Greens win Fremantle polling over 44% for a new paradigm

Today, Adele Carles, the Greens candidate for the Fremantle byelection, won the seat. This is an event that represents a turning point in Australian politics.

It is the first time a Greens candidate has polled over 44% of the primary vote. The previous record was 38.96% in the 2005 Marrickville by-election.

It is only the second time that that the Greens have come first on primary votes, the first being when the Greens outpolled Labor's primary vote in the NSW state district of Vaucluse in the 2007 election.

Adele Carles defeated the Labor candidate, who polled around 38% of the primary vote. The Liberals did not field a candidate.

This represents a paradigm shift in Australia's political landscape. With both major parties found wanting on critical issues such as climate change and water policy, the Greens platform of reshaping Australia to a sustainable and climate friendly economy has been endorsed by a clear majority of Fremantle voters.

If this is replicated across several other House of Representatives seats in the upcoming 2010 federal election as appears likely, the Greens could well hold the balance of power and enter into a coalition government with one of the major parties.

This would mean pathetic policy such as Labor's 5% emission reduction commitment would be "greened up" to within the 25% to 40% range scientists say we need.

And the 3+ billion gifted to the polluting coal industry by Kevin Rudd would instead be redirected to zero emissions clean energy alternatives.

There is now considerable hope Australia can seriously address the climate emergency that we are confronted with, and contribute to an effective global agreement on reducing emissions and tackling climate change.

Exernal links

• 2009 Fremantle By-election - ABC Elections (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Post script
This is the second time the greens have won a single-member lower house seat in Australia - the first time being when Michael Organ won the federal House of Representatives seat of Cunningham in a 2002 by-election, when the Liberals also did not field a candidate. On that occasion, Organ received 23% of the primary vote and was elected by the preferences of other candidates (as was Adele).

The 2009 federal budget does not move as to a low carbon future

Summarising the environmental & energy items in the 2009 Federal Budget:

The Government will invest $4.5 billion (including $1 billion of existing funding) in a new Clean Energy Initiative, including:

• $465 million for the establishment of a renewable technology innovation body, Renewables Australia (could be good, if they don't sanction burning forests for fuel)
  
• $1.5 billion for a Solar Flagships Program aiming to establish 1,000 megawatts of solar electricity generation (looks good, a step in the right direction)
  
• $2 billion over nine years for investment in large-scale Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration projects (not good - this should be funded by the coal industry, not taxpayers).
  

Additional sustainability programs funded under the Budget include:

• $2.75 billion ($2.45 billion existing funding) to the Climate Change Action Fund under the CPRS, to inform and position business, industry and community on the impacts of a low carbon economy (This looks like a huge amount of greenwash for the CPRS? The money would be better spent on clean energy provision)
  
•  $100 million per annum to establish the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute to inform global action on the development and commercialization of this technology (not good, this is more corporate welfare for the coal industry)
  
• $100 million per annum over three years to the World Bank’s Clean Technology Fund. (not sure about this one, if the the fund delivers genuine clean energy this would be OK).
  

For those that want more detail, the Climate Change Budget Overview 2009—10 provides a summary of the Government's climate change strategy, describing the objectives of each measure and the providing the name of the agencies who will implement them.

Overall, for I give it 2/10 for transitioning us to a low carbon economy and off coal.  There is far too much corporate welfare gifted to the coal industry, and not enough directed to efficiency measures and genuine clean energy.

My speech at the senate candidates event at North Melbourne

I attend another of the series of the "meet the senate candidates" events being held across Victoria for the preselection of the Greens lead senate candidate for the 2010 federal election.

This time, we were given a hypothetical scenarios where, as Senator for Victoria, there were four options to attend events.

These were:

1. The first action of the Swan Hill Climate Action Group
2. The Melbourne Writers Festival, discussing the Parallel Importing legislation removal
3. The inaugural conference of Democracy Watch in Sydney, discussing election campaign funding and transparency
4. Voting in the Senate on a the acquisition of 5 extra jets, following a special extra sitting day to discuss this issue.

I chose option 2 due to the large audience of around 500 people, and the opportunity to reach an audience that shares our values but due to their age and background are statistically less likely to vote for us.

You can read the speech I wrote - as the "Greens Senator for Victoria" at this hypothetical future meeting, here.

