27 August 2010

Canberra to be emitting 1/5th of 1990 level greenhouse gases by 2050?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
40

[First filed: Aug 26, 2010 @ 10:09]

Pretend you had never heard of “NoWaste 2010“, imagine for a moment that “Vision Zero” remained just a twinkle in Jon Stanhope’s eye.

Even then you’d still split your sides laughing at Simon Corbell’s plan for carbon neutrality by 2060.

No seriously. Really, you kids up the back stop sniggering.

A government incapable of organising hard rubbish or green waste collection is going to end greenhouse emissions armed only with:

    — regular reporting to the Legislative Assembly on the ACT’s greenhouse gas emissions trends;
    — establishing a Climate Change Council, which will provide independent advice on climate change issues as they effect business and the wider community;
    — encouraging private entities to take action through voluntary sector agreements with Government.

Now before you think Simon’s been into the reindeer wee (comment #3) observe the rat cunning in the statement.

The Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Bill 2010 formally set out the Government commitment to carbon neutrality by 2060 and peaking in per capita emissions by 2013.

2013 you say?

So we hit the nominal peak emissions (ie no problem if there have been no results) one year after the 2012 ACT election and then have 3 years to slink away from miserable failure and reframe targets as aspirations before 2016 (at which point hopefully it’s someone else’s problem?).

It’s a hell of a way to run a railroad.

UPDATE: Catallaxy has a blunt assessment of this piece of policy:

Here are the implications of this target:

— it will not be achieved – unless there is a nuclear power station providing energy to the ACT; or if it is achieved
— there will be a dramatic de-industrialisation or depopulation in the ACT.

Join the conversation

40
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Deref said :

Noezis said :

Homes in these regions should be built to almost a European standard with thick walls (30 to 45cm thickness just in the bricks), insulation, double to triple glazed windows and positioning homes facing a north aspect.

The current building standards would not be accepted anywhere else in the western world.

Hear, hear.

Seen the price of homes in Europe lately…?

Postalgeek said :

Raaf, sounds like you’re gonna get yourself a 2010 V8 Hummer, hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and make brown baby seal eyes for head lights (yeah)!
And yer gonna drive in that baby at 115 miles per hour, gettin’ 1 mile per gallon, sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds in the old fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers.
And when yer done sucking down those greeseball burgers yer gonna wipe yer mouth with the Australian flag.
And then yer gonna toss the styrofoam containers right out the side and there aint a goddamn thing any greenie can do about it
You know why, because earth’s got the volcano, thats why.
Two words, plate fucking tectonics, OK?

loved this!

Noezis said :

Homes in these regions should be built to almost a European standard with thick walls (30 to 45cm thickness just in the bricks), insulation, double to triple glazed windows and positioning homes facing a north aspect.

The current building standards would not be accepted anywhere else in the western world.

Hear, hear.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but how are we all going with this? 2020 is not so far away!

http://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/201122/MIN_131_0810_GHG_Targets_FINAL.pdf

Oscillate Wildly12:44 pm 29 Aug 10

People aren’t going to change how they live – the answer is population control.

big up to postal geek! 🙂

and to housebound and others, 40% reduction means for ‘all of the act in toto, so some people will take on more burden, some less, and the nett result is hoped to be 40%; you needn’t measure your individual percentage savings and stop when you reach ’40’ – nor beat yourself up if you don’t get there…

justin heywood11:15 am 29 Aug 10

Good post there michcon.

It must be great living in Downer. If you live in the outer suburbs, then cycling to work is hard for a 50km round trip (or more), and not all of it flat like the inner areas. That’s a bit too far to walk. The bus doesn’t even go to where my partner works, so it means cycle or drive. And we’re getting on a bit now …

In fact, most of these claims about how easy it is all come from those living in the inner areas, where the buses actually turn up, where everything (schools, jobs and shops) is close, and where the land is flat so cycling is easier. Those older (pre-1970s) houses seem to be a bit better designed too. Like you, we’ve done the household improvement thing, and energy use didn’t go down by 64%. Nothing like it.

Are you willing to pay for more services in the outer areas so people don’t need to rely on cars as much? The required structural adjustments are more than just tweaking. As others have said on this thread, the issue is more about the inherently poor design of our urban landscape. While people living in inner city areas can sneer at the poor westies/southies who are stuck with their crap 3-bedroom brick veneers and reliance on cars, it is a real issue.

