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/
Sunday, April 05, 2009
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:
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.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
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.
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
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
Monday, March 30, 2009
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:
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 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.
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
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
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:
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 routeMany 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.
- 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.
Monday, March 23, 2009
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
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
Thursday, March 12, 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
Saturday, February 21, 2009
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.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Bolt dogwhistling: Stridently dark green
From Andrew Bolt in today's Heraldsun: Stridently dark green
GLOBAL warming preachers have been crowing over the bushfires in ways not just despicable but dangerous.
Here are Bolt's lies:
Bolts $4b "plan" OR the greens' $100 billion and more to "stop" global warming?
Bolt doesn't have a plan other than a random assortment of ideas he has pinched from recent newspaper articles. The Greens don't have a $100 billion plan to stop global warming.
Clearly, some actions on addressing bushfire risk and emergency procedures are required. The Royal Commission will hear, gather and assess evidence, then make recommendations. I think the vast majority of them should be enacted.
In short:
Fear, no evidence and incorrect sums, blaming, and several red herrings.
This is more of Bolt's propaganda war against "greens", "Greens", conservation and anyone who believes we should take action to address climate change and global warming. It is a mixture of mud slinging and denial.
And here is online response to Bolt's shameless dogwhistling:
I wonder if they both believe their nonsense? If they do they are idiots, if they don't they are pariahs; best avoided.
GLOBAL warming preachers have been crowing over the bushfires in ways not just despicable but dangerous.
Here are Bolt's lies:
- Green activists had been desperately wrong to oppose fuel reduction burns (Greens policies support fuel reduction burning)
- Sat 7 Feb was not Victoria's hottest day on record (it was, he quotes an anecdotal newspaper report)
- Forest experts insist that green policies on forest management helped to kill so many in the first place (no forest experts quoted - anonymous sources, and an outright lie)
- The planet actually hasn't warmed for a decade, and we've faced even worse conditions than these before (not true)
- Global warming is not associated with the recent bushfires (not true - the increased risk of such events has been predicted the the CSIRO and climate scientists)
- Global warming preachers are desperate to try to fool you (Who exactly? This is just mud throwing)
- But I don't just write all this to go nyah-nyah. Normally that's fun, I admit, but too many people are dead for such crowing of my own. (hypocrite - that is exactly what he is doing)
- Greenhouse gases which might not actually cause the warming that might already have stopped anyway. And which didn't cause these fires. (incorrect)
Bolts $4b "plan" OR the greens' $100 billion and more to "stop" global warming?
Bolt doesn't have a plan other than a random assortment of ideas he has pinched from recent newspaper articles. The Greens don't have a $100 billion plan to stop global warming.
Clearly, some actions on addressing bushfire risk and emergency procedures are required. The Royal Commission will hear, gather and assess evidence, then make recommendations. I think the vast majority of them should be enacted.
In short:
Fear, no evidence and incorrect sums, blaming, and several red herrings.
This is more of Bolt's propaganda war against "greens", "Greens", conservation and anyone who believes we should take action to address climate change and global warming. It is a mixture of mud slinging and denial.
And here is online response to Bolt's shameless dogwhistling:
“I am disgusted with the whole 'green' movement. Every 'green' advocate should be cut -quartered-and hung. Bob Brown & the other 'green' cronies should not be given the time of day. What's more important - the life of a tree, or human life? Bugger the environment, if it means my life is in jeopardy? The environment has looked after itself quite well for God knows how long, & it will continue to do so - without my help thank-you very much!Andrew Bolt (and Miranda Devine) must accept full responsibility if their hate-mongering and lies results in murder and/or "lynching".
Posted by: Steve Morgan of Echuca 8:29am today”
I wonder if they both believe their nonsense? If they do they are idiots, if they don't they are pariahs; best avoided.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Barrie Cassidy blames greens for bushfires
The harrowing tales from survivors and CFA people on the After the Firestorm: An ABC News Special" tonight were compelling viewing.
However, the host Barrie Cassidy then displayed the most appalling and offensive editorialising journalism I have ever seen the ABC broadcast.
Barrie Cassidy said "and people say the greens have too much influence, what do think Peter Attiwell?"
This was a leading question for Attiwell, who is ex Forestry faculty Melbourne Uni and has been employed by the Victorian Association of Forest Industries (VAFI) at various times. Attiwell has previously made public statements about "logging being good for forests", "forests need disturbance" and the "importance of fuel reduction burning for forest management" over recent years.
Attiwell's response to this leading question was inaccurate on several counts, and represented a pro-logging anti conservation political position.
Attiwell claimed that
Cassidy also failed to mention that Black Saturday was the hottest day on record in Victoria and in any Australian capital city ever, and that the three days above 43C the previous week made the entire state tinder dry. These type of extreme weather events have been linked by Professor David Karoly and the CSIRO to the effects of climate change.
I know for a fact that a lot of the forest around Marysville has been fuel reduction burnt by DSE on numerous occasions over the last 10 years. This of course made no difference to the ferocity of the fire.
There is no scientific consensus on the claimed ecological benefits of fuel reduction burning. It is actually done to reduce fuel loads, not manage ecology. Scientists have also observed that excessive burning of native forests can actually make them more prone to burning by changing the ecology of the forest from wet sclerophyll to more fire prone dry sclerophyll over time.
Much of the fires burnt on grassland, farmland, plantations and heavily "managed" and logged native forest. Around 50% of the area burnt was privately owned land.
On Cassidy's mention of "the greens", there are no elected Greens in the Murrindindi, Yea or even Nillumbik shires, and there are none in the Victorian State Parliament in these regions either. To claim that greens set policies in these regions is specious and ludicrous. Policies are set state and local governments, and enacted by DSE, the CFA and other government departments.