Kevin Rudd is playing politics with our climate

So why has Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong just done spectacular backflips and both decided to delay the implementation of their flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction (Reallocation) Scheme by one year?

Why have they also increased the "negotiating range" maximum from 15% to 25% - bringing it inline with the minimum range or 25% to 40% set in Bali in 2008?

Why have they introduced a cap on the carbon price of $10.00 per tonne?

There are two answers to these questions:

1. Politics
2. Business as usual - the grubby links between government and polluting industries.

Politics

The politics is asinine. Kevin Rudd does not want to negotiate with the Greens who have stated they support emission reduction targets in the range of 25-40% that will be negotiated at Copenhagen later this year. So Kevin Rudd has designed the CPRS so the Liberal-National opposition, and Malcolm Turnbull in particular, will be forced to support it.

Turnbull has been saying it should be delayed by 1-2 years; now it has been. Turnbull supports the 5% target. Turnbull is under pressure from the skeptics in his party - such as Nick Minchin and Wilson Tuckey - to support a weak and ineffective CPRS.

Business as usual - links between government and industry

Turnbull is also under pressure from the same industry lobbyists - such as Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group, and representatives from the coal/fossil fuel lobby (the "Greenhouse Mafia") - to support a weak and infective CPRS. They will threaten the opposition with hostile advertisements in marginal seats during the next election, and probably a few more dirty tricks too.

The wash up

If Turnbull - and the Liberal National "Opposition" - cave in and vote in the Senate for the CPRS with the Rudd Government we will have a scheme locked in that won't reduce carbon emissions.

Any parliamentarian who votes for the CPRS is playing Russian Roulette with a safe climate future. Kevin Rudd has stated that 450ppm CO2 is acceptable. Sorry Kevin, I disagree.

Scientists tell us that this could result in 3 degree global temperature rise, sea level rises of over 2 metres, and more frequent severe bushfires.

What can we do?

We must maintain hope that our political leaders will act responsibly and take immediate action to reduce climate change. We need to keep telling them that they must.

We need to spread awareness in the community about how "political stitch ups" are endangering our shared future, and that of the planet, by feeding the climate emergency we are now experiencing.

I think we also need to consider how we can get action on climate change informed and driven by science rather than hijacked by short term political motives.

We can also support the Greens' campaign for effective climate change action

I have also sent Don Henry from the ACF an email telling him I am reconsidering my 20+ year membership and support of the ACF, after his totally inappropriate glowing endorsement of Rudd's CPRS backflip. Is he planning to run for a safe Labor seat like Peter Garrett did?

External links

• Has Kevin Rudd "taken a signficant step forward on climate change"?, David Spratt
• Emissions rethink could trigger early election: Greens | theage.com.au
• "Greener, browner, and a lot later", Rudd greenhouse emissions retreat pitched at Coalition, The Age
• Rudd denies ETS delay is reckless | theage.com.au
• Rudd’s ETS backdown is about controlling the debate - Crikey
• Labor spineless on emissions - Crikey
  
  

A video from the Greens

A public bike plan for Melbourne

It is great public bike plan finally take shape in Melbourne. Sharing bikes at convenient locations provides us with an environmentally friendly means of travel in and around the city.

Velib bikes in Paris

Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Velibvelo1.jpg

I suggested a scheme for this to Melbourne City Council back in 2001 after using bikes in the city of Zug in Switzerland back in the 90s. David Risstrom took up the cause back them but it stalled.

It is surprising how long it can take for simple good ideas to happen here. Since they are only calling for tenders, it appears that the bikes won't actually be available until 2009 or 2010.

To make this really work, we need to make Melbourne more bicycle friendly with:

• Many more Copenhagen lanes
• High quality and safe bicycle transit routes - North South, East West and Orbital

The current Principal Bicycle Network, though a step in the right direction, relies too heavily on routes with inadequate bike lanes (often just paint on the road, ignored by many motorists) and shared paths (were conflict and danger between pedestrians and cyclists is growing).

Shared paths can be acceptable for some local and recreational usage, but they are not adequate or safe for significant bicycle transit usage.

The best option would be to put sections of our existing rail and tram networks underground and put linear parks, bike transit routes and some commercial, residential and recreational facilities in their place.

