Corey Pavin on Taking a Shot at Making Golf Greens More Green

Though golf courses offer long acres of lush grass, tall trees and rippling ponds, they’re not the most popular venues among environmentalists. Citing their effect on wildlife and the potential impact on a venue’s water table, those worried about conservation and sustainability find much to dislike on any 18-hole tract.

For more than a decade, 1995 U.S. Open champion Corey Pavin has worked to improve golf’s relationships with the world hosting it. Known as one of the more amiable and self-effacing players on the PGA Tour (and, currently, the Champions Tour), the 64-year-old native of Southern California remains one of the leading proponents of sustainability in golf.

During preparations to play the 2024 Senior PGA Championship at Michigan’s Harbor Shores—a course built on a reclaimed industrial dumping ground in Benton Harbor—Pavin explored what brought him into the sustainability movement and why he continues to push more environmentally responsible golf courses.

Penta : You claimed a Major Championship, won 15 times on the PGA Tour and captained a Ryder Cup team during four decades of professional golf. How did you find an interest in sustainability along the way?

Corey Pavin: I grew up in California, so recycling was always a big deal there before the movement expanded across the United States and around the world. So, I came into golf already aware of the need to recycle and look after the environment.

What brought you into a leadership position working toward environmental sustainability in golf?

I do most of this work due to my association with Dow Chemical. I’ve been with them for 15 years now, and they started a big program for sustainability and recycling. They’ve done a lot to make me aware of what needs to be done and helped me to reduce my own carbon footprint. … I also worked with the nonprofit GEO Foundation for Sustainable Golf, which is dedicated to making golf and the golf community ecologically friendly.

Have you found there to be tension between the sport of golf and the environmentalist movement?

I knew growing up the environmental effects of golf and golf courses was a huge concern and a cause of a lot of conversation. There were debates over the chemicals used on a course and how they can affect groundwater and other elements.

I think a lot of strides are being made with what materials get used on a golf course with an eye toward what effect they could have on the environment. There’s been a lot of work in the last two decades to make courses less harmful.

What advancements have golf operations made in course design, building, and management?

First of all, there’s been a push for years now with course designers to avoid bringing in any outside species such as grass or other plants that could change the ecology of an area. You’re seeing so many more courses now that use only native elements. There’s also been a lot of strides made on how courses are maintained, what grasses they use, and how the greens crews treat the grasses.

Is it difficult to balance environmental factors with efforts to provide a quality golf course?

You want to design and build a quality course and keep it in good shape, but we have the means now to eliminate negative environmental impact from a golf course being built or operating. For example, concepts such as using recycled, non-potable water for the grass or choosing salt-resistant grasses that can be fed with brackish seawater keep fresh water preserved and entirely off the course.

Beyond water usage, what positive effects can a modern golf course have on the environment?

You also have to consider the adjacent land near a course. The presence of golf near a forest or marshland can lead to an effort to preserve that space that wasn’t a priority earlier.

Are you seeing efforts to update or reimagine golf courses built before the environmental movement came to the fore?

Yes, there are so many modification ideas a golf course can use to limit or reduce the amount of grass that needs to be watered. I’m seeing courses add natural waste areas of plants that require very little water or more sandy areas that require no water at all. Over the last decade, I’ve seen courses all around the world shifting to those designs. Beyond saving water, those ideas also reduce the amount of necessary maintenance and save energy.

Way back when, crews used to just bulldoze everything and transform an area into a course without giving thought of what that could do. Once it became clear that we could build golf courses that can involve more of the natural habitat and disturb much less of the natural environment that was already in place, I think it became obvious there was no reason to design or build courses any other way.

As a player, does it just make you happy seeing these sustainable changes?

I love seeing it, not just because I’m aware of how important clean water is, but because I’ve always liked golf courses that have a natural look to them.

The 2024 Senior PGA Championship was at Harbor Shores this year—a course developed on wetlands reclaimed from an industrial waste site. Could we see golf actually restoring the environment in cases like we find in Benton Harbor, Mich.?

I think that’s a great example of responsible course building and management. Initially, [Harbor Shores] was more a case of recycling and reclamation, but it operates now within those wetlands as a sustainable model. We can see more cases of dump sites becoming courses because you’re dealing with land that can’t really be used for much else. Once the ground is cleaned and treated, I can’t think of any better place to build a golf course because just the act of creating the venue cleans that garbage from the land.

We can now make golf courses that look like they were always supposed to be there from the beginning.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The Reserve Bank of Australia has delivered its fourth interest-rate increase of 2026, lifting the cash-rate target by 25 basis points to 4.60 per cent and warning that further tightening remains possible.

The unanimous decision on 29 September takes the cash rate to its highest level in almost 15 years. More importantly, it confirms that the RBA’s concern has shifted from inflation risks that might materialise to price pressures that are already spreading through the economy.

The increase was widely expected after a series of hawkish comments from senior RBA officials. Financial-market sentiment now remains tilted towards rates staying higher for longer, with some analysts expecting at least one further increase. Yet the decision is not straightforwardly hawkish: the economy is slowing, house prices are falling and household budgets are under mounting pressure. The RBA is tightening because inflation has proved stronger than anticipated, not because the economy is booming.

A significant change in the statement

The clearest change from the RBA’s August statement is the transition from warning about upside risks to declaring that those risks are “materialising”.

