The CPRS kills carbon neutrality

Further to the good work of Richard Dennis from The Australia Institute which has highlighted that the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is in fact a Reallocation scheme, it has now emerged that the CPRS is also greatly impacting local government across Australia in their efforts to go carbon neutral.

Local government has in fact led the way on climate change, with several already announcing plans and commitments to go carbon neutral, and many others seriously considering doing so too.

Unfortunately, the CPRS has created doubts and confusion about what carbon neutrality means at Local Government level.

Greenhouse Friendly abatement credits obtained to date (voluntary scheme) will be not be valid under the CPRS.

Under the CPRS, entities offsetting and or reducing emissions will no longer be able to claim carbon neutrality as their emissions are reallocated and the link between entity emission reductions and aggregate emissions will be broken.

For example, from: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme — Implications for Greenhouse Friendly™

Introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (the Scheme) has implications for Greenhouse Friendly™. The Scheme will impact on the types of abatement that can be provided and the issue of carbon neutrality.

The Scheme will have broad sectoral coverage, which means that from 2010, there will be less scope to pursue offset activities with offsets limited to emissions sources uncovered by the Scheme. In the lead up to the Scheme, companies could be taking action to reduce their emissions based on the expectation of a future carbon price. Therefore it will become increasingly difficult to demonstrate the additionality of abatement projects. Further, Greenhouse Friendly™ abatement credits will not be fungible into the Scheme.
National Carbon Offset Standard

The Government has made a commitment to develop a national standard for carbon offsets to provide national consistency and give consumers confidence in the voluntary carbon offset market. The offset standard will provide guidance on what constitutes a genuine, additional voluntary offset credit, as well as setting requirements for the verification and retirement of such credits, and standards for calculating the emissions of a product or service.

The Department of Climate Change released a discussion paper on the National Carbon Offset Standard on 19 December 2008 for public consultation. The Department is currently conducting public consultations.

Please note that the Greenhouse Friendly™ Guidelines and other publications are yet to be revised in accordance with this announcement.

You can download the discussion paper [here] (PDF)

From this discussion paper:

2.2 Implications for carbon neutrality
From a consumer’s point of view, the environmental credibility of carbon neutrality comes from the fact that offsetting means an entity’s activities do not increase aggregate emissions and therefore help to mitigate climate change. As described above, the effect of a cap on emissions from covered sources is to break the link between individual voluntary action and aggregate emissions.

The Municipal Association of Victoria (representing local governments) has already made this submission concerning the discussion paper [link] (PDF)

The MAV has also provided this briefing to their members [link] (PDF)

So in addition to the CPRS (if legislated) doing nothing to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, it will effectively prevent local and state governments reducing their emissions too.

External links

• State emission cuts 'futile' and would aid polluters , Royce Millar, The Age, 23 March 2009.
• Flaws in emissions trading scheme must be fixed , The Age, Editorial, 24 March 2009
• Cabinet talks on target's futility , Royce Millar and Adam Morton , The Age, 24 March 2009
  
  

My results for Cotham Ward, Boroondara Council election

I stood as an independent candidate for Cotham Ward in the Boroondara Council elections counted (by postal vote) and Saturday 29/11 and Sunday 30/11. Here is my campaign blog.

The results have been declared -

Candidate	First preference votes
PERRYMAN, Benjie	814
BLOOM, David	2935
CAMPBELL, Peter	3229
BILA, Theo	2071

Candidate	Votes after distribution
BLOOM, David	5113
CAMPBELL, Peter	3936

For more details see

• http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/lgresults.html
• http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/boroondararesult2008.html

Even though I got the highest primary vote (for which I am pleased) David Bloom (Liberal, works in David Davis' office) got elected by the preference flow from the other two.

It was actually quite close - if Bila got ahead of Bloom then I would have been elected. I think it is a very good sign that so many people in Cotham ward voted for a sustainable future!

I would like to thank those who helped with leaflets and scrutineering. I would also like to thank the many people in the ward who contacted me during the campaign about local issues, and for their encouragement.

Also, it was a good result for Des Benson to come second as the Greens candidate in Studley Ward.