External links

• Budget to peddle $5m bike hire plan, The Age
• Public bicycles, Greenlivingpedia
  

Rudd's CPRS won't solve climate change

Kevin Rudd's flawed emissions trading scheme with its very weak 5% reduction target and ridiculous 15% upper limit is unlikely to be passed by the Senate. I disagree with Michelle Grattan's conclusion (Age 1/5) that the CPRS in its current form is better than nothing.

The CPRS, in addition to grossly inadequate targets, also gifts billions to the worst polluters. In doing so, it removes incentives for the worst polluting industries to clean up their act. It is also way behind the recommendations of scientists and the Bali convention where emission reduction ranges of 25% to 40% were flagged.

Australia would be laggard at Copenhagen with the CPRS, not a leader. Hopefully all parties in the Australian Parliament will agree on effective measures to reduce carbon emissions and tackle climate change that the Australian people are demanding. We need to reframe politics from being part of the problem to being part of the solution.

General Motors, going, going, nearly gone

I haven't yet written about the enormous changes we have seen over the last year or so - when the capitalist system and imploded into a chaotic mess of greed, dishonesty and confusion.

I am talking about the 2008 crash, when the world's financial system and economies unravelled in a very conspicuous manner. More on that later.

I have been watching the demise of General Motors with some interests. The company has been manufacturing mostly large an inefficient cars and trucks over a quite a long period. They have remained seemingly oblivious to the previous oil shocks and more recently, the arrival peak oil.

The crash and subsequent recession in the United States has hit GM hard. Nobody is buying their cars (mostly gas guzzlers) any more. However, GM employs a lot of people in the US and across the globe, including Australia.

So the Obama administration's automotive task force has overseen a massive bailout to try and keep them afloat.

Since late 2008, GM has received $US15.4 billion from the US Treasury to keep it afloat.

On April 22 2009, GM received an additional $US2 billion ($2.8 billion) in federal assistance.

So far, the best they can do is to "ditch the Pontiac brand", while keeping the GMC, Chevrolet, Cadillac and Buick brands.

Who would have thought the United States government (and hence taxpayer) would give a failing corporation over $US 18 billion in bailout payments?

It is clear that to survive, GM needs to reinvent itself and start making cars or other products that people actually want to buy.

They should retool to make electric vehicles and think about getting into transport manufacturing for a low carbon economy future - perhaps very fast trains?

The latest deadline for GM is the threat of a bankruptcy filing if it can't meet a June 1 US deadline. Time will tell if the $18 billion of taxpayers money to keep them afloat is good money after bad.

Links

• GM to ditch Pontiac, gets more aid
• Green cars, Greenlivingpedia
  

Brown Mountain logging finished in this seasons first coupe

The first 20 hectare “coupe” of this season’s logging allocation in Brown Mountain was completed on 22 April 2009. The destruction includes the felling of more trees 600 to 800 years old.

The tree that was radiocarbon dated was 10 metres in girth. Some trees logged have a 12 metre girth - by extrapolation they would be 800 years old.

Here are some photos of the catastrophic effects of this logging.

The stump of another tree over 600 years old

There are two more 20 hectare coupes remaining. The officer of Environment Minister Gavin Jennings apparently now has the DSE report about threatened species and is considering what to do. It is not clear whether this document will be released to the public, or whether the remaining areas of Brown Mountain forest will be protected.

More photos and more information: Brown Mountain old growth forest, Greenlivingpedia

If you have the time, write a letter or email to:

• your local MPs
• Premier John Brumby john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

Ask them to protect Brown Mountain and the remainder of Victoria's old growth forests still allocated and available for logging.

Extreme weather was the main cause of Black Saturday bushfires

I attended a seminar on April 21, 2009 about the catastrophic bushfires in Victoria on Black Saturday. The seminar was organised by the Melbourne School of Land and Environment at Melbourne University.

The speakers and topics were:

Professor David Karoly - Is this climate change?
School of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science

Dr Kevin Tolhurst - Bushfire behavior under extreme climate
Department of Forest & Ecosystem Science, Melbourne School of Land and Environment

Dr Patrick Lane - Implications for subsequent catchment water yield
Department of Forest & Ecosystem Science, Melbourne School of Land and Environment

These talks shed some light on the scientific observations about recent bushfires on February 7 2009 in Victoria and the reasons why they were so severe.