In addition, fuel reduction burning, conducted without species and habitat loss, is are actually supported by the Greens and organisations such as the Wilderness Society, so Cassidy is dead wrong on this too.
Barry Cassidy's conduct on this matter was biased against the Green political party and local and state conservation groups.
It was also extremely offensive and inaccurate. Opportunistic political comments by those pushing agendas are grossly insensitive to bushfire victims.
As I have stated previously, the only focus at present should be to find the deceased and help the survivors and others deeply affected. I and many of my friends (some of whom are still fighting the fires and are on the ground in affected areas) have been deeply personally affected by these bushfires and the loss of life.
Barrie Cassidy should be subject to disciplinary action and the ABC should also issue a formal retraction of his comments.
You can comment on the ABC TV program website too.
However, the host Barrie Cassidy then displayed the most appalling and offensive editorialising journalism I have ever seen the ABC broadcast.
Barrie Cassidy said "and people say the greens have too much influence, what do think Peter Attiwell?"
This was a leading question for Attiwell, who is ex Forestry faculty Melbourne Uni and has been employed by the Victorian Association of Forest Industries (VAFI) at various times. Attiwell has previously made public statements about "logging being good for forests", "forests need disturbance" and the "importance of fuel reduction burning for forest management" over recent years.
Attiwell's response to this leading question was inaccurate on several counts, and represented a pro-logging anti conservation political position.
Attiwell claimed that
- there is far too much fuel in the forests and that is why the fires were so bad
- The 1983 Royal Commission made 23 (?) recommendations and the government has only implemented 6, oops 7 of them
- There hasn't been nearly enough burning, the cycle is once every 30(?) years, only a very small percentage has been fuel reduction burnt.
- We need to burn on a cycle of every 7 years to make things safe
- We don't need another commission, we just need proper burning. Ecological burning.
Cassidy also failed to mention that Black Saturday was the hottest day on record in Victoria and in any Australian capital city ever, and that the three days above 43C the previous week made the entire state tinder dry. These type of extreme weather events have been linked by Professor David Karoly and the CSIRO to the effects of climate change.
I know for a fact that a lot of the forest around Marysville has been fuel reduction burnt by DSE on numerous occasions over the last 10 years. This of course made no difference to the ferocity of the fire.
There is no scientific consensus on the claimed ecological benefits of fuel reduction burning. It is actually done to reduce fuel loads, not manage ecology. Scientists have also observed that excessive burning of native forests can actually make them more prone to burning by changing the ecology of the forest from wet sclerophyll to more fire prone dry sclerophyll over time.
Much of the fires burnt on grassland, farmland, plantations and heavily "managed" and logged native forest. Around 50% of the area burnt was privately owned land.
On Cassidy's mention of "the greens", there are no elected Greens in the Murrindindi, Yea or even Nillumbik shires, and there are none in the Victorian State Parliament in these regions either. To claim that greens set policies in these regions is specious and ludicrous. Policies are set state and local governments, and enacted by DSE, the CFA and other government departments.
In addition, fuel reduction burning, conducted without species and habitat loss, is are actually supported by the Greens and organisations such as the Wilderness Society, so Cassidy is dead wrong on this too.
Barry Cassidy's conduct on this matter was biased against the Green political party and local and state conservation groups.
It was also extremely offensive and inaccurate. Opportunistic political comments by those pushing agendas are grossly insensitive to bushfire victims.
As I have stated previously, the only focus at present should be to find the deceased and help the survivors and others deeply affected. I and many of my friends (some of whom are still fighting the fires and are on the ground in affected areas) have been deeply personally affected by these bushfires and the loss of life.
Barrie Cassidy should be subject to disciplinary action and the ABC should also issue a formal retraction of his comments.
You can comment on the ABC TV program website too.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Friday, February 06, 2009
Feed in Tariff questions for Premier Brumby
The following email was sent to Premier John Brumby and the Victorian Cabinet on 6/2/09.
Dear Premier Brumby,
I have now written to Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's office on five separate occasions concerning the Feed-in tariff legislation your government has stated it will introduce.
As yet, none of the questions (listed below) that I have asked concerning this tariff have been satisfactorily answered by Minister Batchelor or his staff, which I find very disappointing and quite unacceptable.
1. When will your feed-in tariff legislation be introduced?
2. When can a copy of it be sent to me?
3. What is the purpose of the 2kW array size cap?
4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere?
5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret?
6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?
7. Why is the Brumby government proceeding with a feed in tariff for Victoria that will be completely ineffective and conflicting with proposed national legislation?
I note that Professor Ross Garnaut stated in his final report in 2008 that a gross feed in tariff was the best one to adopt, as has been introduced in the ACT feed-in tariff legislation where they pay on gross metering with a generous 10kW cap on array size.
Several explanations on the government website at http://dpi.vic.gov.au/energy/feedintariff are not consistent or accurate, some of which I address below.
Problems with 2kW cap on array size.
DPI have stated that:
"Data available from the Commonwealth Solar Homes and Communities Plan indicates that the average size of residential PV systems is 1.5 kilowatts and over 90% of currently installed PV systems are at or below 2 kilowatts. For this reason, the 2 kilowatt capacity threshold was deemed appropriate for the premium fee-in tariff scheme."
Your stated purpose for the feed-in tariff is to increase the residential uptake of PV systems. Putting an artificial cap on array size, based on the average systems installed to date, simply limits the financial incentives for households to install systems over 2kW for no good reason. It is therefore in direct conflict with your stated purpose. Your basis for the proposed 2kW cap on array size is simply not valid.