And the target is not just for household use for the 30% or so (a wild guess) of Canberrans who live conveniently located in the inner city areas. And it is against 1990 use, not 2010 use (just as well for you – could you cut by another 60%?). So think how you lived in 1990, and how many fewer people there were, and look at your cuts against that.

Housebound,

Thanks for these figures on our carbon habits in the ACT (re-stated below).

– electricity (63%) – residential (26%) and non-residential (37%)
– gas (8%)
– transport (23%) – petrol (19%), other (4%)

Interestingly, I’m very optimistic about how we can go about achieving carbon neutrality, and I will address each one separately below…

Electricity

By implementing some very simple measures around our house I’ve cut our year to year electricity consumption by 64%.

– Changing light globes to CFLs (total payback time of 8 months, and they last longer)
– Solar Hot water system (payback of 5 years, assuming electricity prices stay the same – yeah right)
– Turning off the stereo at the wall when it’s not playing music (saves 175kWh & $27 every year) and purchasing a power board for the computer that automatically cuts stand-by power to all the peripherals when I shutdown (saves 260kWh & $40)

Given that the overall payback period for these measures in total is less than 5 years, once these are paid off I could easily afford the Greenpower surcharge and be electricity carbon-natural by 2015, and it won’t have cost me any extra, or impact on my standard of living.

Gas

I had new heavy curtains put up during autumn (to replace tired ones that came with the house) and with that measure alone our gas bill usage is 12% less, and our house is warmer.

Before next winter I’ll be addressing other places we lose heat (exhaust fans, drafts, etc) and I look forward to realising some additional savings next year.

Currently it would only cost about $11 per year (or $3 each quarterly bill) to offset my gas consumption with a carbon offset provider – I can afford that, as I’m still way in front on my electricity savings.

On matters of transport…

I’m blessed in that living in Downer, I’m not too far away from work (Barton), so a few weeks ago I decided to ride my bike in. Would you believe, it took less than 25mins, which is about the same amount of time it takes to drive in during the peak traffic period.

On the basis that:

1. It wasn’t too hard
2. It didn’t take any longer
3. I got some fitness and fresh air

I’ve decided I’ll do it more often, as weather permits, especially during the warmer months.

I know this doesn’t suit everyone’s situation, I get that, but I’d encourage everyone to examine your own options (think car-pooling, buses, walking, bike/park and ride) and just give it a go!

To offset 20,000kms of carbon emissions from driving our (albeit small) car would cost about $40. If I rode to work on my pushbike only 10 days in a whole year, the savings on petrol alone would pay for the offset. If I worked in Civic and had to pay for parking, make that 3 days on the pushbike per year.

An excellent point raised by Troll-sniffer – it’s nothing short of outrageous that we financially incent people to excessively drive their leased cars. Let’s have a look at some of the basics here.

I used carbon offsets to achieve a carbon neutral territory in above example. I don’t believe that offsets are the solution to the problem, but I do believe it can have a part to play. Consuming less and implementing intelligent responses/alternatives to energy use should be priority one.

Of course, my example above doesn’t consider some of the other large carbon contributors such as production of food, and the consumption of consumer goods, and I couldn’t determine if the ACT Government would measure those against the zero carbon target anyway. But on an energy and transportation level, it is certainly achievable.

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

I will say right now that I WILL NOT change my lifestyle, I WILL NOT accept a lower standard of living, I WILL NOT pay one more cent for electricity and I WILL NOT do one solitary thing to be “environmentally friendly” just to please a bunch of selfish, utopian, moronic greenies. They can go to buggery and take their weird ideas with them.

I’m sorry, but I can’t help but feel you’re just misinformed here. None of the changes I’ve effected have forced me accept a lower standard of living. On a 5 year outlook it won’t have cost me anything extra, and beyond that I’ll actually be saving money. Oh, and my house is actually warmer.

…and I couldn’t help but just laugh at Captain RAAF! Keep it coming I’m most amused!

housebound said :

Hmmm, a more simple life emitting only 40% of 1990 levels, but with only tweaks. Here’s a few ideas for your simpler life:
1. ban airconditioning – the increase in aircon is a big reason for increases in residential and commerical energy use
2. put a cap on car travel (per household) of about 10k a year (about half the average Canberran travel)
3. build an airport just over the border and shift our pollution to NSW
4. go back to neighbourhood planning – local schools, local shops, local jobs, local food production (all aimed to help achieve #2)
5. use trains for all freight, and ban big freight trucks
6. limit appliance ownership to 1 TV, 1 computer per household; ban heating unless it’s snowing
7. mandatory solar panel/wind power to all households.

