Of mythical water grids, pipelines and logging in catchments

After a period of denial and inaction about our looming water crisis, the Brumby Labor government is now hell bent on pushing their so called "water grid" as a solution for our ongoing reduced rainfall. I am not sure where they got this concept from. It seems to have entered "government speak" around the world from the Thames in the UK to Queensland.

Unfortunately the concept as described in Victoria has a number of serious flaws and seems to be mainly a public relations exercise.

My understanding of the concept in Victoria is that large scale engineering works - such as the North South pipeline, and perhaps the planned $3b desalination plant at Wonthaggi - will create a system where water can be transferred long distances to places where it will be used.

The major problems with this approach are:

• Any pipelines that are not gravity fed will require a lot of energy (mostly derived from coal-fired power) to pump the water. This will result in major greenhouse gas emissions.
• The proposed North South pipeline is taking water from the Murray Darling catchment - where it is desperately needed - to Melbourne, where it is not. This has major impacts for people living both along the Goulburn, and all the way down the Murray River to Adelaide, whose residents rely on the river for most of their drinking water
• The costs of pipelines is high. The 70km North South pipeline is estimated to cost $750m.
• The environmental impacts of pipelines is high. The North South pipeline route has the potential to affect 75 threatened animal and plant species.
• The planned desalination plant will produce a lot greenhouse gas emissions too, and the water from it will have to be pumped all the way to Melbourne.
• Logging in Melbourne's water catchments continues - which is resulting in less water and a reduction in its quality.
  

The Brumby Government's rationale for all this is not clear. We are quite obviously running low on water, but we are not yet on Stage 4 restrictions, and Melbourne's daily household water usage is still quite high.

People still have their swimming pools full too - topped up with water trucked in, resulting in yet more greenhouse gas emissions.

There is a cruel irony in climate change causing reduced rainfall, then most of the governments measures to address water shortages resulting in more greenhouse gas emissions, which will further exacerbate climate change.

Brumby has also stated that:

"the only way you can find new water is by reducing savings, evaporation and seepage and those things".

Fixing leaky irrigation channels and pipes does save water loss and is worth doing, but it doesn't "find new water" (or create it).

Here is my proposal for addressing the water shortage:

• Mandate water tanks for every new household - 5000 litres storage per bedroom - to catch and use rainwater.
  
• Subsidise a retrofit scheme for water tanks to existing households, or provide a rebate on water bills for those who have tanks installed.
• Aim to recycle 80% of the water we use, rather than just flushing it down sewers and out to the ocean. Cease putting water out at the Gunnamatta and other ocean outfalls.
  
• Aim to reduce domestic usage to 120 litres per person per day
• Stop logging in Melbourne's water catchments immediately - this should save 30 gigalitres of water per year.
• Use recycled water for the cooling towers of Latrobe Valley power stations, rather than drinking water.
• Design gardens that capture water. A lot of new housing developments have more paved area than garden, which results in more water runoff and less entering the soil and water table.
• Shift agricultural usage to the most efficient methods. Eliminate sprinkler application and flood irrigation where they are still in use, in favour of drip irrigation.
  

Links

• Pipeline route to threaten protected species ABC Goulburn Murray
• Melbourne water usage - Greenlivingpedia
• State water grid to secure supply: Brumby - ABC News
  
  

Brumby goes for "green coal" and subverts real action on climate change

Just when I thought government rhetoric and funding (using taxpayer's money) on pretending that the coal industry can somehow be made "green", "clean" and even "carbon neutral" had reached ridiculous levels, Peter Batchelor comes out with this:

"But Mr Batchelor said coal must be used in a more environmentally friendly way and clean coal technologies, such as burying carbon emissions underground and drying coal, offered the potential for zero emissions from coal-fired power stations."

"The future of coal relies on it becoming greener," he said.

Mr Batchelor said that capturing carbon, by returning and storing it underground in a safe and environmentally friendly way, "mimicked nature".

The question here is whether he actually believes this nonsense.

Zero emissions coal fired power stations? Green coal? That's funny, I thought it was brown or black.

Mimicking nature? Oh, we dig it up (using fossil fuel energy), process it, burn, capture CO2 from the chimneys (using more than 30% more energy and coal in doing so), liquefy it (using more energy), pump it a considerable distance (using more energy), squirt it under the ground - if we can find cavities vast enough to accommodate it - then cross our fingers and hope it stays there.

So how exactly does this mimic nature?

Next week's state budget will contain $110 million for an industrial-scale project investigating the capture and storage of carbon produced by power plants.

The Government will also fund a new body, Clean Coal Victoria, based in the Latrobe Valley, and commit $5 million to search for carbon storage sites, such as used oil and gas reservoirs in Bass Strait. So they don't even know yet whether they will be able to store it.

No public money should be spent on this risky venture, which even if it can be made to work, won't be viable until 2020 or later. We need emission reductions now.

So why are they doing this?

Well, there are marginal Labor state seats in the Latrobe Valley and an upcoming by-election in Gippsland which Labor wants to win. Looks like politics wins and real action on climate change looses. Or maybe they do believe their own nonsense.

Link: State puts greenhouse money on clean coal The Age

More clearways mean yet more cars

So Premier John Brumby has just decided that the solution to Melbourne's traffic congestion is to further extend clearway times across inner Melbourne.

If there is a war between transport options in Melbourne, then the car is winning hands down. In addition to spending spending a vast proportion of our transport dollars on roads and freeways, we are now reducing amenity in urban streets in favour of yet more traffic.

Melbourne has been rated several times as having "high liveability". I think that more roads filled with more cars for longer periods will detract from this.

Melbourne is faced with transport problems, not traffic problems. Unfortunately the Brumby Government and its predecessors just don't get it. Without viable options such as public transport and safe cycling, people are forced to use their cars for commuting and shopping.

More people and more cars means more congestion. While this seems simple, unfortunately the roads lobby seems to have completely captured the government agenda.

How about a referendum on transport options, including new rail lines and upgrading existing ones, instead of just spending billions on freeways and roads?

No significant new urban railways have been built in Melbourne since the Glen Waverley line in 1930. Not one.

Emissions from cars and trucks are a major contributor to climate change - it is high time that steps were taken to reduce our reliance on them for routine transport.

Links

• Inner-city anger at clearway purge The Age

Record petrol prices, when do we hit $5 per litre?

Yesterday in Melbourne, petrol prices hit an all time high of $1.55 per litre, with some motoring groups voicing concerns that the price could reach $1.60 per litre and that "petrol stations were 'pushing the envelope too much' by charging such high prices" and that "new prices reflected the industry's agenda to keep pushing up fuel prices".

While there is some possibility that oil companies and petrol stations can raise their prices without warning in an opportunistic manner, I think it must now be obvious that the basic supply and demand law of economics is the real concern here.

The world demand for oil now exceeds supply, the phenomenon known as "peak oil". So the price is going up.

As oil supplies dwindle and demand continues to increase (e.g. from China, India and other growing economies) then the price will continue to rise.