Encouraging energy efficiency
Your government states that encouraging energy efficiency is another objective of the feed-in tariff. This is simply not relevant. The feed-in tariff is a policy measure for encouraging the uptake of solar panels, not driving energy efficiency. I urge you to consider effective measures for encouraging energy efficiency such as:
I understand that a cabinet committee submission from the Department of Sustainability and Environment stated that the so-called "gross feed-in" solar subsidy scheme would have cost households just $18 a year, or 35 cents a week, increasing electricity bills by just 2 per cent. This is significantly less than your previously claim, based in information not released from Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's office, that claimed the cost at $100 a year for households. This claim now appears to be in error.
More solar panels could avoid or reduce recent power outages.
The very hot weather across Victoria last week, combined with many households using energy hungry air conditioners during the day (up to or great than 8kW) resulted in electricity supply falling below demand. Photovoltaic panels, if enough are installed, would generate power for the grid precisely when on hot sunny days when it is needed most and power is most expensive. Additional generation by solar panels may have avoided these supply problems and kept the grid, and Melbourne's train network, operating properly during the heatwave conditions.
Solar panels reduce emissions and therefore address climate change.
All power generated from PVs should be paid a gross tariff as they produce power that would otherwise be sourced from the coal-fired electricity, thereby reducing carbon emissions, This is an essential measure for tackling climate change, which is now an urgent concern following the recent extremely hot weather resulting in some deaths and huge disruption to Victoria's economy.
The Feed in tariff should also provide financial incentive for large scale solar power energy producers to encourage investment in large scale solar plants too.
I strongly urge you to implement a proven effective gross feed in tariff with no cap on array size as this would greatly boost installation of solar panels and green jobs, both of which will benefit Victoria.
Dear Premier Brumby,
I have now written to Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's office on five separate occasions concerning the Feed-in tariff legislation your government has stated it will introduce.
As yet, none of the questions (listed below) that I have asked concerning this tariff have been satisfactorily answered by Minister Batchelor or his staff, which I find very disappointing and quite unacceptable.
1. When will your feed-in tariff legislation be introduced?
2. When can a copy of it be sent to me?
3. What is the purpose of the 2kW array size cap?
4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere?
5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret?
6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?
8. What is the Brumby government's target for domestic solar panel installation (in MW) for 2009 and 2010?
I note that Professor Ross Garnaut stated in his final report in 2008 that a gross feed in tariff was the best one to adopt, as has been introduced in the ACT feed-in tariff legislation where they pay on gross metering with a generous 10kW cap on array size.
Several explanations on the government website at http://dpi.vic.gov.au/energy/
Problems with 2kW cap on array size.
DPI have stated that:
"Data available from the Commonwealth Solar Homes and Communities Plan indicates that the average size of residential PV systems is 1.5 kilowatts and over 90% of currently installed PV systems are at or below 2 kilowatts. For this reason, the 2 kilowatt capacity threshold was deemed appropriate for the premium fee-in tariff scheme."
Your stated purpose for the feed-in tariff is to increase the residential uptake of PV systems. Putting an artificial cap on array size, based on the average systems installed to date, simply limits the financial incentives for households to install systems over 2kW for no good reason. It is therefore in direct conflict with your stated purpose. Your basis for the proposed 2kW cap on array size is simply not valid.
Encouraging energy efficiency
Your government states that encouraging energy efficiency is another objective of the feed-in tariff. This is simply not relevant. The feed-in tariff is a policy measure for encouraging the uptake of solar panels, not driving energy efficiency. I urge you to consider effective measures for encouraging energy efficiency such as:
- Introducing energy efficiency labelling standards for all consumer electrical goods
- Introducing energy efficiency standards as part of building standards
- Consider raising the price of electricity so that consumers will be encouraged so use less
I understand that a cabinet committee submission from the Department of Sustainability and Environment stated that the so-called "gross feed-in" solar subsidy scheme would have cost households just $18 a year, or 35 cents a week, increasing electricity bills by just 2 per cent. This is significantly less than your previously claim, based in information not released from Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's office, that claimed the cost at $100 a year for households. This claim now appears to be in error.
More solar panels could avoid or reduce recent power outages.
The very hot weather across Victoria last week, combined with many households using energy hungry air conditioners during the day (up to or great than 8kW) resulted in electricity supply falling below demand. Photovoltaic panels, if enough are installed, would generate power for the grid precisely when on hot sunny days when it is needed most and power is most expensive. Additional generation by solar panels may have avoided these supply problems and kept the grid, and Melbourne's train network, operating properly during the heatwave conditions.
Solar panels reduce emissions and therefore address climate change.
All power generated from PVs should be paid a gross tariff as they produce power that would otherwise be sourced from the coal-fired electricity, thereby reducing carbon emissions, This is an essential measure for tackling climate change, which is now an urgent concern following the recent extremely hot weather resulting in some deaths and huge disruption to Victoria's economy.
The Feed in tariff should also provide financial incentive for large scale solar power energy producers to encourage investment in large scale solar plants too.
I strongly urge you to implement a proven effective gross feed in tariff with no cap on array size as this would greatly boost installation of solar panels and green jobs, both of which will benefit Victoria.
Peter Campbell
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: 5/10/2008 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:58:48 +1000
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:38:12 +1000
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 22:29:08 +1000
Subject: LETTER: Please introduce a feed in tariff Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:26:37 +1100
Thursday, February 05, 2009
A great climate action summit in Canberra
I attended the first ever Australian climate action summit in Canberra.
More than 500 people from around the country gathered for three days from 31/1/09 to 2/4/09 to produce a national, unified set of objectives for the community campaign of climate action for the crucial year ahead.
Over 140 community climate action groups united in their decision to oppose the Federal Government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), saying that it will fail make the required cuts to greenhouse pollution.
At the summit there was:
- Two days of facilitated meetings and workshops to build a unified national climate campaign.
- One day of dynamic training in climate campaigning skills for taking action, facilitating climate action groups, effective lobbying and more.