Any more tweaking ideas?

Other than points 3 and 7, welcome to Australian life before the mid 80’s.

housebound said :

Any more tweaking ideas?

Tell the bogans that releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide is the best way to save the planet.

Hmmm, a more simple life emitting only 40% of 1990 levels, but with only tweaks. Here’s a few ideas for your simpler life:
1. ban airconditioning – the increase in aircon is a big reason for increases in residential and commerical energy use
2. put a cap on car travel (per household) of about 10k a year (about half the average Canberran travel)
3. build an airport just over the border and shift our pollution to NSW
4. go back to neighbourhood planning – local schools, local shops, local jobs, local food production (all aimed to help achieve #2)
5. use trains for all freight, and ban big freight trucks
6. limit appliance ownership to 1 TV, 1 computer per household; ban heating unless it’s snowing
7. mandatory solar panel/wind power to all households.

Any more tweaking ideas?

Raaf, sounds like you’re gonna get yourself a 2010 V8 Hummer, hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and make brown baby seal eyes for head lights (yeah)!
And yer gonna drive in that baby at 115 miles per hour, gettin’ 1 mile per gallon, sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds in the old fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers.
And when yer done sucking down those greeseball burgers yer gonna wipe yer mouth with the Australian flag.
And then yer gonna toss the styrofoam containers right out the side and there aint a goddamn thing any greenie can do about it
You know why, because earth’s got the volcano, thats why.
Two words, plate fucking tectonics, OK?

i’m sure your grandchildren will sit around parched in their tents out in the deserts [once food bowls], cowering from incessant windstorms

You are kidding aren’t you?

only partly – read james lovelock, for one, on the likely ramifications of unchecked cc and the scenarios are pretty depressing, if not downright petrifying; so alright, maybe great grand kids…

Rather than crazy targets, it would be good to see lots of small tweaks to the law that over time lead to lower resource consumption. Realistically, major changes like this occur over many years, and we should bear this in mind. Starting a culture change of living more simply, and learning to enjoy the basics more, would be a great start. Right now the lifestyle expectations of many people are wildly unrealistic.

justin heywood2:40 pm 28 Aug 10

Even the most hardened climate-change sceptic would surely accept that we can’t keep consuming the way we do currently. Do you think the environment could cope with the 2 billion Chinese who hope to emulate our lifestyle?

Compared to the rest of the world, we’re rich, stable and technologically smart. If anyone can find smarter ways to live comfortably within our environmental means, it should be us.

When the sh!t hits the fan, as one day it inevitably will, it won’t be much comfort to say to ourselves that at least we weren’t the very worst.

I’d like to know how they will deal with the massive carbon footprint that is the Canberra Glassworks … handful of moderately good, handblown bits and pieces produced from insane level of gas consumption. Is the Canberra community going to be happy to “carbon subsidise” this folly once we’re asked to tighten our energy belts?

p1 said:

“But I wish people would stop making the above statement. If we were talking about road tolls, would you say “Canberra makes up like 1% on the population, no point making us wear seatbelts….”?

That would be a valid statement if the only way to save lives was for everyone to wear seatbelts. This is not the case: the benefit of wearing a seatbelt goes directly to the wearer (and their family/friends).

In contrast, if any individual cuts their greenhouse emissions to zero (physiologically impossible, but that’s another point entirely), then it benefits no one directly. In fact, it could be a disbenefit to the individual (eg through being very cold in winter). It is only through collective action that any benefits accrue.

So if 1% of the population wears seat belts, that 1% gets a direct benefit. If 1% of the population cuts greenhouse emissions, then the benefit is miniscule.

It’s a variation of a classic tragey of the commons, and it is the reason people have been lobbying for effective collective action on greenhouse emmissions. It has worked : when governments banded together to ban some ozone depleting substances.

This time, with greenhouse gas emissions, a ridiculous ACT target set for less than 1% of the population is unlikely to see real change in behaviour, because the costs to individuals are high, the benefits very low, and all without making any real total difference.