In August, the Board left the cash rate at 4.35 per cent to assess the effects of three earlier increases. It said inflation remained too high and acknowledged that the Middle East conflict, elevated energy costs, weak productivity and strong investment related to artificial intelligence could create further price pressure. However, those concerns were still framed principally as risks to the forecast.

The September statement is more definitive. Recent Australian inflation was stronger than the RBA expected, while output growth in the June quarter was also marginally stronger. Businesses consulted through the Bank’s liaison program reported that they were either raising prices or considering doing so. Short-term inflation expectations remained elevated.

The international picture has also deteriorated. The conflict in the Middle East has broadened, oil supplies have suffered further disruption and global energy prices are materially higher than the assumptions used in the RBA’s August forecasts. Higher fuel costs are now being passed through, at least partially, to the prices of other goods and services.

This distinction matters. Central banks generally try to look through a temporary increase in petrol prices because higher interest rates cannot produce more oil or end an overseas conflict. The RBA becomes more likely to act when the original price shock spreads into transport, manufacturing, retail prices, wages and inflation expectations. Its statement suggests that this second-round process has begun.

The RBA also introduced AI-related inflation more prominently into its reasoning. Rapid investment in artificial intelligence is supporting growth among Australia’s major trading partners but is also pushing up demand and prices for technology-related goods. The AI investment boom is therefore playing a double role: cushioning global growth from the Middle East shock while intensifying pressure on prices and scarce resources.

Domestic capacity remains the other half of the inflation story. Australia’s weak productivity growth continues to restrict how quickly the economy can expand without creating price pressure. Business investment and borrowing remain strong, while output has been slightly more resilient than expected. The RBA’s argument is that imported inflation has arrived while the domestic economy still has insufficient spare capacity to absorb it.

Nevertheless, the statement acknowledged considerably more weakness than was evident earlier in the year. Consumer spending is easing, labour-market conditions have softened, house prices have fallen in most capital cities and new housing lending has declined noticeably. The previous three increases appear to be slowing the economy.

That balance makes the decision unusually uncomfortable. The RBA is raising rates into a slowdown because it believes allowing inflation to persist would ultimately demand an even more severe response.

The statement’s final paragraphs also carry a stronger tightening bias than in August. Rather than merely saying rates could rise if required, the Board explicitly committed to doing what was necessary, “including increasing the cash rate target further if needed”. The fact that all nine members supported the increase reinforces the message that the Board saw a clear need to act. RBA monetary policy statement, 29 September 2026

What Bullock said after the decision

At her press conference, Governor Michele Bullock presented the increase as an insurance policy against inflation becoming entrenched rather than the beginning of a predetermined series of rises.

Bullock said the Board considered leaving the cash rate unchanged but ultimately concluded that inflation developments justified another increase. She stopped short of offering forward guidance about the next meeting, saying the RBA would need to observe how all four of this year’s rate increases flowed through the economy.

That caution is important. Monetary policy operates with a lag, so households and businesses have not yet felt the full effect of the earlier increases. Bullock pointed to mortgage payments consuming a growing share of disposable income and the housing downturn as evidence that policy was already restrictive. Whether it is restrictive enough, however, will be determined by subsequent inflation data.

Her core message was that the RBA cannot afford to let Australians become accustomed to inflation of 3 or 4 per cent. If businesses, workers and consumers begin treating that rate as normal, inflation expectations could become embedded in pricing and wage decisions. Reversing that psychology would require a much sharper economic contraction.

Bullock said a recession was not the RBA’s central forecast, but she conceded there were scenarios in which a dramatic slowdown could become necessary if inflation expectations escaped the Bank’s control. “I hope it’s not needed,” she said when asked whether the economy might have to enter recession. ABC News coverage of Bullock’s press conference

She also rejected the idea that the Middle East conflict was solely responsible for the rate increase. The energy shock has intensified the problem, but Australia already faced domestic capacity constraints and inflationary pressure. Interest rates cannot lower global oil prices, but they can weaken demand and make it harder for businesses to pass every cost increase through to customers.

Bullock acknowledged that this mechanism places a disproportionate burden on mortgage holders. She noted that some Australians were taking second jobs to manage higher living costs and debt repayments. Her defence of the decision was that failing to act would eventually produce higher inflation, higher rates and a worse economic outcome.

The mood is now “higher for longer”

Current sentiment is therefore distinctly cautious and hawkish. The September increase was expected, but the unanimous vote and explicit reference to further rises reduce the likelihood of near-term relief for borrowers. Bond-market pricing and some private-sector forecasts point to additional tightening, although the RBA itself has not committed to another move.

The central question is whether four increases—totalling one percentage point this year—will slow domestic demand quickly enough to offset persistent energy, technology and capacity pressures. Falling house prices, weaker lending and softer consumption suggest the policy is working. Stronger inflation and continuing price pass-through suggest it has not yet done enough.

For borrowers, the immediate conclusion is bleak: rate cuts are no longer part of the near-term conversation. The debate is now between holding at 4.60 per cent and raising the cash rate again.

The RBA hopes it can contain inflation without causing a recession. Its latest statement and Bullock’s comments show that it sees a greater danger in doing too little now—and being forced to inflict substantially more damage later.

Corey Pavin on Taking a Shot at Making Golf Greens More Green

Inflation risks are materialising, prompting the RBA’s fourth rate increase of 2026. Here’s what changed and what Michele Bullock said

A significant change in the statement

What Bullock said after the decision

The mood is now “higher for longer”