Author: Neville

Perth sea level rise ‘disturbing’

| December 5, 2012

SEA levels on the Perth coastline are rising at three times the global average, the latest State of Australian Cities report shows.

In a statistic that federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese described as “disturbing” and “extraordinary”, readings since 1993 have indicated sea levels are rising by between 9mm and 10mm per year.

The global average is around three millimetres per year.

With temperatures rising and rainfall falling, environmental changes are having little effect on the numbers of people moving to Perth, with the city population growing by 2.6 per cent since 2001 – making it the fastest growing capital in the country.

That expanding population was having little impact on transport habits, with almost 80 per cent of people still travelling to work by car and only 12 per cent by public transport.

Perth also has the lowest proportion of people walking to work of Australia’s capitals, with only 2.6 per cent of people leaving their car or bike at home.

In 2011, Perth also experienced 50 days over 35C, which was the peak of a three-year spike in temperatures.

Perth mayor Lisa Scaffidi said the report highlighted major issues the city would deal with in the next decade.

“The worsening traffic congestion we are experiencing should act as a wake-up call to us all,” Ms Scaffidi said.

“And of particular concern in the State of Australian Cities report is the observation that Perth has experienced a reduction in average annual rainfall between 1952 and 2011, so obviously we all need to be smarter in terms of building design and water efficiency.”

FACTBOX

Perth’s population increased from 1.45 million in 2001 to 1.83 million in 2011, up 2.6 per cent, making the city Australia’s second fastest growing after the Gold Coast-Tweed

Almost 80 per cent of people travel to work by car and 12 per cent by public transport

In 2011, Perth experienced 50 days over 35 degrees Celsius, the peak of a three-year spike of hot weather which has seen more days over 35C than any other time in the past 30 years

One of Australia’s three driest capitals, Perth has experienced a reduction in average annual rainfall between 1952 and 2011

Since 1993, Perth, along with Darwin, has experienced the highest rates of sea level rises among major coastal cities, measuring nine to 10 millimetres per year. The global average is three millimetres

Perth has the highest proportion of residents who feel that their city has a quality natural environment (79 per cent)

Only 41 per cent of Perth residents agree that the city provides good transport infrastructure and services, and is a safe place for people and their property

According to the 2012 AMP NATSEM Income and Wealth Reports analysis of typical household goods and services, Perth is among the most expensive of the capital cities for education, alcohol and tobacco

Perth has the lowest proportion of people walking to work of the capital cities (2.6 per cent).

NSW Labor Left apologises for Macdonald’s rise

NSW political reporter Liz Foschia, ABCUpdated December 6, 2012, 9:32 am

tweet

Email
Print

The Left faction of the New South Wales Labor Party has issued an apology for its support of disgraced former minister Ian Macdonald.

Mr Macdonald has been suspended by the ALP as the state’s Independent Commission Against Corruption investigations a number of his ministerial decisions.

In 2009 he was expelled from the party’s Left faction over accusations he sided too often with the Right faction.

In a statement issued yesterday, the Left faction said it should have publicly acknowledged at that time that Mr Macdonald was not a suitable representative.

“We accept responsibility for the fact that Ian Macdonald was pre-selected by the NSW Left as a candidate for the NSW Legislative Council,” the statement said.

“When he was expelled from the NSW Left in 2009 we acknowledged that he was not a suitable representative, but we didn’t do so publicly.

“We do so now, and apologise for his selection.”

The statement said that in order for NSW Labor to change its culture it had to acknowledge its mistakes.

It is calling on the state branch to hold a conference to deal directly with the issue, including the extreme factionalism that has characterised the party.
There is no work yet on whether the Right faction will apologise for pre-selecting Eddie Obeid and Eric Roozendaal, who have also featured in the ICAC inquiries.

tweet

Doha climate talks: diplomacy begins at home

Influence depends on the credibility of domestic policies. The UK must not be left behind in the race for low-carbon growth
Share9

inShare.0
Email

John Ashton

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 5 December 2012 07.00 GMT

Jump to comments (13)

Britain’s climate diplomacy has been seen around the world as second to none. Photograph: VIIRS/Suomi NPP/NASA

Doha may not seem the obvious place to hold the latest round of UN climate talks. But, as the fight over energy policy in the UK has revealed, nor is it where success or failure on climate change will be decided.

The goal of the climate negotiations is to agree by 2015 on a framework in which the governments of the world’s leading economies make internationally binding commitments to cut their carbon emissions fast enough to keep climate change within the agreed threshold of 2C.