Professor David Karoly stressed that the extreme weather parameters on and leading up to February 7 were the most important factor, including:

• Record low rainfall - 35 days of no rain up to February 7
• Record low relatively humidity on February 7th of 5%
• The hottest recorded temperature of 46.7 on February 7

The strong north winds and the southerly wind change on February 7th were not unusual in themselves, but combined with the above factors, and ignition of the fires, the results were catastrophic.

Bushfire index ratings compared between extreme fires are:

• 100: Black Friday in 1939
• 120: Ash Wednesday in 1983
• 140 to 190: Black Saturday. These figures have never been seen before and are regarded as in the "catastrophic" range.

Professor Karoly also pointed out that CSIRO scientific predictions are that the current rate of climate change were are experiencing will result in 4 times as many extreme fire dangers days like Black Saturday each year by 2050.

He concluded with these observations:

• A tragedy occurred with the bushfires in SE Australia on 7 February 2009
• It is difficult to separate the influences of climate variability, climate change, and changes in fire management strategies on observed increases in fire activity
• Climate change is increasing the likelihood of environmental conditions associated with extreme fire danger in south-east Australia
• Observed increases in forest fire activity have been linked to climate change in the western US, in Canada, in Spain and in Greece.

Dr Kevin Tolhurst provided some scientific research results on the spread and intensity of fires. The scale of these fires has not been modelled to date, and factors such as extreme convection columns have not been studied or modelled to date.

In summary, Kevin stated that:

• Dominant factors affecting fire behaviour change with the scale of the fire
• Fire size and atmospheric instabilty are important to blowup fire behaviour - they enable feedback which increases the fire intensity
• Drought is an important precursor to high intensity fires - previously "wet" forests, gullies and moist slopes burn
• The fire footprint (the overall size of the area burnt) is determined by only a few hours of extreme weather
• Fire behaviour is a dynamic process and therefore needs dynamic modelling.

The forum concluded with a moderated general discussion of the science of bushfires.

I pointed out that many fires active on Black Saturday such as the Bunyip fire burnt large areas of farmland as well as forest areas (two thirds of the Bunyip fire was cleared farmland), and asked whether recent commentary in the media about fuel loads being the major cause of the fires, particularly in forest areas, was correct.

Kevin stated that the extreme weather dominated the fire behaviour rather than fuel loads which played a lesser role. As an example, he mentioned the Lara bushfire on grass paddocks on 8 January 1969 along the Geelong Road that killed 17 people trapped in their cars. In total, 280 fires broke out on the 8th of January 1969. Of these, 12 grass fires reached major proportions and burnt 250,000 hectares. The fires also destroyed 230 houses, 21 other buildings and more than 12,000 stock.

For also stated that less extreme fires, fuel loads can play a greater role in contributing to the extent and heat of the fire.

There was also a question from a member of the "Stretton Group" as to why fuel reduction burning similar to that conducted in Western Australia is not done in Victoria.

Kevin responded that the weather systems, forest types, and flora and fauna impacts are different between WA and Victoria, so the WA burning regime is not directly comparable or relevant to conditions in Victoria.

Around 100,000 hectares of forest has now been burnt twice in succession in 2003 and 2006/7, which has killed the large areas of Mountain Ash forest and the seed for these trees, which cannot now regenerate.

So climate change is contributing to the frequency and severity of bushfires, which are now destroying wet forest that would previously have acted as a natural fire breaks. As theses wetter forests are not adapted for burining, they will now largely replaced with dry schlerophyl forest which is more prone to burning in the future. Increased fuel reduction burning, as advocated by some sectors of the forest industy and associated lobby groups, would further exacerbate this situation.

It is clear that we need to make decisions about land and forest management and bushfire management based on firm scientific evidence rather than pressure from ill informed lobby groups.

Armstrong Creek catchment

Lake Mountain toboggan run

Regenerating tree - Acheron Way

Burnt forest and regenerating tree ferns - Acheron Way

Links

• Bushfires and extreme heat in south-east Australia, David Karoly, RealClimate, 16 February 2009
• 2009 Victorian bushfires, Greenlivingpedia
• Bushfires; Ash Wednesday, Holties House, Friday, December 15, 2006
• Prescribed burns are prejudging the bushfire inquiry , Crikey, Tuesday, 21 April 2009
  
  
  
  
  

Down the drain

This was published as a letter to the editor in The Age, 17/4/09



OUR use of mains water has been close to zero litres since 2001, when we installed water tanks. Despite record low dam levels our tanks are still half full.