“I WILL NOT pay one more cent for electricity”

You won’t have to when they cut it off

p1 said :

The difference being that you will either be spending the money now – money which will go to the glass and construction industry. Or spending it later, and the money going to the energy industry.

That’s the problem – most people cannot afford the additional up front expense.
If there was a magic car that never needed repairs and cost nothing to run, ever, everyone would run out and buy one. What if it cost $500k?

Affordability is already low, and the government relies too heavily on high land prices. Higher land prices for ever smaller blocks achieves nothing for energy efficiency, and leaves people with less to spend on ‘comfort’

I would say that the government needs to continue to increase the minimum standards, while reducing the land price to counter the additional cost burden. A rebate for double-glazing might be a good start but you would certainly need to go a lot further than that to achieve anything resembling the ‘Passivhaus standard’ mentioned elsewhere.

Noezis said :

Pffft, 6 star energy rating is abysmal.

The minimum 6-star energy rating is at least enforcing* a minimum standard. Better than nothing, though it could be better. (* may not actually be enforced..)

Captain RAAF said :

What’s next, Sheeple, Soylent Green?

Carbon neutrality = A very boring existance. Sure you may have saved the earth from dying one minute earlier over the span of a few hundred thousand years because lets face it, all that has to happen to set back all your carbon reduction schemes is for some volcano anywhere in the world to sneeze and you’re back to square one. Why bother? Is the pain worth the gain or do you just think that doing something, anything, is better than nothing at all? Well guess what, you could spend a lifetime being ‘green’ and you won’t make any difference to the planet, you could get all your friends to do the same and the end result, the planet would be no different. We are nothing in the life of the great green and blue orb that we ride on, when it wants us gone, it will just wipe us out and start again, it does’nt care how many plastic bottles you recycle or trees you plant, when the time comes nothing you do will make a lick of difference.

So, while you are all planning what color your Prius is going to be and whether or not you should wear the brown hemp pants or the green ones, know that I and people like me that vastly outnumber you, will be living a fun life, driving rainforest destroying V8’s, dragging the Victa out on the weekend to do the lawns, downing a beer, going to the footy in big 4WD’s, cranking up the heater in winter and maybe burning a few trees under the BBQ, but it will be a hell of a life and we won’t have it any other way!

just volcanoes? you forgot the sunspots…

i’m sure your grandchildren will sit around parched in their tents out in the deserts [once food bowls], cowering from incessant windstorms, praising your integrity; …or whatever word for it they then choose. s’people like you give humanity a bad name.

housebound said :

And all this for a city that makes up something like 1% of Australia’s population. JB is right – the impact of this on global emissions will be insignificant.

I totally agree with your other points, and think that people proposing (or worse committing to) totally unrealistic targets is counter productive.

But I wish people would stop making the above statement. If we were talking about road tolls, would you say “Canberra makes up like 1% on the population, no point making us wear seatbelts….”?

verbalkint said :

troll-sniffer, you are aware that all new houses and units need at least a 6 star energy rating, right?

Pffft, 6 star energy rating is abysmal. It’s the Building Code of Australia that needs to be revised in particular in Canberra, Victoria, Tasmania and the cooler areas of NSW.

Homes in these regions should be built to almost a European standard with thick walls (30 to 45cm thickness just in the bricks), insulation, double to triple glazed windows and positioning homes facing a north aspect.

The current building standards would not be accepted anywhere else in the western world.

Realistically, let’s just think about how we will get down to 40% of 1990 emissions by 2020.

A few points:
1. the ACT’s population in 1990 was just under 300,000 – we’re now over 350,000
2. our greenhouse gas emissions are dominated by (from the 2008 ACT GGI):
– electricity (63%) – residential (26%) and non-residential (37%)
– gas (8%)
– transport (23%) – petrol (19%), other (4%).

So to achieve a cut of 60%, a lot of us will have to die, leave town, get very cold in winter, or stop driving everywhere and live in the few caves that the ACT has. This is also in a context of the ACT government taking a regional approach to services provision – forcing people to drive everywhere for work and school.

In other words, the changes needed by 2020 will be very difficult to achieve just in practical terms. And that’s just talking per capita emissions (so not even allowing for population increase).

The biggest impact of this will be to give the government an excuse to massievly increase our electricity bill. They should thank the Greens, none of whom live in the outer suburbs, for that nice little earner – but they did flag this possibility just after the 2008 election.

