it eventually becomes truth. But to begin with the few people talking about all this were considered kooks, by highly-educated and well-informed people. But as political agendas behind the scenes took over, more 'scientists' began to lose funding if they didn't climb onto the same bandwagon. (This is easily demonstrated by the way everyone jumped onto the ozone hole/greenhouse effect bandwagon, then when that prediction failed they all shifted to global warming, then when that lie started to come to light they moved onto climate change.) They've all shifted from one paradigm to the next, as the money began flowing from a different teat on the same sow. That's not science. It's greed.

  • atris17 on 25/02/2018 - 11:19

    Why not start small, and get into the Solar Business??

    • scrimshaw on 25/02/2018 - 12:33
      +2

      That has more to do with Electrical engineering..

      It doesn't fully relate to say, Environmental advisors or sustainability consultants. The latter has actually more to do with management and design — for example, helping civil engineers to build public infrastructure like airports, shopping centres or roads that have a lesser impact on the environment. You also tackle issues with waste disposal, water supply, factory emissions etc.

      Private companies like Geolink, Agriculture companies like AgriFutures and government companies like EPA, DELWP, Agriculture Victoria would be good places to start for jobs in env science.

      • VuLT on 25/02/2018 - 17:49

        Thanks for this, I'll look into them!

  • bobbified on 25/02/2018 - 16:30

    and I'm looking to get into the environments/climate change/sustainability field

    Oh no… you could perhaps look at staying in uni to do Gender Studies as a second major. They'd go hand in hand because the contents are all just fluffy ideas that people pull out of their asses.

    You could make use of your commerce degree as a foot in the door for places like EY and KPMG. Then go internally for the move later when positions come up.

    • volcanoeqcycle on 26/02/2018 - 10:39
      +1

      Never a truer word said. Well done Sir.

  • mskeggs on 25/02/2018 - 20:18
    +2

    Wow, what a load of helpful commentary. Some extremely noisy vessels.
    I really don't understand people who argue against sustainability. Do you truly believe there is no reason to minimise waste, or promote public transport to reduce road congestion, or to seek alternatives to littering?

    I didn't originally post in this thread because I don't have much experience in graduate roles, but since you got little helpful info, I'll try.
    I can advise that the job market in these roles is generally very competitive, and that incomes are lower than areas with similar skill sets without the 'green' tinge.
    I have friends and colleagues who are academics in various sustainability areas, and I know some people who are involved in various government agencies related (mainly OEH in NSW).
    At a guess, I think government would be a good avenue to pursue, as they seem quite happy to employ people with non-specialist qualifications in sustainability roles.
    The big accountancy and consulting businesses will work you extremely hard, at least for the first few years.
    You might also look into some of the investment houses that specialise in renewables projects and associated financing, but I have no idea if they recruit new grads.

    My main interest is in renewable energy, and I think that is where most of the economic activity, and hence jobs, is happening. The best news source in this sector is Renew Economy. You should definitely subscribe if you have not. They also have a jobs board: http://reneweconomy.com.au/jobs-board/
    If you want to talk to dedicated amateurs, who might be able to suggest more general advice than I can, try the ATA forums:
    http://www.ata.org.au/forums/

    • whooah1979 on 25/02/2018 - 20:47
      +2

      I really don't understand people who argue against sustainability.

      it's not about being against sustainability, but rather not getting sucked into another doomsday scenario created by the elite in an effort to profit of the rest of us.

      the last significant scenario was before 2000. the cost of "fixing" y2k was estimated to be 100s of bn of dollars.
      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/jan/05/y2k.guard…

      • mskeggs on 25/02/2018 - 22:38
        +1

        I worked in IT in the late 1990s.
        If you didn't fix or otherwise upgrade the software, the computers broke, often in unexpected ways.
        I didn't hoard gold or cache food for disasters, but it was pretty clearly an important job to fix the computer systems that were effected.
        That the fixes were such that there were very few issues when the new millennium arrived really suggests that taking collective action to solve problems pays off.
        In a similar way, I don't think "the day after tomorrow" is going to happen, but if extra energy in the atmosphere means more bush fires, stronger cyclones and longer droughts, then making changes like maximising the use of renewable energy seems a pretty low bar from a precautionary stand point.

        • BobD on 26/02/2018 - 10:46
          +2

          I worked in IT in the 60s through to the noughties. I was on duty on Y2K night and it was almost a complete non event. However, we were working on fixes and testing for about 5 years prior to that night. I assume many others were too. Y2K was not a scam. It was a big problem well managed by many companies who had to fix it or not survive.

  • ChunkyToast on 26/02/2018 - 01:56

    I left EY this year and I would highly recommend it for career progression. Hours can be crap but you learn a lot working on large clients. I wasn't in CCAS but knew a few people in that division and they also seemed like a decent bunch. They've also grown rapidly over the last 12 months.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join