How high? Well, I can imagine that $2.00 per litre could be reached by the end of 2009, and a $5.00 per litre is possible by 2012. When will it reach $10.00 a litre, perhaps by 2020.

In Europe (e.g. Norway and Italy), the price is over $2.20 per litre already. In the United States, where Hummers and 8 litre V8s are still bought, the price is currently $0.70 per litre.

Petrol 9(and other fossil fuel) price rises will have dramatic effect on our lifestyles and our economy. Fossil fuels such as petrol, diesel, LGP and CNG (which is more abundant) are used heavily for food growing, transport and distribution. Private cars using fossil fuels are used heavily for personal transport, often for simple commuting to and from work.

So the price of food and transport will rise dramatically in coming years unless governments take action to put policies in place to shift towards alternative renewable energy sources for food production and transport and indeed to fabric of our society.

Unfortunately the current state of play in Australia is not good, as per the following:

• Freeways and roads are being built rather than rail and cycling infrastructure
• CNG is being shipped overseas rather than used locally, and no effective CNG refuelling infrastructure is in place
• Many thousands of trucks (mostly diesel) are used daily for goods and food transport, including thousands doing routine trips such as along the Melbourne Sydney route
• Their is no significant low emissions and/or hybrid car manufacturing in Australia; the Ford and General Motors plants are still focussed on building six and eight cylinder cars (such as the new GM ute for export to the United States, and Governments are still buying them for their car fleets.
  

When will our politicians wake up from their fossil-fuel fugue? Hopefully before petrol reaches $5.00 per litre. They are elected to provide leadership on such matters, but currently they are not. Some, like Senator Kim Carr, are trying to get hybrids built in Australia, but he is a lone voice and he is not succeeding. And he drives a Ford Territory gas guzzler. Actions speak louder than words.

For the record, I drive a 1993 Mitusbishi 4WD van, which I bought as the 2.5 litre motor uses half the fuel of a comparable 6 cyclinder 4WD. I also ride my bike a lot.

Making green cars is a good option.

Links

• Fuel price record in Melbourne, The Age
• Petrol prices pumping motorists dry | Herald Sun
• Green cars, Greenlivingpedia
  

Plastic bags - a failure of style and substance

While the environmental impacts and statistics of plastic bag use in Australia don't seem to be controversial, it seems our political system in general and Environment Minister Peter Garrett in particular are incapable of doing anything about it.

It seems that our politicians have just pandered yet again to an industry that results in four billion bags are thrown away in Australia each year, many of which go to land fill and directly pollute our environment.

Industry "voluntary schemes" supposed to address this are manifestly inadequate - plastic bag use had ballooned by 40% last year under this approach.

For those waiting for Peter Garrett to "to do good things" now that he is a Labor government minister - I hope you aren't holding your breath. He has pledged to phase out plastic bag use by 2009 but is unable to do anything meaningful to achieve this.

In Victoria, the best Enviroment Minister Gavin Jennings can do is to introduce its own pilot study into a bag levy of 10 to 25 cents in partnership with major supermarket chains later this year.

We should take a lead from South Australia and go with a bag ban from January 2009. Failing that, we should put a tax on them of at least 50c per bag and let basic economics solve the problem.

My grandparents lived their entire life shopping with reusable string bags; we can too.


Links

• State 'soft' on industry over bags - The Age
• Green groups pounce on bags indecision - ABC News
• States divided over plastic bag bans- The Age

My submission to the Australia 2020 summit

I applied to attend the Australia 2020 summit but I was not selected. I thought it curious that Steve Bracks (ex Victorian Premier) and John Thwaites (ex Victorian Environment Minister) did get to go. Surely they have had ample time and opportunity to contribute to policy and outcomes during their terms of office?

I put a submission in just in time. You can view it here. I was a bit rushed to meet the deadline so it was not as detailed as I would have liked. I should have included a Treaty for indigenous Australians as a case in point.

I think the summit is a positive initiative, even if biased a bit towards "names and people of moderate to high profile". Just being able to make a submission was good too after years of dissembling by the Howard government.

However, the real challenge will be to put good ideas from the summit into action. If Kevin Rudd and the Labor government fails to do this then it will be a big disappointment to many who made submissions and attended.

Fingers crossed - let us hope they get their act together.

Links
Australia 2020 submissions up at Larvatus Prodeo There’s over a thousand submissions on the sustainability topic alone.

Is "clean coal" just a dirty lie?

""Clean coal" is a term coined by industry and government to describe as yet proven methods of burning coal for producing energy with reduced carbon emissions. The term is actually misleading as burning coal for energy will never result in zero emissions.

The term "clean coal" is also used interchangeable with "carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)".

The are numerous concerns about the use of this term, including:

• CCS is not yet proven and there is a high risk that it will not actually be possible or viable
• Carbon dioxide escaping from underground storage could be lethal
• The United States government recently pulled its participation and funding from the clean coal/CCS pilot project called FutureGen.
• Burying (sequestering) huge amounts of liquefied CO2 is unlikely to be possible, and keeping it there will be problematic
• There will be high energy costs (and more emissions) to pump CO2 from sources such as power stations to locations where it may be stored.
• It will be very expensive to develop and deploy - probably more expensive than proven renewable zero emission solutions such as wind, solar and geothermal energy within 5 to 10 years.
• Much more coal will have to be burnt to power CCS (up to 30% more)
• Cannot capture all emissions from a power station so that even if widely used greenhouse emissions would not fall or stabilise but actually continue to increase
• It is highly unlikely CCS technology (if it works) will be able to be retrofitted to existing coal fired power stations - which should be decommissioned.
• CCS, if it can be made viable, is likely to be unable to handle the volume of carbon emissions from coal. While CCS proponents often point out that carbon sequestration projects are already in operation, the largest in existence (Sleipner, in Norway) currently buries just 1 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of carbon dioxide. Victoria has 65 million tonnes of CO2 from stationery electricity alone and this figure is growing exponentially
• CCS, if it can be made to work, won't be available for deployment earlier than 2020 (possibly even 2030) so it would be to late to reduce emissions over the next two decades - which is arguably now the critical period. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology interdisciplinary expert study on The Future of Coal envisages that coal with CCS may begin to make a contribution to emissions reductions around 2025. A similar result was obtained in an earlier assessment by the Australia Institute.

Policy implications

• Government funding and effort expended on "clean coal" will detract from that for proven renewable energy technologies that are available now
• The coal industry should be funding CCS, not the taxpayer
• We need roadmap to exit from coal fired power, not go looking for reasons and excuses to keep burning it.
• Government funding for CCS is actually just another subsidy to the already highly subsidised, private and highly profitable fossil fuel energy sector.

Some groups claiming to be "for the environment" such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Climate Institute have recently endorsed "clean coal" and "CCS" as viable options for addressing climate change and receiving government funding [link].

It is a concern that such groups are participating in industry and government spin which will hijack and confuse real action to address climate change, the end result of which could be catastrophic.

It is inappropriate for governments to fund and promote CCS as a viable solution for climate change that is on par with genuine zero emission renewable energy options such as wind and solar.