If more homes were provided with rainwater storage of about 5000 litres per bedroom, the rivers of water that go down the drain every time it rains would instead be captured.

Tanks are a cheaper and better option than energy intensive engineering projects such as the desalination plant and the north-south pipeline. Using tanks, a daily target of mains water usage of less than 20 litres per person is achievable now.

Peter Campbell, Surrey Hills
Source: The Age

More information

• http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Water_tanks
• http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Melbourne_water_usage

Seeking preselection as the Greens Lead Senate Candidate for the 2010 federal election

This is my supporting statement as a candidate for preselection as the Greens Lead Senate Candidate for the 2010 Federal election.


I am asking you to support me as the Greens lead senate candidate for the next federal election because I believe that I have the skills, experience and knowledge to campaign well and to be a very strong Greens Senator for Victoria.

I believe this is crucial time in history. We are in a climate emergency, experiencing peak oil, and the global financial system crisis is causing much distress throughout our society and across the globe. I have the skills and experience to articulate these challenges and work collaboratively within both the Greens and the community to develop effective solutions that the Australian public is looking for.

We need to leave behind the petty partisan politics of the old parties and forge a new engagement with the Australian people to revitalise democracy and proactively transition our country to a sustainable future.

I will proactively support and promote Greens policies and values for peace, democracy, care for the environment and social justice. I believe these are vitally important for our shared sustainable future and for social cohesion.

I have developed a prominent profile in the community on green issues and advocacy, including water conservation, energy policy, climate change, forest protection, public transport and conservation of our natural environment. I have been a regular participant on talkback radio, and have had several letters to the editor published in local, state and national newspapers.

I have been a strong advocate for improved and safer recreational and commuter cycling through my membership and activities with the Boroondara Bicycle User Group.

I have worked extensively with a local climate change action groups and networks. Most recently, I attended the inspiring Climate Change Summit and Day of Action in Canberra and the Australian Climate and Forest Alliance conference preceding it. I am also mindful that policy measures and legislation to address climate change must be carefully designed to avoid disproportionate and unjust impacts on low income households.

I am a self employed independent IT consultant currently working in the energy industry. My work includes providing consulting, management and IT advice on climate change and emissions trading.

I initiated the Greenlivingpedia.org project in 2007 to provide information, campaign resources and collaboration on green living, green building and green community action in Australia and globally. I am very keen to promote the wider use of information technologies such as wikis, blogs and social networking within the Greens and government to strengthen our democracy and increase grass roots participation.

Our sustainable house renovation, featured on Greenlivingpedia, has been open on several occasions to promote sustainable design, building and energy practices within the community. We have established a permaculture garden as our most recent project.

Many people hoped that the new Federal government would embrace real action on climate change, repeal Work Choices and reverse the racist Northern Territory Intervention inflicted on indigenous Australians. On these issues and others we have been disappointed. It seems the two old parties occupy different sides of the same coin.

The Greens provide a new paradigm and a new politics. We must break the shackles that industry lobby groups have on government. Through power sharing arrangements in the Senate, I and the other Green senators would hold the government of the day to account, as Bob Brown, Rachel Siewert, Christine Milne, Scott Ludlum and Sarah Hanson-Young have been doing so well.

In the longer term, we need to aim to form Australia’s first Green government. This means we need to win lower house seats in addition to electing Senators. A well planned and executed campaign will do both.

I have a thorough knowledge of and commitment to the Australian Greens’ Charter, policies and processes. Running as the Greens candidate for Kooyong in 2001, 2004 and 2007 has provided me with experience and confidence in campaigning, initiating and participating in debates on both local and national issues such as climate change, social policy, energy policy and environmental issues. Our vote increased in each of these elections.

I have also run as a Greens candidate for State Government in two elections. Running for the old upper house seat of East Yarra in 2002, where I achieved 15% vote, provided me with experience similar to a Senate campaign. Our Green Team in this campaign achieved record results in the lower house seats of Hawthorn, Box Hill, Kew and Burwood.

Over these campaigns I have developed the ability to speak in pubic and articulate Greens policies on topics ranging from the Iraq War, to climate change and providing more local kindergarten places for our children.