Whether they accomplish this will be decided not by climate negotiators in the UN but by the politicians in capitals who give them their instructions.

Those politicians are preoccupied with the struggle now in progress to build a new post-crisis growth model capable of offering security and prosperity to 9 billion people by mid-century. It is the outcome of that struggle that will shape the mandates of climate negotiators when they meet in 2015.

A high-carbon, business-as-usual growth model cannot provide security and prosperity. It ignores the 2008 lesson about systemic risk, which the financial crash highlighted. It exposes the global economy to a nexus of stresses over food, water and energy that is already tightening ominously. Amplified increasingly by climate change, those stresses threaten soon to become unmanageable.

A rapid shift to low carbon, resource efficient growth, would rebuild the foundation for security and prosperity, and in doing so create the conditions for the climate agreement that is itself an essential part of that foundation.

The contest between these two conflicting propositions is in the balance.

A re-elected President Obama has signaled that he wants to make the US a leader not a follower on climate change. But to do that he will need to overcome the blockage in Congress and resolve an underlying conflict that is not only about the economy but has its roots in historically unresolved questions of values and identity.

There is more consensus in China. The need for low-carbon development is accepted and will shape the new leadership’s strategy to rebalance the economy. $1.6 trillion of public funds is being invested from 2010-15 in industries critical for the transition.

Korea, whose success has been as spectacular as China’s, continues to allocate 2% of GNP annually, over $20bn, to green growth. The nuclear phaseouts in Japan and Germany, the world’s third and fourth largest economies, will drive investment in renewables, modern power grids, and energy efficiency on a scale that will push down prices globally.

In the UK recent events have revealed a more muddled state of affairs. The Energy Bill settlement between the energy secretary and the chancellor is a battle won for the low carbon side, since it will unlock investment in renewables to 2020 and make a decarbonisation target for electricity politically inevitable. But the war goes on. Meanwhile our partners see indecision not resolution from a government that began by advertising itself as aiming to be our greenest ever.

The UK’s green investment bank could provide a global role model. But the Treasury will not let it borrow, so it cannot leverage private capital on the scale necessary to do its job.

With our North Sea experience and world-class industrial expertise we should be setting the pace on carbon capture and storage. The coalition agreement promised public investment in CCS for four power stations. But no shovel has yet been lifted. The green deal has the potential to upgrade some of the most energy-profligate building stock in western Europe. But no loft or cavity wall has yet felt its impact.

A surge in low-carbon energy investment would not only modernise our infrastructure. It would strengthen demand, drive innovation, improve productivity, and protect us against oil and gas price shocks. The supply chain impacts would boost manufacturing, especially beyond the southeast.

In recent years, under this government and its predecessor, Britain’s climate diplomacy has been seen around the world as second to none. It has put the UK in a position to make a decisive contribution to the global effort. But our influence has always depended on the credibility of our domestic policies. How can we expect to persuade others if we are not doing ourselves what we ask of them?

It is sometimes argued that since our emissions only amount to 2% of the global total, we should relax and wait for the US and China to act. This view is doubly short-sighted. If it prevails, we will not only be left behind in the race for low-carbon growth. We will also cut the ground from under our climate diplomacy, on whose success the chances of a deal in 2015, and thus our national security and prosperity, may well depend.

• John Ashton was special representative for climate change for William Hague, David Miliband and Margaret Beckett, and is a cofounder of E3G.

Article history

Environment
COP18 Doha climate change conference ·
Climate change ·
Global climate talks ·
Green politics ·
Energy

World news

More comment

Related

5 Dec 2012

Doha climate conference diary: Qatar’s generosity keeps us guessing

5 Dec 2012

Doha climate conference diary: youth activists bring energy and urgency

3 Dec 2012

Doha climate conference diary: Qatar’s first environmental march

27 Nov 2012

China’s emissions expected to rise until 2030, despite ambitious green policies

Share

inShare.

Bring back Ron Christie- This Govt. does not have any idea in how to solve Syndey’s
transport crisis.

More rail pain for NSW government

By Neda Vanovac, AAPUpdated December 5, 2012, 8:38 pm

tweet

Email
Print

AAP © Enlarge photo

The NSW government has come under fire after a report revealed a record number of complaints against Railcorp and a drop in the overall number of on-time trains.