Note that CCS technology is viable and in use for separating and burying CO2 from natural gas at the Gorgon and other gas fields on the North-West Shelf. This is much more efficient than attempting to capture and store CO2 from burning coal, and the CO2 is pumped back into the same well the natural gas is extracted from.

Government funding should be immediately withdrawn from CCS research and development and redirected towards zero emission energy solutions, re-training programs for workers to move from polluting industries into sustainable, renewable energy projects and into carbon sink projects such as bio char (terra preta de indio)."

For more information and references see: Clean coal - Greenlivingpedia

The Eddingtion transport study promotes safe and convenient cycling

It is very encouraging that Sir Thomas Eddington’s transport study includes proposals for new cross city cycle links within inner Melbourne, and that he recommends that a whole of government approach to cycling policy and infrastructure be adopted (Age 7/4).

We need a Minister for Cycling to plan and work with local councils to complete both cross-city routes (the hub) and safer, more convenient urban commuter routes (the spokes).

As an example, cyclists wishing to commute from many of Melbourne’s eastern suburbs currently have to negotiate very busy roads, back streets or detour to the Gardiners Creek or Eastern Freeway bike paths when they travel to and from the central business district.

A safer more direct cycle link, possibly following the Box Hill railway line for sections, would encourage many more people to commute and make local trips by bicycle rather than take their car. This would ease road congestion and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions too.

This approach could be adopted for all Melbourne's existing railway lines too, where easements are available for bike paths.

Links

• Back on track, The Age, April 7, 2008
• Strategies and plans - East West Link Needs Assessment final report, Department of Infrastructure, Victorian Government
• Eastern Rail Trail proposal
• Eastern Rail Line Trail - Boroondara BUG
  
  
  
  

Feed in tariff needed to boost solar power

Our solar photovoltaic array at the rear. The solar hot water system is in front.

Here is a copy of a letter I have just sent to Peter Batchelor, the Victorian Minister for energy and resources, about the importance of introducing a feed in tariff for solar power in Victoria.

Feed in tariff legislation is in the process of being enacted in South Australia and Queensland. We need this in Victoria too..

If you have time, it would be worth sending in a letter of your own to your state politicians too.

TO: The Honourable Peter Batchelor

Minister for Energy and Resources
Level 20, 1 Spring St
MELBOURNE 3000
Via email peter.batchelor@parliament.vic.gov.au

CC: Hon. John Brumby
Premier of Victoria
C/o Department of Premier and Cabinet
1 Treasury Place
MELBOURNE VIC 3002
Via email john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

CC: Robert Clark, Shadow Minister for Energy & Resources
Via email robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au

March 19, 2008

Feed-in Tariffs for renewable energy generation

Dear Mr Batchelor,

We have been operating a grid interactive solar photo voltaic array on our house in Surrey Hills since 2002, over which time we have saved approximately 15 tonnes of CO2 emissions. You can view details of the house and the solar system here.

We welcome the commitment of the Victorian state government to introduce a fair price for solar electricity generated on rooftops and fed into the electricity grid. We believe that a move toward renewable energy is an essential means of addressing climate change, and solar photovoltaic (PV) micro-generation has an important role to play in boosting Victoria’s renewable energy share.

By offering a premium price for electricity generated on rooftops and fed directly into the grid, feed-in tariffs recognise the wealth of benefits which arise from the adoption of this technology. These include:

• environmental benefits from reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants
• network benefits from reduced transmission losses and generation closer to the source of consumption;
• supply benefits from producing clean power for the grid during peak load times on very hot days
  
• economic benefits through lowering of peak wholesale electricity prices
• social benefits via diversified electricity generation and job creation.

However, for a feed-in tariff to create the level of take-up required to achieve these benefits, it is essential that it is paid at an adequate rate, for a long enough time, and on the total production of the solar system. I call on the government to mandate a feed-in tariff at:

• 60 cents per kWh;
• for at least 15 years; and
• paid on the entire output of a system via gross production metering

A feed-in tariff set at this level will provide the necessary incentive for individuals to invest their personal finances into solar PV systems, safe in the knowledge that the price paid for electricity generated will adequately pay back this investment over the next 15 years.

Feed-in tariffs have been remarkably successful in over 40 countries internationally, and an adequate feed-in tariff in Victoria has the potential to build an industry in sustainable solutions to climate change, provide an alternative to polluting brown coal, and position the state as a leader in renewable energy in Australia.

Climate change is one of the greatest threats facing Victoria. I trust that you as the responsible minister (and the Premier and my local elected representative) take this issue seriously and ensure that this policy measure delivers a major expansion of renewable energy leading to real reductions in greenhouse gas pollution.

Can you please advise us whether you support introduction of a feed in tariff, and if so, when it will be introduced?

Yours sincerely

Peter Campbell and Dr Lena Sanci


Additional information

• Feed-in tariff for solar systems Alternative Technology Association, with Take action details for each Australian State
  
• Feed in tariff, Greenlivingpedia

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 ***

Solving transport challenges rather than just building roads

I have been perplexed by successive Victorian governments fixation on building roads and freeways and not providing more rail transport. In this regard, the Brumby Labor government is no different from its predecessors.

It seems to me that that both the government and Vicroads have made incorrect assumptions that cars, trucks, roads and freeways will meet most of our transport needs now and for the future.

I wonder if they listen to the radio reports every morning of the congestion and delays on all freeways as increasing numbers of commuters try and get to work along "freeways" blocked with congestion by single occupant cars whose drivers obviously don't believe they have adequate public transport options available to them. 30-minute delays over the last 10 to 15 kilometres are common in the mornings, and very slow speed due to congestion are now chronic over similar distances in the afternoon and early evening.

The government must be aware of this very real problem, yet their answer seems to be "we need more freeways, tunnels and links" - as the Brumby governments terms of reference seem to suggest for the Eddington report - which seems to be focusing on reasons why building an east-west tunnel link between the Eastern and Tullamarine freeways should proceed.

I have just read recent reported comments by Transport Minister Lynn Kosky in this article, including:

"We are working to find ways to meet increasing demand for public transport services," Ms Kosky said.

The Government had just ordered 18 new six-carriage trains that would carry 14,500 more people during peak times — "equivalent to more than 12,000 cars and more than six freeway lanes of capacity".

So they do know that trains are much more efficient than cars for mass transit. They would also know that car transport produces around 8 times more carbon emissions (using dwindling oil reserves) compared with urban rail transport.

However, just buying more trains and trams will not solve the problem for those who don't have easy access to local rail tranport, as this map below illustrates.

Melbourne railways map
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melbourne_railways_map.gif

We don't have enough train lines. No new heavy rail lines to the suburbs have been built in Melbourne since the Glen Waverly line was completed in 1930, yet there has been massive population growth in south eastern, northern and western suburbs. Whole new suburbs and regions exist with no access to rail transport. No new significant rail lines are planned in Melbourne.

Those that have been planned, and even committed to in the past, such as the Doncaster and Rowville lines, are apparently on hold or shelved. Recent plans to extend the Epping Line to the new sustainable suburb of Aurora have not been delivered.