I have been a Greens member for over 10 years, during which I have gained extensive experience in party processes and mechanisms as a Victorian State Councillor, a member of Eastern Suburbs Regional Council and the local Boroondara and Whitehorse branches and a member and convenor of the Victorian Election Campaign Committee.

I have actively participated in policy development as a long term member of the Forest Working Group. I led the preparation of our revised forest policy statement during the 2006 Victorian State election., during which I ran as the Greens candidate for Box Hill.

I have represented Victoria at national level at the 2005 and 2008 Greens National Conferences as part of our delegate teams, and worked intensively on the National Election Campaign Committee during the 2004 Federal election.

I have developed time management and negotiation skills and good interpersonal skills through both my experience with the Greens, my professional employment, and my work with several volunteer and community groups.

I have a passion for the outdoors, including bushwalking, cross country skiing, volunteer Search and Rescue for over 25 years, recreational and racing cycling, kitesurfing and revegetating our local South Surrey Park with indigenous plant species.

In summary, I believe I will provide leadership on the issues that really matter for the future of Victoria, Australia and the planet. We now have an urgent imperative for this.

I seek your support to be the lead senate candidate for the Greens in Victoria, and after the election, to hopefully be Victoria’s first Greens Senator.

Preselection timeline
9/4/09 Nominations closed
23/4/09 Candidates finalised and declared
24/4/09 Ballot packs posted to Australian Greens Victoria members
22/5/09 Ballots returned to Returning Office, care of State Office
25/5/09 Preselection Result announced to party members

See also

• Peter Campbell for the Senate - more details on my nomination

Electric vehicle on show in Melbourne

I took some photos of the Mitsubishi iMiEV electric vehicle that was on display in Melbourne on 9 April 2009. The car has 30% of the carbon emissions of a comparable petrol car. There is no availability to date for Australia however.


More information and photos: http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/IMiEV_electric_car

Unfortunately the best that General Motors Holden has come up with so far in Australia is to commit to building another four cylinder petrol car - with generous government handouts. They don't seem to realise we are running out of petrol and the age of the electric vehicle has arrived.

Like dinosaurs, these industries will go extinct if they don't adapt. General Motors in the United States is very nearly bankrupt and about to go into receivership.

The Victorian Government's water strategy is all at sea

This is a letter to the editor from Brian Wilson of Doncaster East published on April 5, 2009 [link]

I think it describes concerns about the Victorian Government's obsession with large scale water projects, and the overlooking of more sensible, sustainable water options such as water tanks and recycling. It highlights to me too that many in the community want more focus on sustainable water options, and the government that is supposed to represent us is not listening or consulting, and that the government's agenda is driven by the "big end of town".

Recycling washes best

"Water projects 'not needed' " (29/3) included reference to the consultants' (ignored) recommendation that recycled water for drinking should get "serious consideration", but that this would require a large public education campaign. Unfortunately, the only "education" campaign by this government to date has been to reinforce the public misconception that water recycling is somehow unsafe; the reality is that the reverse is true.

Water recycling is being used with complete safety in many parts of the world, and Queensland is also well down that path (an initiative that, it could be argued, the voters in that state have recently endorsed).

And just think of the advantages that recycling, rather than desalination, would achieve. The waste water treatment plant (or plants) would be located at or near existing treatment facilities. So no need for the Wonthaggi site and connecting pipes and power lines.

And waste water would no longer contaminate the ocean at Gunnamatta as it would be recycled. And the end result would be exactly the same — pure water!

Recycling uses the same reverse-osmosis process as desalination, so much of the current design would be retained. But because it is far less energy intensive, running costs (and therefore the impact on the environment) would also be less.

And as for the north-south pipeline, its only possible redeeming feature, given it now appears to have passed the point of no return, is that one day it may be used to pipe north some surplus recycled water to help relieve the stressed Murray-Darling system.

Video
Check out this video about the desalination plant, and visit http://www.getrealonclimatechange.org/

Letter to local MP on Feed in Tariff

To: Richard Dalla-Riva, MLC Eastern Metropolitan Region.

Dear Richard

I am writing you as a resident with Eastern Metropolitan Region to express my concerns about the proposed Feed-in Tariff legislation under consideration in the Victorian Parliament.

The proposed Feed-in Tariff (FIT) structure does not provide sufficient incentives for people, schools and business to install solar power (due to net metering and the 3.2kW array size cap)

This will compromise creating a vibrant jobs-rich solar sector - as they have in Germany where they have a good FIT.

