EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Population policy: ‘Civil war’ talks over city growth

     

    What’s it like where you live?  Tell us using the form below.

    Mr Brown was speaking at a population summit – in the city’s west – which was also attended by Prime Minister Julia Gillard.  Population is shaping as one of the defining election campaign policies.

    When it was her turn to speak, she said it was time to rethink whether more and more people could be sent to western Sydney and southeast Queensland, also home to marginal seats crucial to Labor’s re-election chances, or whether those areas were full.

    Speaking on radio this morning, she has denied she is putting up the “house full” sign, but instead has said she just wants to make sure the nation gets the right people going to the right places.

    “I don’t want to look at Australia and leave undisturbed a situation where in some parts of the country we’ve got high youth unemployment -more than 10 per cent, 15 per cent, sometimes 20 per cent – and in other parts of the country we are crying out for skilled labour,” she said.

    The summit heard about gruelling commutes from suburban population centres into CBDs and a lack of infrastructure in the areas where most people actually live. 

    “The government is about to spend $40 billion on an internet network.  What are the benefits, aside from faster porn and pirate movies?” said the Australia Institute‘s Richard Denniss.  “They say it’s going to come in handy, but if you want to build some trains, that’s going to be (too expensive).

    “I will know we are ready for a big population when I see spare seats on the train, when hospitals are not stretched to capacity.”

    Ms Gillard told the audience it was time to “take a breath” on population policy, something she said soon after ousting Kevin Rudd to become prime minister. 

    Mr Rudd had said he was a “fan” of the idea of “Big Australia” in which forecasts put the national population at 35 million in the next couple of decades.  Ms Gillard has said we should not “hurtle towards” a target like that.

    “Surely it is time for governments to ask this question: Can we really ask western Sydney to keep absorbing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people without regard for the key issue of quality of life,” she has said.

    The same debate is going on in other growth areas, including southeast Queensland where the state government is planning three new centres to be developed between Brisbane and the Gold Coast.

    Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has also rejected a push to populate.  He has said he doubted the “Big Australia” push months ago and Ms Gillard has only caught up recently to improve her chances at the federal election.

    But his predecessor and current eastern Sydney MP, Malcolm Turnbull, told the summit Ms Gillard’s comments showed her “moving forward” slogan was rubbish.  He has said growth is inevitable and a good government should be able to manage it properly.

    Business groups want more skilled migration to fill skills shortages around the country in certain industries.  Woodside and National Australia Bank chairman Michael Chaney has warned that “paranoia” on asylum seekers is spoiling a sensible debate.

    “We need a growing population to fill jobs in our growing economy,” he said.  AGL Energy chairman Mark Johnson said: “If continued economic growth is a goal of ours, population growth should be part of that.”

    – original reporting by Vikki Campion

    98 comments on this story

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/population-policy-civil-war-talk-over-city-growth/story-e6frfllr-1225894885005#ixzz0uJUkVG7k

  • Gillard and Abbott should follow Brumby to feed-in tariff for baseload solar

    Gillard and Abbott should follow Brumby to feed-in tariff for baseload
    solar

    Hobart, Wednesday 21 July 2010

    The Greens today welcomed Victorian Premier John Brumby’s announcement
    of a gross feed-in tariff for large-scale solar plants and urged both
    Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to embrace this world-leading policy at a
    national level.

    Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne, has introduced
    a bill for a comprehensive feed-in tariff to pay a guaranteed fair price
    for all energy produced by all forms of renewable energy at all scales.*
    The bill was supported in principle by a Senate Committee but sent to
    COAG for consideration and never acted upon.

    “A properly designed feed-in tariff is recognised as the reason Germany,
    Spain and some US states have seen tremendous booms in renewable energy,
    creating jobs and investment, cleaning the air and reducing emissions,”
    Senator Milne said.

    “Premier Brumby is to be congratulated on his decision today. He is
    leaving Julia Gillard in his wake, although he still has a fair way to
    go to catch up with the Greens.