During this time, freeway constructions include:

• Eastern freeway (and extension to Springvale Road, following by an extension through to Ringwood and Eastlink)
• The South eastern freeway - since widened and connected to (and incorporated with) the Monash freeway
  
• Monash freeway (and extensions/bypasses to the Princes Highway now past Pakenham)
• The Western Ring Road
• Eastlink (about to open) connecting Ringwood with Frankston
• The Mornington Peninsula freeway (in two sections)
  
• The Western freeway
• The Calder freeway
• The Tullamarine freeway
• The Princes freeway to Geelong
  
• Citylink connecting the Tullamarine, Monash and West Gate freeway via bridges and two tunnels.

Several interchanges have also been upgraded at great cost. This list is not comprehensive, but it does make clear that activity and funding for roads and freeways has greatly exceeded that for rail over the last seventy years.

Over recent times the government has chosen to spend money on large projects such as the Southern Cross station upgrade, on ticketing systems that don't work properly, and on employing ticket inspectors, none of which have actually provided better, more frequented integrated public transport. One has to question these priorities.

Here are my suggestions for getting urban transport solutions back on track:

• Set up an new transport authority to evaluate, promote and implement the best transport solutions for sustainability and mass urban transit. This authority should include proper public consultation during their strategy development and planning processes.
  
• Ensure funding for public transport is equivalent to or greater than that for roads.
• Mandate provision of rail or light rail transport and cycle paths with all future freeway road constructions
• Include carbon emission costing for all transport related infrastructure expenditure.
• Keep public transport operation or management public. Public ownership and government accountability for service delivery are essential to ensure that public transport is integrated and efficient, rather than just run for "profit" under secret contracts with public subsidies.
• Build a rail link to Melbourne airport. Thousands of taxies carry travellers to and from Melbourne every day.
• Investigate options for an inner urban metro system
• Resurrect and build stalled rail projects such as the Epping line extensions to South Morang and Aurora, the Rowville and Doncaster lines and the Alamein line extension to service Chadstone.
• Integrate cycle paths with train networks by mandating construction of cycle paths along railway easements and provide for carriage of bicycles on trains.
• Our politicians should use some of their travel allowance to visit Los Angeles to see how badly an extensive freeway system much bigger than Melbourne's cater to mass transit needs
  

Like most of the challenges that confront us in the 21st century, it seems the solutions are already available for moving towards sustainable living, but the political will to embrace them is lacking.

As oil reserves diminish our very expensive freeway system could at least end up providing fast and efficient bicycle transport!

Links

• List of proposed Melbourne rail extensions Wikipedia
  
• Getting worse, that's what commuters think of system The Age
  
• 18 more trains ordered for metropolitan rail system Media release, Lynn Kosky
  

Previous posts on transport

• Sustainable transport solutions are what we need
  
• A subway system for Melbourne and less secretive planning
  
  

GM for Victoria is a travesty of democracy

The Brumby government removed the GM moratorium that was in place in Victoria for the last five years. I attended a vocal protest on the steps of the Victorian parliament on Thursday 28 February 2002 that raised community concerns about:

• the contamination of traditional farmers crops with genetically modified plants such as GM canola
  
• inadequate food labelling legislations which means the consumers cannot know if products they eat contain GM products - which means consumers do not have a choice
• the lack of government research into the safety of GM foods - in spite of evidence that GM foods have caused serious health problems in rats
• herbicide resistant genes from GM canola spreading to wild brassica weeds - making them resistant to existing herbice control measures
• the difficulty for transport and processing plants to segregate GM canola from natural canola - leading to possible contamination of all canola and other food products
• the government not listening to and respecting a clear majority of Victorians including farmers, food processors and shoppers who want our farms and foods to stay GM-free
• Victoria losing its clean green status for food production, which will compromise export markets.

GM giant corporations such as Bayer and Monsanto will benefit from this Brumby government policy while ordinary Victorians do not support it.

I call on John Brumby to release information on how many submissions and letters the government received supporting GM canola compared to those who opposed it. The Brumby governemnt should be governing for Victorians, not global companies and agribusiness interests.

The rally speakers included:

• Stefano De Pieri, Chef and restaurateur
  
• Scott Kinnear - Biological Farmers of Australia
• Kelly Donati - Slow Food Victoria
• Tracy Bartram - comedienne and radio host
• Jessica Harison - South Gippsland against GE
• Frances Murrell - MadGE

Politicians present were Tammy Lobato (Labor MP), Greg Barber and Sue Pennicuik from the Greens and Peter Kavanagh from the DLP. Greg Barber addressed the crowd.

Scott Kinnear, Tammy Lobato and Greg Barber

Tammy Lobato MP at the protest

It was encouraging to hear such a broad range of speakers oppose the introduction of GM canola and the lifting of the GM moratorium in Victoria, and incredibly dissappointing that the Brumby government has chosen to do this.

I am sorry

I am sorry for the hardship and suffering inflicted upon the stolen generation of indigenous Australians.

Kevin Rudd's speech and motion in parliament today was inspiring and long overdue. I strongly endorse his speech and approach towards both saying sorry to the stolen generation and taking real bipartisan action towards addressing the ongoing problems facing indigenous Australians.

Consultation and engagement with indigenous Australians will be key to improving key concerns facing communities such as employment, education, health, infant mortality, life expectancy and substance abuse.

We need to cease paternalistic interventions and work together towards real and lasting solutions and improvements.

We have said sorry and acknowledged the hurt and suffering of the stolen generation and those others so deeply affected by them being taken. Now it is time to move forward, set real goals and and take some real cooperative action to close the gaps between indigenous and other Australians.

Garnaut Report submission

This is my personal submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review

1 Executive summary

This submission covers the role of forests in addressing climate change, reshaping Australia’s economy to low carbon emissions and opportunities to lower transport-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Landclearing (also referred to as “deforestation”) produces over 10% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions according to Australia’s official reporting to the UN Climate Secretariat. Native forests are indisputably a very large store of CO2 with considerable potential for additional sequestration, and are also currently a source of considerable greenhouse gas emissions, primarily resulting from logging.

Science based carbon estimation and accounting should be applied to all native forest logging activities and a market-derived price should be applied to carbon emissions resulting. Consideration should be given for a five-year moratorium on logging Australian native forests as an immediate step in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia should adopt world-leading policies on forest protection as a measure for addressing climate change and to demonstrate and provide an example to developing nations that remaining native forests can be protected globally without adverse economic impacts.

Australia should increase the current emission reduction target of 60% by 2050 to 90% by 2050 and set mid-term and short-term emission reduction target for 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2020. In addition, all government subsidies for fossil fuel-based industries and products should be removed.

Shifting Australia to a competitive low carbon economy can be achieved by establish “feed in tariffs” for clean energy generation, broadening and strengthening housing and appliance energy standards and rating systems, increase the MRET in Australia to 30% by 2020 and provide government funding for the development of zero emission energy production including solar and wind. In addition, a national strategy and framework is required for realising emission reduction standards in conjunction with the States and Territories including a moratorium on the building of any new coal-fired power stations.