And all this for a city that makes up something like 1% of Australia’s population. JB is right – the impact of this on global emissions will be insignificant.

hax said :

arescarti42 said :

troll-sniffer said :

That buildings (particularly houses) in the ACT’s temperate climate even need active heating/cooling systems is a testament to their poor construction. The German Passivhaus standard of thermally efficient construction allows houses in frigid northern Europe to mostly do away with heating, so there should be no need to have it at all in Canberra.

There would be a significant additional cost to achieve these standards.

Well yes. If (as an example) we were to make double glazing a requirement of any new dwelling built from today. It would mean;

roughly twice as much glass needs to be manufactured per house,
cost of window frames etc to hold it all in would increase,
cost of transport would increase, end result being an increase in the cost of the dwellings production (although since every new house being built would have them , the cost would be a lot less then the current cost of such a upgrade).

This increased cost per dwelling could then be considered against the benefit for the life of the dwelling. So for the next 50+ years the house will be better insulated against heat and cold, (lower heating and cooling bills) and better insulated against sound (might be nice for an inner city apartment on a McMansion on a tiny block).

So, having looked at this (just one option with positive environmental impact) we see that economically it is probably neutral, if not a benefit – so long as you are thinking very long term. The difference being that you will either be spending the money now – money which will go to the glass and construction industry. Or spending it later, and the money going to the energy industry. On one hand you will be getting house worth more, on the other hand you will be paying the same for the pleasure of using a heater more.[/rant]

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

I will say right now that I WILL NOT change my lifestyle, I WILL NOT accept a lower standard of living, I WILL NOT pay one more cent for electricity and I WILL NOT do one solitary thing to be “environmentally friendly” just to please a bunch of selfish, utopian, moronic greenies. They can go to buggery and take their weird ideas with them.

Are you being satirical? If so, well done. If not, you made me laugh so much my spaghettie came out my nose. Brilliant.

Heavens knows it would be just as effective to sacrifice a few virgins – I am sure there are a few green, tree huggers who fall into that category. Just slice and dice them on the top of Mt Ainslie and the Climate Change hysteria will be magically solved. Beats sacrificing an economy leaving the poor and elderly too darned scared to turn on their heaters. Cold kills more than heat. Half wits.

arescarti42 said :

troll-sniffer said :

That buildings (particularly houses) in the ACT’s temperate climate even need active heating/cooling systems is a testament to their poor construction. The German Passivhaus standard of thermally efficient construction allows houses in frigid northern Europe to mostly do away with heating, so there should be no need to have it at all in Canberra.

There would be a significant additional cost to achieve these standards.

Captain RAAF6:43 pm 26 Aug 10

What’s next, Sheeple, Soylent Green?

Carbon neutrality = A very boring existance. Sure you may have saved the earth from dying one minute earlier over the span of a few hundred thousand years because lets face it, all that has to happen to set back all your carbon reduction schemes is for some volcano anywhere in the world to sneeze and you’re back to square one. Why bother? Is the pain worth the gain or do you just think that doing something, anything, is better than nothing at all? Well guess what, you could spend a lifetime being ‘green’ and you won’t make any difference to the planet, you could get all your friends to do the same and the end result, the planet would be no different. We are nothing in the life of the great green and blue orb that we ride on, when it wants us gone, it will just wipe us out and start again, it does’nt care how many plastic bottles you recycle or trees you plant, when the time comes nothing you do will make a lick of difference.

So, while you are all planning what color your Prius is going to be and whether or not you should wear the brown hemp pants or the green ones, know that I and people like me that vastly outnumber you, will be living a fun life, driving rainforest destroying V8’s, dragging the Victa out on the weekend to do the lawns, downing a beer, going to the footy in big 4WD’s, cranking up the heater in winter and maybe burning a few trees under the BBQ, but it will be a hell of a life and we won’t have it any other way!

So, will our MLAs stop flying everywhere on ‘business trips’, or is the solution going to be “tax the shit out of citizens and let industry do its thing” like we do with water?

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster4:55 pm 26 Aug 10

MDDRLD said :

We can bury our head in the sand, or we can try to do something. Yes our per unit electricity cost will need to increase but there are so many possibilities for decreasing how much we use, it’s criminal that we haven’t bothered much before. The Government is telling us all, now, that this will have to change. It might be time to stop your whinging and think about how you could turn your obvious spare time into something useful.