I understand that the overall result for Council is that 4 out of 9 are Liberals (or sympathisers) so they don't quite have a majority - unless they elect a Liberal Mayor who will have a casting vote.

Also, apparently Brad Miles (Bellevue Ward), while not a Liberal, opposes the Darebin - Yarra bike link bridge, so the Council decision to support this is now likely to be reversed. Hopefully this won't happen.

The Hawthorn climate change debate and denialists

On November 19, 2008 I went to the " climate change debate" in Hawthorn, Melbourne, between Professor David Karoly (Climate Scientist and IPCC Lead Author) and William Kininmonth (former Meteorologist and head of Australia's National Climate Centre and notable climate change skeptic). The debate was organised by Leon Zembekis.

Leon Zembekis, the forum organiser

About 30% of the 200-odd audience were vocal skeptics/denialists, apparently there to hear their guru take down the brash scientist.

It seems to me that the skeptics demographic was oldish, often grey and/or balding, mostly male. They were quite affronted by much of what Karoly said. “Don’t insult our intelligence” was one taunt they shouted. They were spoiling for a shouting match.

Kininmonth basically said the earth is a bit warmer, but that it doesn’t matter, and that increasing CO2 won’t have any significant impact on climate change. He thinks were in the midst of a natural cycle, and that humans have no impact. His presentation was a wierd amalgam of unrelated observations, and contained several errors of interpretation, as David Karoly pointed out during the debate.

In question time I asked Kininmonth what he would say to his children and grand children if he was wrong on climate change, didn’t take action to address it (as he recommeneds) and in 2020 we lost the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu wetlands and snow in Australia.

There were howls and guffaws from the skeptics in the audience. He didn’t answer the question. Instead, he continued to talk about why CO2 doesn’t matter, why there really isn’t a problem, and why we cannot afford to give up our modern energy hungry lifestyles. I said he didn’t answer my question. He said he was “comfortable with talking to his children and grand children."

A Liberal Councillor present (who may also be a skeptic) later mentioned to a friend that “I had asked a leading question”. Well yes, it was hypothetical. . .

It seems to me that the skeptics are actually very scared of climate change. They have constructed their own reality in place of the one informed by scientific observation. When you challenge their alternative reality they react with fear, loathing and anger.

While there were clearly rent-a-skeptics in the crowd - word had got around they should be there - I think we will see similar reactions (albiet less extreme) in the wider community too. Our civilisation seems to be entering a time of stress and peril.

I think we need some real and effective leadership to handle this - and I don’t think the majority of our political leaders from both major parties are up to it.

Good on you Leon for organising this forum. It was very interesting to participate.

It will be interesting to see how the new Boroondara Council will take action on climate change, and whether they lead the community towards solutions.

David Karoly

William Kinninmonth

David Karoly with two forum attendees

David Karoly answering questions

Myself (2nd from left), David Karoly, Ian Enting and Leon chatting after the event.

Links

• More photos from the event
• Climate change, Greenlivingpedia
• Response to deniers, Climate Emergency Network
• Take action, Climate Emergency Network

Preliminary submission to Electoral Representation Review for the Boroondara City Council

This is an excerpt of my submission to the Preliminary submission to Boroondara City Council Electoral Representation Review conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC).


Matters relating to the number of councillors

The population within Boroondara is likely to further increase as more medium-density housing becoming available. I therefore believe that an increase in total councillors from ten to eleven or twelve is warranted to cater for future population growth within the council area.

Based in the figure of 121,000 voters among the 154,450 people in Boroondara, twelve councillors would have approximately 10,000 voters per each, a figure that is in accord of other metropolitan municipalities.

This figure would be equivalent to that for Glen Eira (10,701), greater than Stonnington (8,895) and less than Whitehorse (11,229).

I don’t believe that concerns expressed by the VEC regarding having an even number of councillors to a problem as the mayor could have a casting vote in the event a motion was supported by six councillors and opposed by the other six. In addition, the likelihood of such tied votes frequently occurring would be fairly low.