Transport-related emission can be addressed by abolishing fringe benefit tax concessions for car use, providing additional Federal funding annually for public transport, establishing a national working group for the promotion and implementing sustainable and low emission transport solutions, including public transport, low emission vehicles and cycling. In addition carbon emission accounting should be mandatory for the construction and operation of all transport-related projects including roads, freeways and tunnels.

2 Role of forests in addressing climate change

Landclearing (also referred to as “deforestation”) produces over 10% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions according to Australia’s official reporting to the UN Climate Secretariat.

The role of forests in sequestering carbon and action as carbon stores has been well documented by scientific studies both in Australia and overseas.

2.1 Forest and climate change research.

Local scientific research papers include:

Growth ModeIling Of Eucalyptus regnans for Carbon Accounting at the Landscape Scale
Christopher Dean, Stephen Roxburgh and Brendan Mackey, 2003
CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, ANU.

Assessing the carbon sequestration potential of managed forests: a case study from temperate Australia
S. H. Roxburgh, S. W. Wood, B. G. Mackey, G. Woldendorp, P. Gibbons (2006), Journal of Applied Ecology Volume 43 Issue 6 Page 1149-1159, December 2006.

In addition, the Stern Review (The Economics of Climate Change, October 2006) found that:

“emissions from deforestation are very significant – they are estimated to represent more than 18% of global emissions, a share greater than is produced by the global transport sector.”

“A substantial body of evidence suggests that action to prevent further deforestation would be relatively cheap compared with other types of mitigation, if the right policies and institutional structures are put in place. Preserving forests has the co-benefit of protecting a significant proportion of the world’s biodiversity that they contain.”

“Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

2.2 Observations
Native forests are indisputably a very large store of CO2 with considerable potential for additional sequestration, and are also currently a source of considerable greenhouse gas emissions, primarily resulting from logging. Deforestation by logging releases up to 1400 tonnes of carbon per hectare.

Carbon accounting is not currently applied to native forest logging activities in Australia and no carbon price is applied.

Native forests (not including conservation forests) sequester at least 57 Mt CO2 per annum. This effectively reduces Australia’s total emissions by 10% when full-carbon accounting is applied.

Native forest logging results in greenhouse gas emissions estimated at 38 Mt CO2 per annum which is equivalent to 7% of Australia’s total emissions.

Once native forest is clear felled, it will take up to several centuries to recapture all the CO2 emitted resulting from the deforestation.

Less than 5% of CO2 generated by native forest logging is sequestered in durable wood products; 58% is lost on-site and as waste; 23% is exported as woodchips; and 11% is added to landfill.

Tasmania, Victoria and South East New South Wales account for the majority of Australia’s emissions from native forest logging (Over 30 Mt CO2 per annum).

Full-carbon accounting (rather than the partial accounting required by the Kyoto Protocol) is likely to be used in global post-Kyoto arrangements which will mean that sequestration and emissions from native forests will be counted.

Protecting native forests is one of the quickest and easiest ways to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, with the added benefits of protecting biodiversity and conserving water.

2.3 Recommendations

• Science-based carbon estimation and accounting to be applied to all native forest logging activities.
• A market-derived price to be applied to carbon emissions resulting from all native forest logging activities.
• Consideration to be given for a five year moratorium on logging Australian native forests as an immediate step in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
• Australia to adopt world-leading policies on forest protection as a measure for addressing climate change and to demonstrate and provide an example to developing nations that remaining native forests can be protected globally without adverse economic impacts.
• Further research into the role of Australia forests in carbon capture and sequestration is required to augment and build upon previous studies.

3 Reshaping Australia’s economy to low carbon emissions

Recent scientific studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NASA and the CSIRO indicate that global warming is occurring more rapidly than worst-case scientific predictions so that urgent action on reducing carbon emissions is required. In Australia this is evident via greatly reduced rainfall patterns and temperature increases.

Rigorous and enforceable targets for emission reductions are required as policy settings for driving a shift in Australia to a low carbon economy. Setting near term, mid term and long term targets for emission reductions will provide motivation for industry restructure towards low emission technology, which will in turn encourage a growing export market for low emission technology and products both regionally and globally.

Renewable energy industry and associated companies are growing rapidly where ambitious emission reduction target have been set in places such as Europe (Spain and Germany in particular) and in California.

In Europe in 2007 renewable energy industry investments increased to $45b and the sector employed approximately 500,000 people while the coal industry employed about 30,000.

On current trends renewable energy is predicted to be cost competitive with coal by 2015.

3.1 Recommendations

• Increase the current Australian emission reduction target of 60% by 2050 to 90% by 2050 in line with latest scientific models.
• Set a binding target for Australian emission increases to peak by 2015 then decline.
• Establish a mid term Australian emission reduction target of 30% by 2020.
• Set Australian emission reduction targets for 2010, 2012 and 2015 on a trajectory that will realise 2020 and 2050 targets.
• Remove government subsidies for fossil fuel-based industries and products.
• Establish a feed in tariff for clean energy generation at a rate of 4 times the price of coal and gas based energy generation.
• Introduce 6 star energy standard for all new housing and renovations covering energy and water utilisation, passive solar design and building envelope characteristics.
• Increase the MRET in Australia to 30% by 2020 in line with current targets set in Germany and California.
• Introduce energy rating standard for all domestic and commercial appliances including consumer goods such as televisions and computers.
• Provide government funding for the development of zero emission energy production including solar and wind.
• Establish a national strategy and framework for realising emission reduction standards in conjunction with the States and Territories including a moratorium on the building of any new coal-fired power stations.

4 Lower transport emissions

Transport is a major source of greenhouse pollution – and this is exacerbated by the inefficiencies and tax incentives within Australia’s transport system.

34% of household emissions are associated with personal transport, including commuting, shopping and recreation (Global Warming Cool It, Australian Government, 2007).

14% of national emissions come from the transport sector (Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005).

No federal funding is provided for any significant public transport projects in Australia.

Urban rail transport is 8 times more energy efficient than private car use for transport. Rail freight is 4 times more energy efficient than road freight. Shifting passenger and freight transport to rail would make a significant contribution to reducing Australia’s transport-related carbon emissions.

Many state governments regard cycling as a recreational activity rather than as a serious mode of urban transport.

4.1 Recommendations

• Abolish fringe benefit tax concessions for car use
• Provide $1 billion of additional Federal funding annually for public transport systems, to be matched by State funding for projects, similar to arrangements in place for road network funding.
• Establish a national working group for the promotion and implementation of sustainable and low emission transport solutions, including public transport, low emission vehicles and cycling.
• Conduct carbon emission accounting for the construction and operation of all transport-related projects including roads, freeways and tunnels.

Links

• Garnaut Climate Change Review
• PDF version of my submission
• Climate change article on Greenlivingpedia
  

Sustainable transport solutions are what we need

As I live in and travel about Melbourne, Australia, I ponder over our fixation on building, expanding and connecting more roads and freeways.