- On the first day of the 2009 Federal Parliament, thousands of people were mobilised in a high profile demonstration for real action on climate change by encircling Australia's federal parliament.
- Prevent the CPRS from becoming law as it will fail to make emission cuts necessary to stop the climate emergency.
- Build community-wide action to demand green jobs, a just transition for fossil fuel industry workers and 100% renewable energy by 2020.
- Aim for stabilisation at 300ppm CO2 and strong international agreement in line with what science and global justice demands.
More information (and soon some photos) is available on Greenlivingpedia here
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Premier Brumby please protect Brown Mountain Forest
Below is a copy of a letter I just sent to Premier John Brumby, and some recent photos of Brown Mountain logging - a crime against the enviroment. More information here.
Orbost Spiny Cray found in Brown Mountain Creek
Illegally cleared (bulldozed) rainforest gully
Illegally felled forest giant in buffer zone outside of logging area
=======
Your Ref: DSE057747
Your File: FS/18/0020
Dear Premier Brumby,
I received a communication from Janine Haddow (DSE) dated 30/12/2008 in response to an email I sent to you and Minister Jennings on 29/10/2008 asking to stop the logging of old growth forest at Brown Mountain. Unfortunately, Ms Haddow did not adequately address the concerns I raised with you.
To reiterate, the Labor Party pledged in a policy document during the 2006 State election that:
"In addition to the Goolengook Block, a Labor Government will immediately protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting by including them in the National Parks and reserves system."
Premier Brumby, you have broken this promise. In late 2008 bulldozers destroyed 20 hectares of Brown Mountain forest classified as old growth. Now they are about to continue to destroy another 40 hectares.
This Brown Mountain forest should have been included in the forest areas specified for protection because it is designated as old growth forest by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and it forms an important part of the link between the Errinundra and Snowy River National Parks, the creation of which was also a policy commitment.
You are allowing and supporting the clearfelling of old growth forest as "business as usual" despite these forest's critical role in storing carbon (over 1000 tonnes per hectare) and providing water for the depleted Snowy River catchment.
Ms Haddow’s assertion that "logging occurs on a very small proportion of Victoria’s public land estate" is simply not relevant. No old growth forest should be now logged, as your policy states.
Ms Haddow’s other assertion that "over time the net result from logging Victoria’s native forest is an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas concentrations" is not correct. A scientific study by Mackey, Keith, Berry and Lindenmeyer (2008) found that:
“the carbon stock of forests subject to commercial logging, and of monoculture plantations in particular, will always be significantly less on average (40 to 60 percent depending on intensity of land use and forest type) than the carbon stock of natural, undisturbed forests.”
These forests also provide habitat for threatened species such as the Powerful Owl, the Spot Tailed Quoll, mainland Australia's largest marsupial carnivore, the Long-footed Potoroo, Victoria's rarest marsupial, and the endangered Orbost Spiny Cray.
Locals had recently constructed East Gippsland's first old growth forest walk in these forests, which the Department of Sustainability and Environment knows about. Recent logging has now destroyed much of this walk. It will soon be obliterated, which will result in the loss of an asset that had potential to generate millions of dollars from tourism, as demonstrated by the Valley of the Giants Tree Top Walk in the Walpole-Nornalup National Park in Western Australia.
In addition, several serious breaches of the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007 have occurred during the recent logging at Brown Mountain. The following breaches have been reported with photographic evidence:
1. Mixed rainforest along Brown Mountain Creek has been bulldozed in readiness to start clearfelling the adjoining stand of ancient forest.
2. A logging contractor is being investigated for theft of burls.
3. A huge old tree has been felled outside the coupe boundary – this is illegal logging.
4. Used oil filters from bulldozers have been discarded on the ground which will contaminate soil and eventually water courses.
I also note that logging has continued against occupational health and safety regulations when members of the public are present. Worksafe is apparently investigating this.
VicForests has prohibited access to the nearby Errinundra National Park via the tourist road for the past 3 months of summer holidays - with no alternative route offered. This is unacceptable. The public must have access to our National Parks.
Please stop the logging of Brown Mountain immediately, and add the remaining old growth forest on Brown Mountain to Errinundra National Park.
Please honour your stated policy to protect all remaining areas of old growth forest in Victoria.
Peter Campbell
Home address supplied
CC:
Orbost Spiny Cray found in Brown Mountain Creek
Illegally cleared (bulldozed) rainforest gully
Illegally felled forest giant in buffer zone outside of logging area=======
Your Ref: DSE057747
Your File: FS/18/0020
Dear Premier Brumby,
I received a communication from Janine Haddow (DSE) dated 30/12/2008 in response to an email I sent to you and Minister Jennings on 29/10/2008 asking to stop the logging of old growth forest at Brown Mountain. Unfortunately, Ms Haddow did not adequately address the concerns I raised with you.
To reiterate, the Labor Party pledged in a policy document during the 2006 State election that:
"In addition to the Goolengook Block, a Labor Government will immediately protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting by including them in the National Parks and reserves system."
Premier Brumby, you have broken this promise. In late 2008 bulldozers destroyed 20 hectares of Brown Mountain forest classified as old growth. Now they are about to continue to destroy another 40 hectares.
This Brown Mountain forest should have been included in the forest areas specified for protection because it is designated as old growth forest by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and it forms an important part of the link between the Errinundra and Snowy River National Parks, the creation of which was also a policy commitment.
You are allowing and supporting the clearfelling of old growth forest as "business as usual" despite these forest's critical role in storing carbon (over 1000 tonnes per hectare) and providing water for the depleted Snowy River catchment.
Ms Haddow’s assertion that "logging occurs on a very small proportion of Victoria’s public land estate" is simply not relevant. No old growth forest should be now logged, as your policy states.