    “We need to set our sights as high as possible and establish a national
    feed-in tariff to support all forms of renewable energy.”

    Prime Minister Gillard is expected to announce individual grants
    programs for renewable energy during the campaign, including possibly
    the Solar Flagships projects. These grants are no substitute for a
    feed-in tariff.

    “One off, ad hoc grants do nothing to develop the industry. They will
    see Australia importing technologies we have driven offshore through
    lack of ongoing support.

    “If we want to create jobs and long-term investment, as well as drive
    the transformation to 100% renewable energy, we need a well-designed
    national feed-in tariff.

    “While I welcome Premier Brumby’s announcement, the expansion of
    state-based schemes can lead to perverse outcomes for investors,
    particularly in the context of the national renewable energy target.

    “The main obstacles to a national gross feed-in tariff are Penny Wong
    and Julia Gillard.

    “The Greens will continue to work hard in the Senate for a well-designed
    feed-in tariff to see renewable energy reach as high as it can and to
    stop the state by state inconsistency.”

    *NB: The Greens do not consider native forest furnaces to be a form of
    renewable energy.

    Tim Hollo
    Media Adviser
    Senator Christine Milne | Australian Greens Deputy Leader and Climate
    Change Spokesperson
    Suite SG-112 Parliament House, Canberra ACT | P: 02 6277 3588 | M: 0437
    587 562
    http://www.christinemilne.org.au/| www.GreensMPs.org.au
    <http://www.greensmps.org.au/>

  • Gillard first to pull population lever

     

    Can you imagine the outcry if John Howard had talked like this?

    Gillard is explicit about the turning point she envisages.

    “In 222 years of European settlement, Australia has never had a sustainable population strategy,” she said yesterday.

    “That is something that has to change — and it will change, if the government is returned on August 21.”

    This sounds like a decisive break from the past.

    But what does it mean?

    Ms Gillard is deliberately vague to maximise her freedom of action yet her signals are a pollster’s dream.

    To be fair, Ms Gillard has not committed the Coalition’s folly of wanting a population cap.

    So far, she has resisted the absurd notion of defining a population “carrying capacity”.

    She has, however, pre-judged the issue of sustainability.

    Her entire pitch is to achieve better services and better quality of life by taking “a breath” from population growth.

    She says the election should be a referendum on this issue.

    Ms Gillard does not say that the 36 million population assumed by the Treasury at 2050 is based upon a slower population growth anyway.

    Since its inception the immigration intake has been determined by economic need.

    Labor now seeks to change this principle to “sustainability”.

    It is bound to be popular but Prime Minister Gillard has a responsibility to spell out what her idea of “sustainability” actually means.

  • Gillard dodges migrant intake question

     

    In doing so she became the first prime minister in decades to question the notion that a growing population will drive economic growth and prosperity.

    Asked on Sydney radio station 2UE today whether this meant she wanted to pare back the nation’s immigration intake, Ms Gillard, a Welsh migrant, refused to be drawn.

     

    Related Coverage

    “I think that’s a question not just about numbers but where they are going,” she said.

    Ms Gillard said the issue was not as simple as simply putting up the house full sign in western Sydney.

    Instead, it was time for the nation to take pause and ensure communities had proper infrastructure and services and that growth happened where there were adequate services to cope with its impacts.

    “Let’s just get it all right,” she said.

    “Let’s have skilled migrants go where we need them.”

    She said councils in western Sydney did not want “Just to see a rush to a big Australia” but that councils in other parts of the nation which suffered labour shortages were “crying out” for more people.

    Ms Gillard also rejected concerns from business that her Fair Work Act, put in place to replace the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation, needed to be amended.

    Asked about recurring concerns that the regime prevents teenagers from obtaining after-school jobs because of prohibitions on shifts of less than three hours, the Prime Minister, who as Industrial Relations Minister introduced the laws, said they were balanced and fair.

    “I believe the Fair Work system is right,” she said.