Melbourne traffic is grinding to a halt both on and off the freeways for much of the working day in many areas. Every freeway suffers big traffic jams as many use them to commute to work in their own cars, often as the single occupant.

It was apparent on my first visit to Los Angeles in the 1989 that a freeway system cannot function as an effective urban mass transit system. "Tailbacks" of waiting cars form, accidents happen, and tonnes of greenhouse gases are emitted by the vehicles using them.

Yet here in Melbourne in 2007, Eastlink is moving towards completion, another two lanes are being added to the Monash freeway, the Westgate bridge is groaning under the weight of vehicles and often gridlocked, and the state government has flagged a likely project to build a very expensive tunnel ($8b) to connect the Eastern and Tullamarine freeways - despite the fact that most motorists don't want to travel between the two - they just want to get in and out of the city.

On the Monash freeway a small section of new sound barriers cost $8m, which is more than state's entire budget for cycle paths.

The entire Eastlink project is costing about $6b, but you cannot find out the exact figure as the project is being done as a "Public Private Partnership" (PPP) so the the financials are kept secret.

No new train lines have been built since the Glen Waverley line in 1937.

We need viable low carbon emission transport options such as trains and cycle paths. At this point, there is no real government action on either.

Links

• Tunnel discussions an electoral black spot, theage.com.au

A new climate change working group for Australia

With Kevin Rudd and Labor now settling into government it is encouraging to see all the states, territories and the Federal government at the recent COAG meeting agree to form seven working groups on important issues including health, infrastructure, and climate change.

I was getting rather sick of the perennial blame game between that Labor states and the previous Federal government, which culminated in a "jihad against the States" during the election campaign just passed.

I await with interest which minister will chair the working group on climate change and who will be on it. Hopefully some real action on climate change will start soon, and some of the carbon catastrophes of the States - like Victoria's desalination plant and Tasmania's pulp mill - can be reigned in and stopped.

We need urgent action to ensure or greenhouse gas emissions peak by 2015 then decline. We therefore need a moratorium on building any new coal fired power stations, and we need considerable investment in zero emissions energy.

Link: States, territories welcome new working partnership

Tap into alternatives

Published as a letter to the editor in The Age, Wed 19 December 1007

Cross posted at Forest Letter Watch Blog.

Water Minister Tim Holding's assertion (Letters, 17/12) that the Government's water plan is cost effective and sustainable is questionable. The proposed desalination plant will consume most of Victoria's available renewable energy, which will lend impetus to the Government's ill-advised plan to build yet another brown coal-fired power station.

Incredibly, the Government is still allowing logging in the Thomson catchment, decreasing the quality and quantity of our water. Last week, logging started in the Armstrong catchment, closer to Melbourne. Stopping this logging would be much cheaper than producing desalinated water.

In 2002 extensive public consultation led to a move to develop plans to stop logging our catchments. Five years later it is still business as usual.

Our Melbourne house has been almost self-sufficient for water for more than five years, with 23,000 litres of tank storage.

The $3 billion to be spent on the desalination plant could equip about 600,000 households with tank systems that could provide more water than the plant's estimated production. Combined with recycling sewerage water and protecting our catchments, we may not even need desalination.

We also need improved consultation about options for Victoria's water, rather than unilateral decisions made in Spring Street following deliberations behind closed doors.

The lunacy of logging in catchments continues

We have two 4,500 litre and one 13,500 litre rainwater tanks giving us a total of 22,500 litres of storage for rainwater collected from our roof. First flush diverters remove impurities in the water that first comes off the roof when it starts raining.




We don’t use a filter system and have had acceptable results from water quality tests conducted on our tankwater.

A Davey electric pump supplies the tankwater for all uses in the house including showers, the dishwasher, the laundry, the hot water system and garden watering.

We have additional tap for Melbourne water in the kitchen sink e for some drinking and cooking use.

There is another Melbourne water tap under the house that can be used to fill the rainwater tanks should they run out of water.

We filled the rainwater tanks in late 2001 when we moved in after the house renovation. We have only needed to add more Melbourne water on one occasion in 2002 and on two occasions early in 2007 during the severe drought. This means we have been basically self sufficient for water for around 5 years.

Based on Melbourne Water’s estimated daily average water usage of 303 litres per person (as of December 2007 with Stage 3A restrictions) this means we have saved around 0.3 megalitres of water per year and 1.5 megalitres of over five years.

If the $3 billion allocated by the Victorian Government for the desalination plant were spent on domestic rainwater tank systems, this would equip around 600,000 households (at a unit cost of $5,000 for a tank and pump) and could provide up to 160 gigalitres of water per year that would otherwise be lost as stormwater. This equates to 165 days of Melbourne’s total water consumption based on the current daily usage of 992 ml, and it exceeds the estimated yearly production of 150gl from the proposed desalination plant.

However, rainwater tank supplies are of course not guaranteed due to ongoing reduced rainfall patterns.

It would appear that we could be better off if a much smaller desalination plant (say $1billion) were built and the remaining $2 billion spent on rainwater tanks and improved recycling of sewerage water currently sent out from ocean outfalls.

At the very least, we need radically improved public consultation about options for Melbourne’s and Victoria’s water strategy rather than unilateral decisions made in Spring Street following secret deliberations.

Logging in catchments and Melbourne’s water supply

In May 2002, the Victorian Government released a repost titled 21st Century Melbourne: a WaterSmart City. Strategy Directions Report.

A majority of public submissions for the study stated that logging should cease in all water supply catchment areas due to the impact on water quality and the reduction in long term water yields.

The report contained a recommendation to conduct a detailed and comprehensive investigation into the feasibility of establishing plantations to allow for the phasing out of logging in Melbourne’s water supply catchments

The report further stated that if plantation alternatives are confirmed feasible, an implementation plan to phase out logging from within the catchments should be prepared.

Potential water savings from the gradual phasing out of logging in the Thomson catchment by 2020 were estimated to provide an estimated additional average annual volume of water of 20 gigalitres (20,000 ML) in 2050.

In June 2004, the Victorian government released another report titled Securing Our Water Future Together.

This report stated that Melbourne’s original water catchments are closed catchments, are managed as national parks and that logging will continue to be banned in those catchment areas. It was found that improved water yields within catchments supplying water to Melbourne are important in securing Melbourne’s water supplies.

Actions to be undertaken by the Government were to:

• Undertake studies on the impact of logging on water yield of catchments in State forests supplying water to Melbourne;
• Develop options aimed at improving the water yield, including potential changes to management practices and phasing out logging in these areas;
• Assess the feasibility of establishing plantations outside State forests to offset any reductions in timber availability. This will be informed by the results of modelling and mapping work on high, medium and low-impact zones for plantations (refer Impacts of new plantation policy above); and
• Investigate the economic, social and environmental benefits and costs of these options.

The report stated that the Government would report on the findings of these studies and begin consultation with the timber industry, the community, and other stakeholders to develop a long-term plan that will aim to improve water yield outcomes for Melbourne’s catchments, while continuing to meet timber supply commitments.

