Molonglo Valley Plan finalised!

creative_canberran said :

You realise those are pine plantations and are cut down regardless. One would presume these new suburbs will have homes with trees and shrubs that can hold carbon in the longer term.

Wrong. Under carbon accounting, if a forest or plantation is cut down for timber, but then allowed to grow back again, there is no change to the level of sequestration. In fact, young forests absorb more CO2 than mature ones so the level of sequestration is actually higher after they’re logged (perverse I know). It’s only when there’s land use change involved and forest is converted to grazing or urban land use that forest removal is registered as emitting CO2.

At Gungahlin-level housing densities (actually Molonglo will be even more high density than Gungahlin according to the planners, with more apartments etc), where 2/3 of land is houses or bitumen, there’s simply no way in hell there’d be space for the amount of trees required to match what’s being removed. Anyway, to be counted as sequestration under Kyoto and carbon trading rules you need forests, individual suburban trees are too hard too account for.

Of course all this is no reason not to develop Molonglo, though retaining a 1km2 patch of Deeks Forest would have been nice and a no brainer – I was merely having a go at ACT govt policy inconsistencies and doublespeak. Don’t pretend a development is ‘sustainable’ when it’s anything but

yellowsnow said :

For starters just removing the pine forests in the area, in terms of CO2 emissions, is equivalent to putting thousands of extra cars on our roads (Pinus radiata sequesters around 12t CO2 per year per hectare, average car emits 5t per year) — and that’s even before the builders move in. Then once you add thousands of airconditioned McMansions, each with two cars … there goes the ACT’s always unrealistic emissions target

You realise those are pine plantations and are cut down regardless. One would presume these new suburbs will have homes with trees and shrubs that can hold carbon in the longer term.

Sustainable suburbs? You’ve got to be kidding

About as sustainable – and affordable as – as Lexus hybrid SUV. Talk about greenwash

For starters just removing the pine forests in the area, in terms of CO2 emissions, is equivalent to putting thousands of extra cars on our roads (Pinus radiata sequesters around 12t CO2 per year per hectare, average car emits 5t per year) — and that’s even before the builders move in. Then once you add thousands of airconditioned McMansions, each with two cars … there goes the ACT’s always unrealistic emissions target

Funny that farmers aren’t allowed to clear even a tiny bit of pre-1990 vegetation on their property under land clearing laws and Kyoto emissions accounting principles, but the ACT govt and its developer mates are able to raze hundreds of hectares of forest/bushland with little more than an eyebrow raised. I guess those that make the laws don’t have to obey them

And thus ends my anti-govt rant of the day … thank you riot act for being my outlet valve