Consumers who export electricity will only be paid "credits", not cash. This effectively removes incentives for energy efficiency appliances. It will also encourage people to "use their credit" by consuming more electricity, since it will not be redeemable as cash.

The Tariff should be amended to a gross tariff with a 10kW cap, as they have legislated for in WA and ACT.

A gross feed-in tariff (as the same for a ‘net’ feed-in tariff) will result in a small increase in household electricity bills – approximately $6-12 per year. Concession card holders should be exempted from this extra cost.

There is wide community support for an effective Feed-in Tariff.

Can you please represent my views on this to the Parliament and within your party?

Yours faithfully,

Peter Campbell
Home address supplied.

See also:

• Feed in Tariff - write a letter or visit your MP Lighterfootprints.org.

Logged Brown Mountain tree dated at over 500 years

The results from radiocarbon dating of a sample of one of the old growth forest giants logged recently in Brown Mountain in East Gippsland are in. The tree is between 500 and 600 years old.

A photo of the logged tree stump that was radio carbon dated.

This tree, and the forest it used to be part of, pre dates white settlement in Australa by 279 years. Logging these irreplaceable forests is an abomination sanctioned by the Brumby Government.

Logging has been temporarily halted when threatened species of possum and freshwater crayfish were found in Brown Mountain's forests.

The Brumby government should immediately protect all remaining old growth forest available for logging, as they promised the would do in 2006.

Links

• Brown Mountain forest, Greenlivingpedia
• Felled old-growth tree '500 years old' , ABC News
• Premier Brumby please protect Brown Mountain forest
  

Senate inquiry into Commonwealth funding for public transport

I attended a public hearing today in Melbourne (Monday 30/3/09) of the "Inquiry into the investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services"

Senate inquiry public hearing in Melbourne on Monday 30/3/09

This first ever national inquiry into public transport was initiated by Greens for WA Senator Scott Ludlum and is being conducted by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Senate Committee.

The inquiry is covering:

• Assessment of direct federal government funding for public transport infrastructure
• Assessment of the benefits of public passenger transport, including integration with bicycle and pedestrian initiatives
• Lack of useful public transport for many people in middle and outer areas of Melbourne and Victorian towns.
• An audit of of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services
• Measures by which the Commonwealth Government could facilitate improvement in public passenger transport services and infrastructure
• The role of Commonwealth Government legislation, taxation, subsidies, policies and other mechanisms that either discourage or encourage public passenger transport (including perverse FBT incentives for people to drive their 'business" cars more).
  
• Best practice international examples of public passenger transport services and infrastructure.

As Melbourne's population grows and the challenges of climate change and oil scarcity become more pressing, it's clear that the city will be disadvantaged without a massive injection of funding into mass public transit now. The chaos commuters experienced during the heatwaves early this year, may only be the tip of the iceberg.

I listened to the Victorian Government submission today and was surprised to hear that they think the two mega rail projects in the Victorian Transport Plan (the $4b Regional Rail Link for a new track from West Werribee to Southern Cross Station and the $4.5 billion Melbourne Metro – a new rail tunnel between the city’s west and east) are the highest priority public transport projects. They also claimed that long promised by never delivered rail lines to Donvale and Rowville could not be built due to "lack of core capacity" with the current rail network. I certainly do not believe they have presented sufficient evidence to justify these claims.

Taking public transport is a critical climate-friendly means of travel and reduces our reliance on the cars that are choking Melbourne. But you cannot user it if is not there.

I spoke with Senator Ludlum after the hearing; he informed me that submissions can still be made to this inquiry - at least up until this Friday (3/4/09).

If you have time, please write a submission about the need for federal funding for improved public transport, and for better integration with bicycle and pedestrian initiatives.

The Committee prefers to receive submissions electronically as an attached document - email: rrat.sen@aph.gov.au

External links

• Senate Inquiry details, including terms of reference
• Cars beating public transport to tax breaks | theage.com.au
  
  

Railway easments for bike paths

The Brumby government's Victorian Cycling Strategy is welcome though long overdue. $115 million might sound like a lot of money, but this is less about one quarter the cost of the interchange between Eastlink and the Monash Freeway.

While several good initiatives are listed, it is disappointing that the plan does not provide for many safe and convenient cycle routes outside of the 10km radius that would be used by commuters, for local trips and for family outings on weekends.