On 16 May 2007 Environment and Water Minister John Thwaites stated at a public meeting in Ashburton that “work on the report is still in progress”.

In December 2007:

• The final report has not been issued and no date available for its release.
• No further community consultation has occurred.
• Logging continues unabated in Melbourne’s water catchments.
• About 30 gigalitres of water is lost due to logging each year, which is equivalent to about 150,000 households’ usage.

On Thu 6/12/07 Water Minister Tim Holding stated on ABC radio (774) that “logging in catchments is a matter of balance between all stakeholders and the Government believes we have got this right” and did not comment on the status of the delayed final report on options for phasing out the logging of water catchments.

On June 19, 2007, in response to Melbourne’s dwindling water supplies, the Victorian government announced plans to build a $3 billion desalination plant at Wonthaggi to produce 150 gigalitres of water a year. The Victorian Government also announced that household water bills would double over the next five years to pay for a $4.9 billion water strategy to secure Melbourne's water supplies.

The water produced by the desalination plant would cost around $3000 a megalitre, based on Melbourne Water estimates, which means the net present value of the water gained by not logging the catchment, is between $1.1 billion and $1.4 billion. The cost of compensating the loggers to quit the catchment areas would be less than $40 million.

Scientific evidence indicates ending clearfell logging in Melbourne's native water supply catchments would eventually create an additional 130 litres per household per day, equal to 16% of Melbourne's present consumption.

It is now obvious that there is absolutely no balance in the Victorian Government's support for the logging of our water catchments. It is way past time for this to cease.

Links

• Surrey Hills house

• Desal option doesn't hold water, Kenneth Davidson, The Age, December 10, 2007

• Bracks announces $5 billion water plan, Rachel Kleinman, The Age, June 19, 2007

Councillor Fraser Brindley launches Greenlivingpedia in Melbourne

Melbourne City Councillor Fraser Brindley and Peter Campbell launched Greenlivingpedia, a free resource for sharing information about green living and building at Melbourne’s innovative CH2 building on Monday 15 October 2007.

"Today I am launching Greenlivingpedia, an important resource that enables everyone to create and share information about green living and green building, such as the CH2 building," Cr Brindley said.

"Melbourne City Council’s innovative CH2 building provides an excellent example of how we can design and build for a sustainable future," Cr Brindley said.

"Greenlivingpedia is a wiki website similar to Wikipedia that anyone can use to create and edit articles about their own sustainable living project or area of interest,” said Peter Campbell, the founder and creator of Greenlivingpedia.

"I created Greenlivingpedia to complement and link to Wikipedia and other information sources on the Internet so that people can view and create examples of green living and green building solutions," said Mr Campbell.

"Issues like climate change and reducing our energy footprint are now major concerns in the community with the focus now shifting towards what we can do to address them. Greenlivingpedia can play an important role in empowering our community to take local action on climate change and sustainable living," said Cr Brindley.

"Greenlivingpedia provides a mechanism for people to collaborate and share information about a range of topics including sustainable house and building projects, energy saving tips, green computing, solar power, community action, water conservation and recycling" said Mr Campbell.

"Many people ask for more information about our sustainable house renovation in Surrey Hills so I have written an article on Greenlivingpedia with details of what we have done and how much energy we have been able to save," said Mr Campbell.

"Wikis and blogs are dramatically changing how we can work together to create, access and share information on the Internet. Photos and images, and even video and interactive maps can be easily added to Greenlivingpedia articles, and the articles will appear in search engine results," said Mr Campbell.

More information: Peter Campbell 0409 417 504

www.greenlivingpedia.org

Video of the launch

Al Gore on Climate Change Leadership

It is imperative that the Australian Government work constructively with other nations via the United Nations on a post-Kyoto agreeement to tackle climate change that includes tangible emission reduction targets. The current approach endorsed by John Howard, Alexander Downer and Malcolm Turnbull to set "aspirational voluntary targets" will be ineffective.

Self regulation of the most polluting industries carries a very real risk that short term profit motives will outweigh taking real action on addressing climate change - which science and our own experience now tells us is one of the greatest challenges facing the world today.

Here is a good quote from Al Gore on the important role governments have in setting real and binding emission reduction targets globally.

Quote of the Day: Al Gore on Climate Change Leadership, Montreal Protocol
(From TreeHugger)

All of the market initiatives are incredibly important. The market allocates more money in one hour than all of the governments allocate over a year's time. But governments set the rules of the road and determine how markets allocate capital and make decisions. And there should be no mistake that this crisis, the climate crisis, is not going to be solved only by personal action and business action. We need changes in laws; we need changes in policies; we need new leadership and we need a new treaty. We need a mandate at Bali during the first 14 days of December this year to complete a treaty not by 2012 but by 2009, and put it completely into force by 2010. We can do it and we must do it. ...

We face a genuine planetary emergency, we cannot just talk about it, we have to act on it, we have to solve it, urgently. ... Last week the world celebrated the 20th anniversary of a great success story. A hole in the ozone layer was discovered in 1985. And then, in the following year and a half, action took place. Some people said voluntary action will solve it; businesses will take the initiative. The Secretary of the Interior at that time said voluntary measures like wearing more sunglasses and floppy hats was the answer.

I would like to call on President Bush to follow President Reagan's example and listen to those among his advisers who know that we have to have binding reductions in CO2; we have to put a price on carbon, and the United States of America has to lead the world to solve the climate crisis."

—Al Gore, former vice president of the Untied States, in the opening plenary session of the Clinton Global Initiative, 26 Sept. 2007

East Gippsland forest protection report 2007

I visited East Gippsland in April this year to have a look at some of the forest areas protected during the 2006 Victorian State election campaign.

Unfortunately, many areas of old growth forest were not protected, such as this forest just off the Yalmy Road.

Yalmy forest

And this lovely wet eucalyptus forest with majestic old growth trees in the Jungle Creek catchment just off the Aberdeen Track was not protected either.

Jungle Creek wet forest

Here is my full report with maps, photographs and information.

Executive Summary

This report assesses some of the forest areas in East Gippsland that were announced for protection during the 2006 Victorian State Election campaign. The purpose of this report is to assess the quality and quantity of some of the forest areas newly protected and surrounding forests with respect to the stated aims of the Government which were to protect under the National Parks Act the last significant stands of Victoria’s old growth forests (available for logging) to enhance tourism and protect biodiversity.

The three areas covered by this report are outside of the proposed new reserve system and are considered to be also all worthy of protection.

The Brown Mountain region bounded by Errinundra Road to the east, Legge Road to the east and Errinundra National Park to the south contains numerous very significant old growth Mountain Ash trees with a largely intact understory. This forest area is a firm candidate for protection due to biodiversity value and age of the forest. This area should be included in the new reserve system to improve its continuity and enhance the wildlife corridor. In addition, National Park signage in this area is in need of immediate attention.