Ms Haddow’s other assertion that "over time the net result from logging Victoria’s native forest is an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas concentrations" is not correct. A scientific study by Mackey, Keith, Berry and Lindenmeyer (2008) found that:
“the carbon stock of forests subject to commercial logging, and of monoculture plantations in particular, will always be significantly less on average (40 to 60 percent depending on intensity of land use and forest type) than the carbon stock of natural, undisturbed forests.”
These forests also provide habitat for threatened species such as the Powerful Owl, the Spot Tailed Quoll, mainland Australia's largest marsupial carnivore, the Long-footed Potoroo, Victoria's rarest marsupial, and the endangered Orbost Spiny Cray.
Locals had recently constructed East Gippsland's first old growth forest walk in these forests, which the Department of Sustainability and Environment knows about. Recent logging has now destroyed much of this walk. It will soon be obliterated, which will result in the loss of an asset that had potential to generate millions of dollars from tourism, as demonstrated by the Valley of the Giants Tree Top Walk in the Walpole-Nornalup National Park in Western Australia.
In addition, several serious breaches of the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007 have occurred during the recent logging at Brown Mountain. The following breaches have been reported with photographic evidence:
1. Mixed rainforest along Brown Mountain Creek has been bulldozed in readiness to start clearfelling the adjoining stand of ancient forest.
2. A logging contractor is being investigated for theft of burls.
3. A huge old tree has been felled outside the coupe boundary – this is illegal logging.
4. Used oil filters from bulldozers have been discarded on the ground which will contaminate soil and eventually water courses.
I also note that logging has continued against occupational health and safety regulations when members of the public are present. Worksafe is apparently investigating this.
VicForests has prohibited access to the nearby Errinundra National Park via the tourist road for the past 3 months of summer holidays - with no alternative route offered. This is unacceptable. The public must have access to our National Parks.
Please stop the logging of Brown Mountain immediately, and add the remaining old growth forest on Brown Mountain to Errinundra National Park.
Please honour your stated policy to protect all remaining areas of old growth forest in Victoria.
Peter Campbell
Home address supplied
CC:
Gavin Jennings, Environment Minister Robert Clark, Member for Box Hill Janine Haddow, Executive Director for Natural Resources, DSE
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Yes, Kevin Rudd is a coal eating surrender monkey
Well, my prediction of the 10% +/- 5% emissions reduction target set by the Rudd Labor government for Australia was accurate. Sadly thought, the target is a ridiculous 5%.
Penny Wong's justification for this is "jobs".
Listen to all the weasel words from Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong about "per capita emissions".
It is really quite simple - are our emissions going down, and if so when?
The government's answer to this at present is "no", and "no commitment"
Penny Wong's justification for this is "jobs".
But securing today’s 19C dirty jobs while NOT building the low pollution economy of tomorrow, or creating ANY green jobs is a shocking outcome.
And the Government will be giving $billions of our money to the worst polluters.
This is hardly a recipe for progress.
This is a joke, and its on us (the public) who are expected to pay for this nonsense. And we have no say in this - the government is hostage to industry and not representing the best interests of the Australian people.
I think we need a campaign of civil disobedience.
I am considering installing a few more panels and completely disconnecting from the grid. Labor is stuffing up the Feed In Tariff legislation at both state and national levels. No more of my money will go to coal fired power interests. And remember, buying Greenpower doesn't reduce emissions either. If you don't believe me, ask a retailer and see what they say.
I will refuse to pay for the Victorian desalination plant as we don’t use any Melbourne water - our 23,500 litres of tanks keeps us supplied.
Maybe I will also withold a proportion of my income tax that will be misdirected to the ludicrous fossil fool corporate welfare?
We need to stop carbon emissions, not reward them. The Rudd government's whitepaper is perverse.
Their own adviser, Ross Garnaut, now sidelined by the Rudd government, has strongly criticised the corporate welfare measures in the whitepaper.Listen to all the weasel words from Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong about "per capita emissions".
It is really quite simple - are our emissions going down, and if so when?
The government's answer to this at present is "no", and "no commitment"
The so called, 5% reduction target is founded on the false pretence that Australia's greenhouse emissions did not rise from 1990 - 2000; hence the misleading claim that it makes little difference whether 1990 or 2000 is chosen as the base year. In fact Australia's real emissions rose by 18.98% in the 1990s (according to the AGO) but this fact is concealed by tricky carbon accounting introduced by the Howard government, which insisted on being the only developed country to include reduced land-clearing in its Kyoto calculations. This has become known as the "Australia Clause".
If Australia were to calculate its emissions on the same basis as all other developed countries this reduction of 5% relative to 2000 would actually be exposed as an increase in emissions of 13% relative to 1990. Kevin Rudd's top figure of a 15% reduction becomes an increase of 1%.
Links
- One little word undoes the PM's claims on greenhouse gases | theage.com.au
- Switch to solar undermined by Rudd climate plan | theage.com.au
- It's so much hot air | theage.com.au
- Garnaut turns heat on Rudd climate plan | theage.com.au
- Garnaut slams climate plan | theage.com.au
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Will Kevin Rudd be a coal eating surrender monkey?
The Rudd Labor government is set to releases it's much awaited target for greenhouse gas emission reduction by 2020. What will will it be?
We have some some clues.
The problem with Kevin Rudd's Labor government is that they are:
Links
We have some some clues.Rudd said on The 7.30 Report last week.
The second point I would say is this: is that this Government is determined absolutely to get the balance right. We understand the need for decisive action on the environment long term. If we fail to act there, the economic and environmental consequences for Australia are horrendous, as they would be globally. Secondly, we intend, also, in framing our approach to the carbon pollution reduction scheme to be entirely mindful of the difficult economic circumstances Australia and the world is facing as well. And I’m sure when this is delivered, early next week, we’ll get attacked from the left, from the right, we’ll get attacked by various radical green groups saying that we haven’t gone far enough because we haven’t closed down the coal industry by next Thursday.