The opportunity of using existing rail easements that could accommodate bike paths throughout Melbourne has been largely overlooked. For example, a good bike path route could be constructed along much of the railway easement from Box Hill to the Yarra via Camberwell and Hawthorn where it would connect with the Capital City trail and upgraded inner city bike paths. Thousands of people would use such a path if was available.

Possible Eastern rail trail route

Many people don't feel safe cycling with only a line of paint between them and cars on busy roads. Dedicated and direct bike paths across Melbourne are required to really mainstream cycling as a safe, legitimate and climate friendly transport mode.

I cycle a lot, and use bike paths to avoid cars when I commute. The huge increase in numbers cycling has now stretched the ad hoc "recreational meandering bike path" approach past its safe limits.

What we need in Victoria is:

• Dedicated bike paths - either as Copenhagen style lanes or dedicated paths free from cars
• Designated commuter paths should not allow pedestrians. Bikes travelling at 30 km/h do not safely mix with walkers. Unfortunately nearly all bike paths are designated by default as pedestrian too. Existing paths such as Gardiner's Creek are now too narrow for the several thousand cyclists that use them every day.
  
• A minister for cycling. Responsibility is currently shared in and unclear way between the Roads Minister (Tim Pallas), the Public Transport Minister (Lyn Kosky). The Health Minister (Bronwyn Bishop) and the Environment Minister (Gavan Jennings) both have an interest too. Bike paths that cross local council boundaries are often problematic. There is no minister clearly accountable for all cycling, including all bike paths and lanes, racing, commuting and recreational riding.
• More funding. Serious cycling infrastructure would require more than $50 million per year for at lease 10 years. Drip feed funding just doesn't deliver.
  

External links

• Peddling priority , Clay Lucas, The Age, March 24, 2009
• Cycling groups praise strategy , Clay Lucas, The Age, March 24, 2009
• Eastern Rail Trail bicycle path proposal
• East West Link- Boroondara BUG
• What we need before even more of us get on our bikes, The Age, Editorial, March 24, 2009
• $115m plan paves the way for victoria’s cycling future, Media Relase, Premier of Victoria.
  
  
  
  

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
  
  

Clean green jobs or protection for polluters?

This post was published as a letter to the editor in The Age on 13 March 2009.

Peter Batchelor's recent announcement that the Victorian government will be seeking proposals for a solar power station sounds promising, but this potential project is not fully funded yet.


At the same time, Peter Batchelor announced that Victoria's proposed Feed-in Tariff legislation has a net tariff structure with a 3.2kW array size cap.

The stated intention for the Feed-in Tariff is to provide incentives for the installation of domestic solar systems. However, the proposed tariff structure greatly reduces the financial incentives to households, which conflicts with its primary purpose. Why cap something you are trying to encourage?

The government has not provided a valid explanation for their proposed tariff structure. It is at odds with the proven effective gross metered tariffs that Western Australia and the ACT have just implemented, similar to Germany's which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs in their solar sector.

The Brumby government should stop playing politics and get serious about solar and creating jobs for a clean green energy future.

See also

• Feed in Tariff, Greenlivingpedia
• Victorian government to fund new solar power station, media release

Every drop is precious

Recent logging industry claims that logging our catchments will improve water yields and protect them are false and opportunistic. Scientists have confirmed that logging in our water catchments, like bushfires, decreases the quality and quantity of water they produce.

The recent catastrophic bushfires travelled at alarming speed, up to 100km/h, across farmland and through plantations and heavily "managed" forests, including forests where recent fuel reduction burns had been done. Bushfire and climate scientists have confirmed that Victoria's hottest day every, combined with very strong north winds, created conditions for an unstoppable firestorm.

The bushfires slowed considerably when they eventually entered Melbourne's water catchments. Intact wet sclerophyll forests in our water catchments are less prone to burning, and temperatures and wind speeds have eased. Melbourne Water is doing a great job managing our protected catchments.

However, the Victorian government has been sitting on their hands holding continual reviews about the destruction of some of our catchments by logging; it is now time for action. Stage 4 water restrictions are looming in the near future, and every drop of water is precious. We are now facing less water in our dams and drastically reduced rainfall across the state.

Melbourne's water catchments, and those elsewhere across the Victoria, should be immediately protected from logging in the interests of all Victorians.