Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Canberra’s climate future

By Barcham - 17 June 2013 17

A revision to the Territory Plan as been included in the Parliamentary Agreement by the ACT Greens.

The motivation behind the revisions is to aid Canberra’s progressive climate change target of 40% by 2020.

“The ACT will need to respond to the challenge of climate change across the policy spectrum as we are predicted to experience hotter, drier summers and more extreme fire danger days,” said Mr Rattenbury.

“The ACT has a progressive climate change target of 40% by 2020 which is in line with what scientists tell us we need to do to prevent dangerous climate change. The revision to the Territory Plan is a great opportunity to ensure that the ACT is better prepared for the known challenges ahead of us.

“The impact for the ACT community will be across the board – more days above 35 degrees, a higher risk of people being affected by heat waves, less rainfall, and increased fire danger.

“Urban planning must also take into account the hotter, drier days. We know that keeping vegetation in our urban areas significantly reduces urban heat – it’s important we don’t concrete over our city if we want to keep the urban environment comfortable.

“Houses of the future will need to be built to withstand extreme heat so that people can stay cool and comfortable throughout hotter summers. There are smart ways of doing this so that we aren’t spending lots of money on energy to cool houses down.

“Our suburbs must be planned carefully to keep the environment amenable – we need to plant more trees and maintain our urban greenery to ensure that we can ameliorate the impact of hotter days and less rain.

“This will be especially challenging given that our water usage will need to be tight – the Commission’s report predicts an overall reduction in annual rainfall, with greater
reductions in winter and spring falls, and less water in our catchments.

“The challenges are obvious, and we need to be prepared on a range of fronts. Thinking about how we plan to build resilience in our city is a sensible response,” said Mr Rattenbury.

I know 40% is what has been recommended, but shouldn’t we aim for 50%?

Why do the bare minimum Canberra? Our Mother’s raised us better than that.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
17 Responses to
Canberra’s climate future
dungfungus 8:01 pm 18 Jun 13

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

I never listen to Alan Jones or any commercial radio – I only listen to the ABC.
I watch Andrew Bolt on Sundays immediately after ABC’s Insiders (to get some balance).
I have never heard of Fox Media (FoxTel?) or the Heartland Institute.
And Ian Plimer is a scientist according to the internet (not that I have ever seen him on TV or read anything he has written).
So, your psychoanalysis of me is a big fail. I suggest you limit your opinions to fire retardant plants.

Nah, you just firmed up my opinion.

Your ignorance is not my problem.

Postalgeek 7:28 pm 18 Jun 13

dungfungus said :

I never listen to Alan Jones or any commercial radio – I only listen to the ABC.
I watch Andrew Bolt on Sundays immediately after ABC’s Insiders (to get some balance).
I have never heard of Fox Media (FoxTel?) or the Heartland Institute.
And Ian Plimer is a scientist according to the internet (not that I have ever seen him on TV or read anything he has written).
So, your psychoanalysis of me is a big fail. I suggest you limit your opinions to fire retardant plants.

Nah, you just firmed up my opinion.

dungfungus 5:54 pm 18 Jun 13

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

“….it%u2019s important we don%u2019t concrete over our city if we want to keep the urban environment comfortable……” except when we are whacking up high-rise dogboxes and cramped dual occupancies, townhouses etc. in the name of urban consolidation. Looks like some planning and environmental slogans and thought bubbles might be colliding in the near future.

Obviously there is a strong demand for “high-rise dogboxes” as they all seem to sell off the plan. Damn climate skeptics and their concrete mindsets are buying them.
With the Commission of Climate Alarm saying we are going to be invaded by bushfires (again?), what is the point in planting more vegetation as this only becomes fodder for the fire.
One day, people are going to realise that if you live in the bush or you create an environment that emulates the bush then you are subject to the vagaries of the bush e.g., bushfires.
Last time I checked, concrete didn’t catch fire or support combustion.

http://www.apsvic.org.au/plant_fire_resistant.html

http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/publications/1709%20Brochure.pdf

http://ecobotanics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fire_retardant_plants.pdf

Or even

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/389937/Fire_retardant_plants_for_canberra.pdf

Don’t you have any of your own opinions?