So the governments PR tactics in dealing with climate change are revealed:
1. Frame the debate so that anyone who says Rudd’s weak target is weak is “a member of a radical green group trying to close down the coal industry”
Like Governor David de Kretzer, Professor Karoly, Al Gore, Malcolm Fraser, Arnold Schwartzeneggor, Barack Obama, Ban Ki-Moon, Prince Charles and Rupert Murdoch etc?
2. Make a token gesture towards renewable energy
Kevin Rudd announced today that the government would "bring forward $500m funding for renewable energy".
But he and Peter Garrett will keep the class warfare going with the cap on the solar rebate, and allow the dog’s breakfast of mostly woeful state Clayton’s feed-in tariff legislation to proliferate.
Whenever I hear the world “balance” from the government, I get a shiver down my spine.
Balance the wishes of the coal eating rent seeking surrender monkeys against the probable loss of the Great Barrier Reef, 3m sea level rises, and ice free (and 5 degree hotter) summer Arctic and no more snow in Australia?
This is not balance, this is capitulation and gross negligence.
The target? My guess is Rudd will come up with a 2020 target of a reduction of 10% (+/-5) and may even be audacious/hypocritical enough to also announce a long-term “aspirational” non-binding target of limiting greenhouse gases to 450ppm.
When we need a 40% by 2020 target, and to reduce GHG from the current 380 to 350 or lower.
Al Gore hit the nail on the head in Poland:
And overseas:"We can’t negotiate the facts. We can’t negotiate the truth about the situation. And for those who are too fearful to finish, it can be done and must be done. Make sure we succeed, . . . It is wrong for this generation to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every future generation."
- European Union leaders in Brussels have juest set targets for EU greenhouse gas emissions reduced to 20 percent lower than 1990 levels by 2020.
- Arnold Schwarzenegger has set the following targets for California: 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, 80% below 1990 by 2050
The problem with Kevin Rudd's Labor government is that they are:
- Not listening to the Australian people who want immediate reductions in emissions
- Captive to big business and industry - delivering a weak ETS that won't reduce emissions
- Playing russian roulette with our environment (reef, Kakadu, snow, water for major cities, bushfires)
- Neglecting obvious energy efficiency opportunities that can immediately reduce emissions and save us money
- Propping up our high emissions motor industry rather then legislating for a transition to clean electric cars
- Allowing the ongoing destruction of Australia's native forests resulting in emissions of up to 1000 tonnes per hectare, rather then protecting them immediately
- Deliberately ignoring the latest science that now indicates we are in a climate emergency (Hansen, etc)
- Playing politics and looking for weak compromise solutions when we need emergency action on emission reductions to ensure a safe climate future.
- Once again consigning Australia to being a climate laggard, not a global leader.
Links
- Take action - information on latest science and politics, from the Climate Emergency Network
- Kevin Rudd on The 7.30 Report
- Climate change quotes - Greenlivingpedia
- Climate change - Greenlivingpedia
- Gore's tough message to leaders BBC NEWS
- PM fast-tracks renewable energy investment - ABC News
- Rudd under fire for keeping solar rebate cap - ABC News
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Preliminary analysis of the 2008 Victorian transport plan
Well, the transport plan is now out. I have read the Overview and attended the last part of the GAMUT forum held to discuss it yesterday.
The plan has been issued from a political bunker. Again, politics is really not delivering what people want or what Melbourne needs.
From the “Message from the Ministers”:
The message has been heard loud and clear: Victorians want more trains and better roads, more transport choice in the suburbs and regions, to feel safe when travelling, and to protect the environment by investing more in public transport, cycling, walking, better urban planning and greener vehicle technology. This is what The Victorian Transport Plan delivers.
But it does not deliver this.
The issues I see are:
Overall, 3/10. At least it is not 95% roads as previous plans have been.
More detailed analysis to follow.
If you live in Melbourne, contact your local MP and ask him to represent your wants and needs.
You can also contribute to 2008 Victorian transport plan, a wiki article on Greenliviningpedia.org
Links
The plan has been issued from a political bunker. Again, politics is really not delivering what people want or what Melbourne needs.
From the “Message from the Ministers”:
The message has been heard loud and clear: Victorians want more trains and better roads, more transport choice in the suburbs and regions, to feel safe when travelling, and to protect the environment by investing more in public transport, cycling, walking, better urban planning and greener vehicle technology. This is what The Victorian Transport Plan delivers.
But it does not deliver this.
The issues I see are:
- No meaningful public consultation process. The majority of public feedback from the Eddington report has been glossed over or ignored.
- $20b is going to roads and freeways - this is well over half of the$38b total budget
- No carbon accounting or analysis of carbon outputs per transport mode/journey
- Ongoing development of the freeway network - through very sensitive green belts (the Greensborough Templestowe connection) - which is pure RACV/Roads lobby agenda
- A secret process - even a lot of the Department of Transport were kept in the dark and only found out about its contents when it was released.
- No long term goals set - passenger journeys by mode, carbon emissions reduction, access to public transport, km of bike paths, km of railway. If you can’t measure it you can’t manage it
- No significant budget increase for bike paths and routes, and no specific commitments, despite the fact that more bikes were sold last year than cars in Australia. $100m over 3 years would have been barely adequate; they have committed to a paltry $100m over 10 years - this will just buy some paint for lane markings
- The real net cost to the economy of roads is not measured by Treasury, yet they continue to claim that “public transport costs more” - when the reverse is the case
- No acknowledgment that more roads and freeways equate to more cars. Remember CityLink was going to “solve all Melbourne’s transport needs for the future”? No the South Eastern freeway/carpark is being widened for the second time since ($2b)
- Unclear need for the Footscray to Domain rail tunnel. The rail tunnel is supposed to “provide more capacity for future train lines to connect in” yet this is not supported by evidence, and none of these train lines are actually on the drawing board (e.g. Rowville, Doncaster). Connex wants the tunnel, not the people of Melbourne.