    “We worked hard to get the balance right and I believe the Fair Work Act is right.”

    She also again warned that an Abbott government would reintroduce the worse aspects of Work Choices and erode basic entitlements.

    Referring to a series of conflicting statements from Tony Abbott about his workplace law plans, Ms Gillard said: “He gets all his words mangled because the truth is he believes in Work Choices,” she said.

    The Prime Minister will campaign in western Sydney again today, with a visit to a Blacktown car dealership, followed by a speech to a nurses’ conference in Randwick.

     

    6 comments on this story

  • Dungog Council votes against Mayor and Tillegra proposal

    “Councillor Wall is paying the price for defying community opposition to the dam.

    “Labor MP for Newcastle and enthusiastic Tillegra promoter Jodi McKay should pay careful attention to Mayor Wall’s fate.

    “The Keneally government has relied on Glenn Wall’s defiance of Council’s October 2009 resolution against Tillegra to perpetuate the myth that the local Dungog community was largely in support of the $477 million.

    “Their cover is now gone.

    “Tillegra is opposed throughout the Hunter, including in the community that was supposed to be welcoming the massive dam.

    “Councillor Wall and his small group of Tillegra boosters have failed in their attempt to convince the community that short-lived construction jobs would compensate for the loss of on-going employment in agriculture.

    “Council’s vote reflects the overwhelming concern that Tillegra will not only damage the local environment but would also undermine the region’s economic future.

    “Jodi McKay should take the very clear message coming from Dungog Council back to state Cabinet. They should think again about their support for the dam that very few people want,” Dr Kaye said.

    For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455

    —
    Another message from the Greens Media mailing list.

  • Funding cuts will finish Britain’s clean energy race

     

    As the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) swung its axe, the government’s own Committee on Climate Change was busy today stressing the need for continued public support for nascent energy technologies. Last week’s cuts saw DECC reducing the research expenditure on offshore wind by £3m, just as the CCC suggested that the industry needs £50m a year of public money.

    The committee says that the UK needs to increase the percentage of heating needs met from renewable sources from under 1% today to 12% by 2020. But the DECC cuts include a £5m reduction in the programme to increase the use of wood and agricultural wastes as sources of heat. As is so often the case, the government is ignoring the advice of its own experts.

    The UK could produce as much as half of its electricity needs from the waters around our islands and although we have several companies with world-leading expertise, we continue to invest less in marine energy than the annual subsidy to London’s two main opera houses. The CCC has pointed out that the wave and tidal power industries could be a major source of jobs and income for Britain, but the country needs to invest several hundred millions a year over the next decades for this success to be achieved.

    Marine energy was not one of the support programmes sliced last week but there is clearly no prospect of any increase in the minimal sums devoted to supporting the industry. The UK had a fighting chance of becoming the world’s major exporter of tidal and wave power equipment but, as with wind power two decades ago, we will lose out to countries with poorer natural resources but greater willingness to invest in hugely expensive R&D.

    Nevertheless, the taxpayers who fund public expenditure would be right to ask one simple question about Britain’s record. Exactly what did we get from the large sums put into R&D in the 1970s? Did the UK’s investments provide a good return then? The answer to this question is an unambiguous no.

    Much of the money was spent on nuclear electricity and apart from the single power station at Sizewell it is hard to identify much benefit. Planning delays, cost overruns and public worries over safety meant that the taxpayers’ investment was largely wasted. However this does not mean that public R&D should be cut today. Progress in the energy industries around the world has historically been driven by government money.

    The Stern review provided cogent reasons for why private R&D will never provide a large share of the many billions needed around the world to shift energy use away from fossil fuels. So although we can be absolutely sure that much public R&D in this country will be misspent, we simply have no alternative but to push ahead with wind, wave, electric cars and carbon capture research.

    Without substantial increases in public investment, the £10-20bn a year that has to be spent on energy infrastructure in the next few decades will largely go into fossil fuel technologies, increasing the climate change problem and reducing Britain’s energy security.