Greens not thrilled by Transport for Canberra policy

By 7 October, 2011 11

The Transport for Canberra policy is being released this morning, but the Greens’ Amanda Bresnan is already disappointed:

“Like many in the community, we’ve waited years for the new Transport for Canberra policy. It is supposed to reveal how the ACT will cut transport emissions in line with our 40% greenhouse gas reduction target,” said Ms Bresnan.

“A few months before the official release, the Government has slipped its modal shift target into its Energy Policy, revealing that the Transport for Canberra plan will include a target of 30% of work trips by sustainable transport modes by 2026.

“I’m shocked to see this ‘new’ target is exactly the same as the ACT Government’s existing target which it established 7 years ago. It hasn’t changed a thing. It hasn’t updated the transport target in line with the 40% greenhouse gas reduction target.

“This target will only cut emissions in the transport sector by 14% on business-as-usual projections. That is not consistent at all with our overall 40% greenhouse gas reduction target”.

“We are supposed to be a leader, but this target lags behind other Australian cities that do not even have a 40% GHG reduction plan. Brisbane, for example, has a target of 41% of work trips made by sustainable transport by 2026.

“This ACT target is for ‘work trips’ only. The Government should have a modal share target for all trips. You can’t just focus on peak hour if you want a properly efficient transport system.

“The Government’s business-as-usual approach to transport will only bring congestion, costs and inconvenience. The Greens want the Government to really invest in sustainable transport.

RiotACT is doing its bit with almost all our work trips done on bikes and buses. But that’s due to the cost of parking in Civic, not because we’re particularly virtuous. Which might be a bit of a clue.

Please login to post your comments
11 Responses to Greens not thrilled by Transport for Canberra policy
#1
zippyzippy10:32 am, 07 Oct 11

“This target will only cut emissions in the transport sector by 14% on business-as-usual projections. That is not consistent at all with our overall 40% greenhouse gas reduction target”.

How can they get away with that? Why have a 40% target if they’re not going to stick to it?

#2
pajs10:49 am, 07 Oct 11

zippyzippy said :

“This target will only cut emissions in the transport sector by 14% on business-as-usual projections. That is not consistent at all with our overall 40% greenhouse gas reduction target”.

How can they get away with that? Why have a 40% target if they’re not going to stick to it?

As I understand it, the overall (total emissions) reduction target is 40%. That doesn’t mean cutting 40% in each area that contributes emissions (transport, stationary energy, waste etc). But it does increase the burden on those other areas is transport is not pulling its weight.

#3
Erg011:12 am, 07 Oct 11

They should at least make the effort to keep their fanciful, never-to-be-achieved targets consistent.

#4
zippyzippy11:12 am, 07 Oct 11

pajs said :

zippyzippy said :

“This target will only cut emissions in the transport sector by 14% on business-as-usual projections. That is not consistent at all with our overall 40% greenhouse gas reduction target”.

How can they get away with that? Why have a 40% target if they’re not going to stick to it?

As I understand it, the overall (total emissions) reduction target is 40%. That doesn’t mean cutting 40% in each area that contributes emissions (transport, stationary energy, waste etc). But it does increase the burden on those other areas is transport is not pulling its weight.

Yeah, they don’t have to decrease each sector by 40%, but this transport target will definitely increase the overall burden. The canberra times today said transport is 23% of all ACT emissions. And the transport target that Govt has set will reduce transport emissions by 14% on BUSINESS AS USUAL predictions for 2026. That’s crap – there will actually probably be an overall increase in transport emissions by 2026.

So how the heck are they going to meet their overall target of reducing overall emissions by 40% on 1990 levels by 2020?

Not looking good.

#5
Thumper11:26 am, 07 Oct 11

40%?

Yeah right. Better cull the population if they seriously want to get anywhere near that figure.

#6
Classified11:27 am, 07 Oct 11

Easily solved. Less burning off. Bushfires contribute something like a third of total Australian carbon emissions.

#7
zippyzippy12:01 pm, 07 Oct 11

Classified said :

Easily solved. Less burning off. Bushfires contribute something like a third of total Australian carbon emissions.

More like 1/10 of that figure. 3%.

#8
Classified12:24 pm, 07 Oct 11

zippyzippy said :

Classified said :

Easily solved. Less burning off. Bushfires contribute something like a third of total Australian carbon emissions.

More like 1/10 of that figure. 3%.

A bit of quick googling suggests that South Australia’s bushfires in a normal year represents 3% of Australia’s greenhouse emissions.

There are varying figures. Frankly, I suspect someone who knows more about this than us (me especially) will chime in with more reliable figures.

#9
Classified12:26 pm, 07 Oct 11

Classified said :

zippyzippy said :

Classified said :

Easily solved. Less burning off. Bushfires contribute something like a third of total Australian carbon emissions.

More like 1/10 of that figure. 3%.

A bit of quick googling suggests that South Australia’s bushfires in a normal year represents 3% of Australia’s greenhouse emissions.

There are varying figures. Frankly, I suspect someone who knows more about this than us (me especially) will chime in with more reliable figures.

Did a bit more looking, and still finding figures ranging from 3% to a third.

#10
shirty_bear1:37 pm, 07 Oct 11

Classified said :

Did a bit more looking, and still finding figures ranging from 3% to a third.

Kinda sums up the whole CO2/global warming malarkey.

#11
pajs2:13 pm, 07 Oct 11

Greenhouse emissions from bushfires is one of those ‘it depends’ issues. The year you choose can make a big difference to the relative significance of bushfires in our national emissions inventory. For example, with the big fires of early 2003, that year had a high percentage (just over a third) of national emissions being sourced from bushfires. A wet and cool year means a different share.

If what you are asking is the emissions story from fires resulting from human activities (such as prescribed burns of savannah), rather than total burning, you get different answers. And some of that carbon is looping through the short-term carbon cycle (such as with the CO2, not methane, aspects of wastes), so numbers can again differ depending on what you are asking.

Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.