The Jungle Creek catchment south of the Aberdeen Track contains significant old growth Mountain Ash trees, cool temperate rainforest plant species and wet sclerophyll forest. This area should also be included in the new reserve system to improve the continuity of the reserve and further enhance the wildlife corridor. It is imperative that fuel reduction burning of this area of forest includes measures to protect both old growth trees and the wet sclerophyll forest.

Heavily logged forests along both the Mount Jersey and Yalmy Roads and the Rodger River Track detract from the visual characteristics of this region due to loss of forest canopy and large amounts of logging residue. In addition, regrowth areas will have little appeal or habitat value for many decades. This has a major negative impact on tourism potential. Logging activities in these areas should cease – they should be added to the National Park estate.

Some significant forest areas of high quality along the Yalmy Road adjacent to the Snowy River National Park have been newly protected. However, other adjacent areas of equivalent forest have not been afforded any protection. This indicates apparent inconsistencies in the decision making process regarding the selection of areas for protection.

An impressive stand of old growth Mountain Ash with very high visual appeal is located on the Yalmy Road close to the intersection with the Rodger River track. Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans) is comparatively unusual in East Gippsland. While sections of this forest have been logged, the overall impression is of majestic trees. The rationale for excluding this area from the new protected reserves is not clear. It should be also be added to the reserve system both to protect the remaining old growth trees it contains, and to boost and improve the integrity of the adjacent Snowy River National Park.

While additional areas of old growth forest have been specified for protection in East Gippsland, there are good opportunities to further add remaining unprotected old growth and wet sclerophyll forest to the reserve system for the intrinsic value of these forests, to create a more robust wildlife corridor link between the Errinundra and Snowy River National Parks and to protect resident endangered species.

Why the Gunns pulp mill proposal for the Tamar valley should not be approved

My submission to the "Invitation to comment on draft recommendation report - 2007/3385 Gunns Limited Proposed Pulp Mill, Tasmania"

The Gunns pulp mill proposal for the Tamar valley in Tasmania should not be approved until:

• Full consideration of the impacts of the mill on Tasmania's native forests and wildlife habitat are assessed.
• An independent assessment of the flow and dispersal of effluent in Bass Strait is undertaken
• All toxic substances are removed from the mill effluent - no output of dioxin should be allowed.
• Adequate local consultation has occurred - this was cut short when the Lennon Government abandoned their RPDC process

In its current form, the pulp mill would pollute the ocean with toxic dioxin, and have a very serious negative impact on fisheries and local tourism ventures in the Tamar valley.

The mill proposal should not be approved until these matters are resolved.

Peter Campbell

Links

• Invitation to comment on proposed decision and conditions for the pulp mill proposal in Tasmania's Tamar Valley
• Comment sought on draft Pulp Mill decision and conditions - Malcolm Turnbull MP
• The Wilderness Society - Gunns' Proposed Pulp Mill
• PM's pal damns pulp mill proposal | The Australian
• Turnbull to clear way for pulp mill | The Australian

Videos

• Natural Tasmania brand worth more than a dirty pulp mill (Greens)
• Tasmanian scallop fisherman, John Hammond, on the pulp mill
• Pulp mill 2007... Back to the future with Christine Milne
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

An industry in decline

Tricia Caswell's industry views on the major problems with native forest logging (Age 30/7) reveal an industry in decline. Her shallow attempt to portray native forest logging as being "good for climate change" is simply not supported by scientific evidence.

Science tells us that around 10% of Australia's carbon emission are the result of deforestation and that old growth forests store up to 1500 tonnes per hectare. Logging them liberates the vast majority of this stored carbon into the atmosphere.

Protecting old growth forests is a key strategy for addressing climate change indentified in the recent Mitigation of Climate Change report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Caswell also seeks to propagate the myth that native forest logging is well managed. How can an activity that produce 80% waste in the form of woodchips be well managed? In addition, destroying old growth forests and replacing them with de facto plantations destroys their biodiversity too.

As our old growth forest estate declines and carbon emissions rise, the failures of management and policy in our native forests become more apparent.

First the industry-friendly Regional Forest Agreements are discredited, then the estimates in the Victorian Government "Our Forest Our Future" policy statement also turn out to be incorrect.

Government subsides for native forest logging give it unfair competitive advantage over the plantation sector - where the bulk of timber jobs now are.

The subsidies for forest roads, transport, advertising and other externalities should be removed and a carbon tax applied to the emissions resulting directly from native forest logging.

Caswell's one-dimensional view of the destructive and greenhouse polluting native forest industry juggernaut is compromising the transition to a genuinely sustainable more climate friendly plantation-based industry.

Let us hope that Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales can follow the example of New Zealand, Western Australia and Queensland and protect our native forests and encouraging the more climate-friendly plantation alternative.

Melbourne's little piece of France & Belgium

For the last few years I have been stopping by at the Waffle On, a tiny hole in the wall cafe in Degraves Street, for a coffee and superb Belgian waffles. The cafe is just above the subway entrance from Degraves Street down to the Flinders Street station underpass.

Marc, the main man (pictured), makes the best waffles in Melbourne. Many French expats frequent the tiny cafe, so a visit there is often just like being in Paris.

Marc may be returning to France soon, so if you like Belgian waffles, or traditional French baguettes along with great coffee, go there as soon as possible or you may miss out.

Forests can slow climate change

Once again we are faced with the unedifying spectacle of Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull both playing political football with Australia's forests.

Kevin Rudd has just fully endorsed John Howard's forest policy which supports the destruction of remnant majestic old growth forests in both Tasmania and South East Australia. He has done this to curry favour with the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union in the run up to the federal election.

Deforestation and land clearing accounts for around 10 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, yet Kevin Rudd is doing nothing to stop this, despite the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report which identifies protection of forests as a key global strategy for combating climate change.

Malcolm Turnbull says he recognises the importance of forests as carbon stores, yet he also supports the ongoing destruction of Australia's forests and the resulting export of 4 million tonnes of woodchips from Tasmania and 1 million tonnes from Victoria each year. The Howard government is allocating $200 million to protect forests in South East Asia, but is unwilling to protect Australian forests that store up to 1200 tonnes of carbon per hectare.

Carbon dioxide emissions from logging in Victoria in 2004-2005 were almost 10 million tonnes which is equivalent to emissions resulting from an additional 2.4 million cars onto Victoria’s roads each year.

The solution is remarkably simple. We need to protect all remaining old growth forests to preserve both their intrinsic value and the carbon they store.

Unfortunately, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull can only see woodchips rather than our trees.

This was published as letter in the Heraldsun and The Age newspapers on Wednesday July 25, 2007

Separated bike paths are better and safer than bike lanes

Here is an interesting video that explains why separated bike lanes are much better than the bike lanes that are painted on the roads.



"A true bicycle lane is one that can be used by a child".

While the video describes the effectiveness of seperated bike paths compared to bike lanes in New York, it is equally applicable to Melbourne.

The new separated bike paths in Swanston Street Carlton are an excellent example of how well these work. You don't have to worry about motorists parking across the bike path or entering it quickly. The bike paths start heading north of the city just past the City Baths. Give them a try.