- Safe seats suffer the impact. Road tunnels through Labor/Green marginal seats have been omitted, but tunnels through safe Labor seats (such as in the Footscray area) have not.
- Melbourne's eastern suburbs have missed out. No Rowville or Doncaster rail lines. Monash University misses out on a desperately needed railway service. Increased capacity on the Belgrave and Lilydale lines is delayed until after 2021.
Overall, 3/10. At least it is not 95% roads as previous plans have been.
More detailed analysis to follow.
If you live in Melbourne, contact your local MP and ask him to represent your wants and needs.
You can also contribute to 2008 Victorian transport plan, a wiki article on Greenliviningpedia.org
Links
- GAMUT: Australasian Centre for the Governance and Management of Urban Transport
- Missing in action: Climate change | theage.com.au
- Cycling funds disappoint | theage.com.au
- The Victorian Transport Plan: Download the plan
- Transport plan? The joke's on us | theage.com.au
- East misses out in transport plan: councils | theage.com.au
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Please ask John Lenders to stop logging Brown Mountain
There is some scrutiny this week in the Victorian parliament of VicForest's activities.
If you have time, please send a letter by close of business Tuesday 9/12 to John Lenders as the Minister responsible. Feel free to use/edit the one below.
More information and photos on the tragic logging of Brown Mountain is available if you need it here.
Protest at Parliament against Brown Mountain old growth destruction
Recently logged Brown Mountain old growth Shining Gum - November 2008
Brown Mountain old growth Shining Gum - possibly now destroyed.
Regards, Peter
===============
Minister John Lenders, MLC
Treasurer, Leader of the Government, Legislative Council
Level 4, 1 Treasury Place,
East Melbourne 3002
john.lenders@parliament.vic.gov.au
Dear Minister Lenders,
I am writing to express my strong disapproval of the logging of old growth forest in progress at Brown Mountain that VicForests has approved. This area of forest, designated as old growth forest by the Department of Sustainability and Environment, should be protected in accordance with Labor policy released in 2006.
The policy in question stated that:
"In addition to the Goolengook Block, a Labor Government will immediately protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting by including them in the National Parks and reserves system."
There are more than 50 trees over 300 years old in this area of forest, which is adjacent to Errinundra National Park. This forest also provide habitat for threatened species such as the Powerful Owl, the Spot Tailed Quoll, mainland Australia's largest marsupial carnivore, and the Long-footed Potoroo, Victoria's rarest marsupial. This forest provides water for the depleted Snowy River catchment.
This forest also stores over 1000 tonnes of carbon per hectare, much of which is released as carbon emissions when the forest is clear felled and burnt. Locals had also recently constructed East Gippsland's first old growth forest walk in this forest, which the Department of Sustainability and Environment confirmed during site visits. Much of this has now already been destroyed, which is jeopardising tourism in the region.
Your parliamentary website lists your interests as bushwalking, camping, cycling, swimming. All these activities would be enhanced if this Brown Mountain forest, and the rest of Victoria's remaining old growth forests were protected.
VicForest's reports indicate that over 80% of what is logged when these forests are destroyed ends up as low value woodchips. There is much greater long term economic gain for Victoria if this forest is protected, thereby realising its ecotourism potential and its role in carbon storage and water production.
Can you please instruct VicForests to immediately cease the logging of Brown Mountain and all other remaining old growth forest in Victoria?
Yours faithfully
Name
Address
Email address
Telephone number
If you have time, please send a letter by close of business Tuesday 9/12 to John Lenders as the Minister responsible. Feel free to use/edit the one below.
More information and photos on the tragic logging of Brown Mountain is available if you need it here.
Protest at Parliament against Brown Mountain old growth destruction
Recently logged Brown Mountain old growth Shining Gum - November 2008
Brown Mountain old growth Shining Gum - possibly now destroyed.Regards, Peter
===============
Minister John Lenders, MLC
Treasurer, Leader of the Government, Legislative Council
Level 4, 1 Treasury Place,
East Melbourne 3002
john.lenders@parliament.vic.gov.au
Dear Minister Lenders,
I am writing to express my strong disapproval of the logging of old growth forest in progress at Brown Mountain that VicForests has approved. This area of forest, designated as old growth forest by the Department of Sustainability and Environment, should be protected in accordance with Labor policy released in 2006.
The policy in question stated that:
"In addition to the Goolengook Block, a Labor Government will immediately protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting by including them in the National Parks and reserves system."
There are more than 50 trees over 300 years old in this area of forest, which is adjacent to Errinundra National Park. This forest also provide habitat for threatened species such as the Powerful Owl, the Spot Tailed Quoll, mainland Australia's largest marsupial carnivore, and the Long-footed Potoroo, Victoria's rarest marsupial. This forest provides water for the depleted Snowy River catchment.
This forest also stores over 1000 tonnes of carbon per hectare, much of which is released as carbon emissions when the forest is clear felled and burnt. Locals had also recently constructed East Gippsland's first old growth forest walk in this forest, which the Department of Sustainability and Environment confirmed during site visits. Much of this has now already been destroyed, which is jeopardising tourism in the region.
Your parliamentary website lists your interests as bushwalking, camping, cycling, swimming. All these activities would be enhanced if this Brown Mountain forest, and the rest of Victoria's remaining old growth forests were protected.