Matters relating to the electoral structure of the municipality

I believe that candidates elected by proportional representation to multi member wards would be more representative of voter’s choices. For example, 26 percent of voters in a ward with three candidates can elect a candidate, whereas in single member electorates 51 percent of votes are required after preferences. Proportional representation across multi-member wards throughout the Council area would therefore make it more likely that candidates with strong community support will be elected.

Multi-member electorates also give residents the opportunity to choose which of their ward councillors to interact with, and may provide more diversity of councillors (e.g. gender, ethnicity) to residents.

Single member electorates facilitate special interest groups (which may have significant financial resources) fielding several candidates and directing preferences to get their preferred candidate elected. Voters are often largely oblivious to such machinations and preference deals, so the allocation of their preference when voting may not reflect their intentions, largely due to lack of detailed information about candidates and a lack of understanding about the electoral process.

I believe the current ward boundaries in Boroondara are too small and not based on significant local demographics such as communities of interest. In addition, the largely arbitrary boundaries of the current small-area wards risk actually dividing local communities of interest. For example, many people within Boroondara would use and have views about Camberwell Junction and its infrastructure (such as public transport), yet the current ward boundaries place it within a single ward.

In addition, some of the current wards contain only small shopping centres while others contain larger ones that generate more traffic. I believe that larger wards encompassing greater diversity of facilities such as shopping centres, recreational facilities and public transport will provide better overall coverage of community interest in and concerns about these facilities.

The model I favour is four three-councillor wards with Camberwell Junction as the focal point. Each of these larger wards (North East, North West, South East and South West regions) would contain a mix of large and small shopping centres, numerous recreational facilities and a diversity of voters, ethnic groups and communities of interest. Camberwell Junction is a regional transport, shopping and services hub, so it is appropriate that all wards have an interest in its function, development and management.

Care should be taken to ensure that the South East area ward contains both the appropriate number of voters and area, as its outer boundary would be diagonal rather than rectangular. Alternatively, if this ward ended up smaller than the other three, its number of councillors could be reduced to from three to two.

While ordinal ward names may convenient, I suggest the following ward names would better reflect Council and community heritage. Information on the names was sourced from the Boroondara Council History of Ward Names.

North East: Cotham Maranoa

• Maranoa takes it name from the native plants garden established by John Middleton Watson on land he bought in the early 1890's. He continued to buy land in the area most of which later became Beckett Park. He began to create gardens on one side with Australian and New Zealand indigenous species. Maranoa is derived from native words in Queensland, meaning flowing, alive or running (for a river)
• Cotham was a settlement from the early 1850s, near Wellington Street east of Denmark Street where the two roads from the river crossings met. The roads then diverged and travelled to settlers along the river or along the Main Gippsland Road due east. It was soon overshadowed by the larger Village of Kew, also established in the 1850s just north along the road to Bulleen, later called High Street. The Main Gippsland Road was generally known as the White Horse Road after the hotel in the Box Hill district, but on the Kew side of Burke Road it retained its name as the Cotham-road, the road to Cotham.

North West: Studley Glenferrie

• Studley is associated with John Hodgson, the Kew pioneer responsible for the establishment of the Studley Punt in the 1840s. The punt took traffic across the river into land, which was part of his squatting run known as Studley. The road to the punt where a bridge was later erected was known as the Studley Park Road.
• Glenferrie was the name of Peter Ferrie's property on the Glenferrie Road/Toorak Road hill in the 1840's gave its name to the road that led to it. The name is also used for a railway station and for local businesses and a hotel.

South East: Lynden Maling

• Lynden takes its name from the road and park through long time farming land generally known as Highfield. The first subdivision occurred after the First World War, through a property belonging to the Boyd family, and named after trees.
  
• Maling Takes its name from the road beside the Canterbury Railway Station, which ran through a large property owned by the Logan family. The name was given to honour long term Councillor and three times Mayor John Butler Maling in 1899. The area is now recognised and protected by Council as an important tourist precinct.

South West: Gardiner

• Gardiner takes its name from John Gardiner, the first white settler in the Boroondara parish. At the end of the 1830's John Gardiner lived close to the top outlet of the creek named for him, stretches of which had other names until the 1850's.

*** End of Submission ***