Putting aside the question of why lists of fire-resistant plants amount to an ‘opinion’ in the context of this thread and why I should have an ‘opinion’ different to the list of recommended fire-resistant plants:

My opinion is that you mistakenly believe you are a free-thinking contrarian when in fact you parrot Jones/Bolt/Fox media and you allow yourself to be a little man mouthpiece for self-serving libertarian organisations like the Heartland Institute and other carbon-intensive commercial lobby groups with vested interest in undermining AGW theories and counter-carbon strategies formed under the auspices of climate science, such as coal magnate Gina Rhinehart who promotes and patronises Ian Plimer.

My opinion is that you confuse your opinions for fact and that you don’t think or research before you voice your opinion; you suggest that vegetation will be just fodder for fire when even the most cursive of searches provides links to demonstrate that with considered selection plants do not equal spontaneous combustion. We’re all guilty of that occasionally, but you seem to do it more regularly.

That is my opinion.

I never listen to Alan Jones or any commercial radio – I only listen to the ABC.
I watch Andrew Bolt on Sundays immediately after ABC’s Insiders (to get some balance).
I have never heard of Fox Media (FoxTel?) or the Heartland Institute.
And Ian Plimer is a scientist according to the internet (not that I have ever seen him on TV or read anything he has written).
So, your psychoanalysis of me is a big fail. I suggest you limit your opinions to fire retardant plants.

Postalgeek 4:37 pm 18 Jun 13

sigh. cursive=cursory

Postalgeek 3:37 pm 18 Jun 13

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

“….it%u2019s important we don%u2019t concrete over our city if we want to keep the urban environment comfortable……” except when we are whacking up high-rise dogboxes and cramped dual occupancies, townhouses etc. in the name of urban consolidation. Looks like some planning and environmental slogans and thought bubbles might be colliding in the near future.

Obviously there is a strong demand for “high-rise dogboxes” as they all seem to sell off the plan. Damn climate skeptics and their concrete mindsets are buying them.
With the Commission of Climate Alarm saying we are going to be invaded by bushfires (again?), what is the point in planting more vegetation as this only becomes fodder for the fire.
One day, people are going to realise that if you live in the bush or you create an environment that emulates the bush then you are subject to the vagaries of the bush e.g., bushfires.
Last time I checked, concrete didn’t catch fire or support combustion.

http://www.apsvic.org.au/plant_fire_resistant.html

http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/publications/1709%20Brochure.pdf

http://ecobotanics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fire_retardant_plants.pdf

Or even

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/389937/Fire_retardant_plants_for_canberra.pdf

Don’t you have any of your own opinions?

Putting aside the question of why lists of fire-resistant plants amount to an ‘opinion’ in the context of this thread and why I should have an ‘opinion’ different to the list of recommended fire-resistant plants:

My opinion is that you mistakenly believe you are a free-thinking contrarian when in fact you parrot Jones/Bolt/Fox media and you allow yourself to be a little man mouthpiece for self-serving libertarian organisations like the Heartland Institute and other carbon-intensive commercial lobby groups with vested interest in undermining AGW theories and counter-carbon strategies formed under the auspices of climate science, such as coal magnate Gina Rhinehart who promotes and patronises Ian Plimer.

My opinion is that you confuse your opinions for fact and that you don’t think or research before you voice your opinion; you suggest that vegetation will be just fodder for fire when even the most cursive of searches provides links to demonstrate that with considered selection plants do not equal spontaneous combustion. We’re all guilty of that occasionally, but you seem to do it more regularly.

That is my opinion.

dungfungus 12:52 pm 18 Jun 13

Postalgeek said :

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

“….it%u2019s important we don%u2019t concrete over our city if we want to keep the urban environment comfortable……” except when we are whacking up high-rise dogboxes and cramped dual occupancies, townhouses etc. in the name of urban consolidation. Looks like some planning and environmental slogans and thought bubbles might be colliding in the near future.