VicForest's reports indicate that over 80% of what is logged when these forests are destroyed ends up as low value woodchips. There is much greater long term economic gain for Victoria if this forest is protected, thereby realising its ecotourism potential and its role in carbon storage and water production.
Can you please instruct VicForests to immediately cease the logging of Brown Mountain and all other remaining old growth forest in Victoria?
Yours faithfully
Name
Address
Email address
Telephone number
Friday, December 05, 2008
Transport plans for Melbourne and sustainability
I am away for a bike race this weekend - the Tour of Bright.
I have just read about what is likely to be in the Brumby Government's transport plan due for release.
What a disappointment. It seems the government will avoid once again any signficant investment in public transport and keep building more unsustainable roads and freeways.
The bad
And of course, there will be no consideration or measurement of carbon emissions for transport options - which will be much higher for road and freeways.
In summary, the Victorian Goverment's transport planning is a bad as their water management strategy. Ill considered, focused on industry lobby groups, and basically ignoring sustainable transport options that will improve Melbourne's liveability. Thumbs down.
I have just read about what is likely to be in the Brumby Government's transport plan due for release.
What a disappointment. It seems the government will avoid once again any signficant investment in public transport and keep building more unsustainable roads and freeways.
The bad
- Eddington freeway - Port to CityLink (freight, road). It may be needed, but more trucks and cars rather than rail.
- Western Ring Road freeway connection investigation - to ruin the green belt in Greensborough, Diamond Creek and Warrandyte. More Los Angeles style "freeways to everywhere".
- Freeway bypass around Frankston - having just constructed the unneeded and poorly used Eastlink, we now need to "extend the freeway" so that the precitable bottleneck at Frankston is eased, to ensure profits for Eastlink.
- A very expensive $8b rail tunnel connecting Caulfield to Footscray, but this is deferred. The cynical might say it will never be built. I am not convinced it is needed, or should be a priority. Underground rail is 20 times more expensive than on the ground rail.
- South Morang rail extension. Long overdue; if it happens it will be the first significant rail line to be built since 1930.
- Tarneit Rail link to growing western suburbs.
- NO Clifton Hill - Footscray road tunnel. It is not needed, would have been hugely expensive, and of course just encouraged more car use.
- No proper inner city metro for Melbourne
- No rail for Rowville and Monash University (promised for years)
- No rail for Doncaster (promised for years)
- No airport rail link (still thousands of cars and taxis every day, and hundreds of buses)
- No rail (light or heavy) for Melbourne's recent boundary expansions just announced by the Victorian Government (West and North of Melbourne)
And of course, there will be no consideration or measurement of carbon emissions for transport options - which will be much higher for road and freeways.
In summary, the Victorian Goverment's transport planning is a bad as their water management strategy. Ill considered, focused on industry lobby groups, and basically ignoring sustainable transport options that will improve Melbourne's liveability. Thumbs down.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
My results for Cotham Ward, Boroondara Council election
I stood as an independent candidate for Cotham Ward in the Boroondara Council elections counted (by postal vote) and Saturday 29/11 and Sunday 30/11. Here is my campaign blog.
The results have been declared -
For more details see
Even though I got the highest primary vote (for which I am pleased) David Bloom (Liberal, works in David Davis' office) got elected by the preference flow from the other two.
It was actually quite close - if Bila got ahead of Bloom then I would have been elected. I think it is a very good sign that so many people in Cotham ward voted for a sustainable future!
I would like to thank those who helped with leaflets and scrutineering. I would also like to thank the many people in the ward who contacted me during the campaign about local issues, and for their encouragement.
Also, it was a good result for Des Benson to come second as the Greens candidate in Studley Ward.
I understand that the overall result for Council is that 4 out of 9 are Liberals (or sympathisers) so they don't quite have a majority - unless they elect a Liberal Mayor who will have a casting vote.
Also, apparently Brad Miles (Bellevue Ward), while not a Liberal, opposes the Darebin - Yarra bike link bridge, so the Council decision to support this is now likely to be reversed. Hopefully this won't happen.
The results have been declared -
Candidate | First preference votes |
|---|---|
| PERRYMAN, Benjie | 814 |
| BLOOM, David | 2935 |
| CAMPBELL, Peter | 3229 |
| BILA, Theo | 2071 |
Candidate | Votes after distribution |
|---|---|
| BLOOM, David | 5113 |
| CAMPBELL, Peter | 3936 |
For more details see
Even though I got the highest primary vote (for which I am pleased) David Bloom (Liberal, works in David Davis' office) got elected by the preference flow from the other two.
It was actually quite close - if Bila got ahead of Bloom then I would have been elected. I think it is a very good sign that so many people in Cotham ward voted for a sustainable future!
I would like to thank those who helped with leaflets and scrutineering. I would also like to thank the many people in the ward who contacted me during the campaign about local issues, and for their encouragement.
Also, it was a good result for Des Benson to come second as the Greens candidate in Studley Ward.
I understand that the overall result for Council is that 4 out of 9 are Liberals (or sympathisers) so they don't quite have a majority - unless they elect a Liberal Mayor who will have a casting vote.
Also, apparently Brad Miles (Bellevue Ward), while not a Liberal, opposes the Darebin - Yarra bike link bridge, so the Council decision to support this is now likely to be reversed. Hopefully this won't happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My sympathies go to the many families, relatives and friends, and everyone across Australia for this tragedy. The entire nation is suffering. We need to pull together as a community and nation to help recover and assist those who are grieving and have suffered great loss.
Opportunistic political comments by those pushing agendas are grossly insensitive to bushfire victims.
The only focus at present is still finding the deceased and helping the survivors and others deeply affected. I and many of my friends (some of whom are still fighting the fires and are on the ground in affected areas) have been deeply personally affected by these bushfires and the loss of life.