I will say right now that I WILL NOT change my lifestyle, I WILL NOT accept a lower standard of living, I WILL NOT pay one more cent for electricity and I WILL NOT do one solitary thing to be “environmentally friendly” just to please a bunch of selfish, utopian, moronic greenies. They can go to buggery and take their weird ideas with them.

georgesgenitals4:22 pm 26 Aug 10

MDDRLD said :

We can bury our head in the sand, or we can try to do something. Yes our per unit electricity cost will need to increase but there are so many possibilities for decreasing how much we use, it’s criminal that we haven’t bothered much before. The Government is telling us all, now, that this will have to change. It might be time to stop your whinging and think about how you could turn your obvious spare time into something useful.

I look forward to how you propose we drastically cut emissions without destroying the economy so much that we can still, you know, eat.

Until now – so this should be a cause for celebration!

troll-sniffer said :

There is no way in a believable universe that Canberra or any other part of Australia is going to come within a laryngitis-affected bull’s roar of even reducing our current greenhouse gas emissions in the forseeable future.

A prime example? ACT planning and building laws. By now house and unit designs should mandate carbon-free designs, but what do we have? The same perpetually stupid designs that make up for their deficiencies by slapping on air conditioners and gas or other heating units. The same idiotic series of new suburban developments, exactly the same as the last three or four generations that contributed so much to our current emissions. Pandering to the reactionary types and heritage lobbies who stymie any serious attempts to consolidate development into more environmentally friendly areas.

That’s the sad reality. The ACT has extremely limited industry, I’d say the majority of GHG emissions in this city would be coming from transportation and buildings, which would make it comparatively easy to reduce emissions compared to other states.

That buildings (particularly houses) in the ACT’s temperate climate even need active heating/cooling systems is a testament to their poor construction. The German Passivhaus standard of thermally efficient construction allows houses in frigid northern Europe to mostly do away with heating, so there should be no need to have it at all in Canberra.

As a nation, we lack the public and political will to do anything about it unfortunately.

We can bury our head in the sand, or we can try to do something. Yes our per unit electricity cost will need to increase but there are so many possibilities for decreasing how much we use, it’s criminal that we haven’t bothered much before. The Government is telling us all, now, that this will have to change. It might be time to stop your whinging and think about how you could turn your obvious spare time into something useful.

verbalkint said :

troll-sniffer, you are aware that all new houses and units need at least a 6 star energy rating, right?

The star rating system is badly flawed and has only the faintest relationship to a measure of how much energy a house may consume.

troll-sniffer, you are aware that all new houses and units need at least a 6 star energy rating, right?

troll-sniffer10:42 am 26 Aug 10

There is no way in a believable universe that Canberra or any other part of Australia is going to come within a laryngitis-affected bull’s roar of even reducing our current greenhouse gas emissions in the forseeable future. Of course the average Aussie is concerned about greenhouse gas emissions; but only other people’s. The economy is not set up to make any substantial changes in our lifetimes unless war pestilence or famine takes over. There’s no real will in the vast majority of the population. Those who supposedly have the will are not encouraged to participate in any meaningful actions.

A prime example? ACT planning and building laws. By now house and unit designs should mandate carbon-free designs, but what do we have? The same perpetually stupid designs that make up for their deficiencies by slapping on air conditioners and gas or other heating units. The same idiotic series of new suburban developments, exactly the same as the last three or four generations that contributed so much to our current emissions. Pandering to the reactionary types and heritage lobbies who stymie any serious attempts to consolidate development into more environmentally friendly areas.

Even simple issues like the moronic policies that demand leased vehicles run a minimum of 27,000km a year. A continuing lower rate of taxes on large 4WD vehicles.

Every single person I know who professes to avidly supporting a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions drives everywhere, does not reduce their balmy winter indoor temps, buys all sorts of exotic foods from far distant places, has at least one full shower per day, and other than when sitting around the dinner table or drinks discussing the need to reduce our emissions does not seriously think about their lifestyle choices and how they actively contribute to the problem.

Waiting For Godot10:22 am 26 Aug 10

Look forward to whopping electricity bills just to give a bunch of loony greenies the warm and fuzzies.

I think you over-rate the impact this will have!

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.