Obviously there is a strong demand for “high-rise dogboxes” as they all seem to sell off the plan. Damn climate skeptics and their concrete mindsets are buying them.
With the Commission of Climate Alarm saying we are going to be invaded by bushfires (again?), what is the point in planting more vegetation as this only becomes fodder for the fire.
One day, people are going to realise that if you live in the bush or you create an environment that emulates the bush then you are subject to the vagaries of the bush e.g., bushfires.
Last time I checked, concrete didn’t catch fire or support combustion.

http://www.apsvic.org.au/plant_fire_resistant.html

http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/publications/1709%20Brochure.pdf

http://ecobotanics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fire_retardant_plants.pdf

Or even

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/389937/Fire_retardant_plants_for_canberra.pdf

Don’t you have any of your own opinions?

dungfungus 11:59 am 18 Jun 13

Postalgeek said :

Hanging gardens. The Babylonians had their act together millennia ago.

And they didn’t have climate change alarmists either.

HiddenDragon 11:46 am 18 Jun 13

Postalgeek said :

Hanging gardens. The Babylonians had their act together millennia ago.

I believe there are some good modern examples of this – elsewhere in Australia and overseas. My concern is with tree protection and promotion policies which ignore (or at least seriously downplay) the problems that trees can create for solar access and bushfire risk etc.

Postalgeek 11:38 am 18 Jun 13

dungfungus said :

HiddenDragon said :

“….it%u2019s important we don%u2019t concrete over our city if we want to keep the urban environment comfortable……” except when we are whacking up high-rise dogboxes and cramped dual occupancies, townhouses etc. in the name of urban consolidation. Looks like some planning and environmental slogans and thought bubbles might be colliding in the near future.

Obviously there is a strong demand for “high-rise dogboxes” as they all seem to sell off the plan. Damn climate skeptics and their concrete mindsets are buying them.
With the Commission of Climate Alarm saying we are going to be invaded by bushfires (again?), what is the point in planting more vegetation as this only becomes fodder for the fire.
One day, people are going to realise that if you live in the bush or you create an environment that emulates the bush then you are subject to the vagaries of the bush e.g., bushfires.
Last time I checked, concrete didn’t catch fire or support combustion.

http://www.apsvic.org.au/plant_fire_resistant.html

http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/publications/1709%20Brochure.pdf

http://ecobotanics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fire_retardant_plants.pdf

Or even

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/389937/Fire_retardant_plants_for_canberra.pdf

Postalgeek 11:30 am 18 Jun 13

Hanging gardens. The Babylonians had their act together millennia ago.

dungfungus 8:58 am 18 Jun 13

HiddenDragon said :

“….it’s important we don’t concrete over our city if we want to keep the urban environment comfortable……” except when we are whacking up high-rise dogboxes and cramped dual occupancies, townhouses etc. in the name of urban consolidation. Looks like some planning and environmental slogans and thought bubbles might be colliding in the near future.

Obviously there is a strong demand for “high-rise dogboxes” as they all seem to sell off the plan. Damn climate skeptics and their concrete mindsets are buying them.
With the Commission of Climate Alarm saying we are going to be invaded by bushfires (again?), what is the point in planting more vegetation as this only becomes fodder for the fire.
One day, people are going to realise that if you live in the bush or you create an environment that emulates the bush then you are subject to the vagaries of the bush e.g., bushfires.
Last time I checked, concrete didn’t catch fire or support combustion.

gooterz 8:24 am 18 Jun 13

Global warming means higher temperatures and more co2. The plant yields will be higher and the money will shift from the first too the third world.
Canberra could start a banana business

miz 7:38 am 18 Jun 13

Finally the govt has been called on the foolish way development has been progressing over the last decade . . . you need to allow room for shade trees (in Canberra, this means appropriate deciduous exotics) on the northerly/westerly aspects in the house plans, and also allow room for street trees, otherwise they really are just ‘dog boxes’. It’s all about creating a microclimate, which makes a world of positive difference to heat, energy costs, water use, etc.
What annoys me is that this has been known for many years and they think they are reinventing the wheel after years of not listening. We all know how much cooler the inner suburbs are on a hot day, what with their established trees and gardens.

milkman 6:47 am 18 Jun 13

Isn’t infill what it’s all about?

HiddenDragon 10:48 pm 17 Jun 13

“….it’s important we don’t concrete over our city if we want to keep the urban environment comfortable……” except when we are whacking up high-rise dogboxes and cramped dual occupancies, townhouses etc. in the name of urban consolidation. Looks like some planning and environmental slogans and thought bubbles might be colliding in the near future.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site