The Auditor-General’s NSW transport report, released on Wednesday, found complaints about on-time running were up almost 18 per cent on 2011.

On the roads, the report also shows there’s little joy for Sydney’s road commuters, as average speeds slowed on five of the city’s seven major roads.

Afternoon peak-hour speeds on the M2 Lane Cove Tunnel/Gore Hill freeway dropped from 60km/h down to 52km/h in the space of 12 months.

Auditor-general Peter Archterstraat said only nine of the state’s 16 rail networks achieved 92 per cent the on-time running target, down from 14 previously.

The East Hills, South, Western, Northern via Strathfield, South Coast, Blue Mountains, Southern Highlands, Hunter and Newcastle and Central Coast lines are all operating below the 92 per cent target, according to the report.

Complaints about hygiene have increased by 26 per cent, with 35 complaints lodged every week.

Opposition Transport spokeswoman Penny Sharpe said during eight peak hour periods in the past year, less than 60 per cent of the network operated on time, with train reliability at its lowest level in four years, .

Commuters were being charged up to $156 extra in fares each year, a figure that is set to increase again from January 1.

“Trains are getting later, dirtier and more crowded under Barry O’Farrell,” Ms Sharpe said in a statement.

Greens MP and transport spokesperson Cate Faehrmann said critical infrastructure decisions were being made according to the government’s privatisation agenda, rather than in the best interests of the community.

She said NSW has been sent down a risky path by committing to a public private partnership (PPP) to build the North West Rail Link.

“We’ve had a series of failed transport PPPs in NSW and now the auditor-general himself has raised serious concerns – we can’t afford to stuff up public transport infrastructure because of this government’s ideological obsession with privatising public services,” Ms Faerhmann said in a statement.

NRMA Spokesman Peter Khoury said the slowing of commutes for Sydney drivers shows that as the economic hub of Australia, Sydney should be doing better instead of stifling businesses.

“The longer it takes to deliver goods and services, the harder it is to make a buck,” he said.

“It’s not the way to run an economy. It’s not the way to run a city.”

Mr Khoury said the report showed the NSW government needed to increase spending on roads, developing the WestConnex project and completing upgrades to the M2 and M5.
“Decades of neglect has resulted in making life harder for commuters, but if we do finish projects that are on the drawing board and continue to improve public transport then we will see a substantial improvement in how Sydney moves around,” he said.

Rudd backs reforms to fix ‘sick’ ALP

By chief political correspondent Simon Cullen

Updated 24 minutes ago

Photo: Backing reform calls: Kevin Rudd (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Related Story: ALP needs ‘one-strike’ policy on corruption: Faulkner

Map: Australia
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd has backed renewed calls for fundamental reform of the Labor Party, declaring “there’s something sick which needs to be healed”.

Mr Rudd has repeatedly criticised the “faceless men” within the party who dumped him from the job in 2010, and has called for sweeping changes to how Labor operates.

“It’s that closed culture of the faceless factional men which make a whole series of things possible,” he told Fairfax radio in Brisbane this morning.

He says it is time for the ALP to “get real” about party reform, and has strongly backed senior Labor senator John Faulkner, who yesterday called for a ban on the “inherently undemocratic” practice of factional bosses binding the votes of parliamentarians.

Joel Fitzgibbon, a powerful figure in federal Labor’s right faction, has endorsed the thrust of Senator Faulkner’s plan, but suggested the changes could go further so MPs were not even bound by the decisions of caucus.

Such a change would allow MPs or senators to cross the floor without facing expulsion from the party.

“I believe it’s time to have a debate about strict caucus discipline,” Mr Fitzgibbon told ABC News.

“We probably have the most disciplined regime in the world of any country operating under the Westminster system, and it’s time we should have that debate.

“It’s almost 20 years since we banned binding votes at the local government level, and in the wake of the New South Wales [corruption] allegations, we should be asking ourselves whether those same principles apply any differently at the state and federal levels of government.

“It is extraordinary that when candidates sign up to run for parliament, they commit to binding themselves with the majority view of the party. That’s a big commitment, and that’s giving up very substantial rights.”

We can’t keep talking forever – we must at some point in the near future bite the bullet and embrace some of these reforms.

Chief Government Whip Joel Fitzgibbon

Labor MP Kelvin Thomson, who has found himself in the minority on a number of caucus debates, has said on Twitter this afternoon: “Joel Fitzgibbon is right to say Parliamentary Labor Party members should get more voting freedom.”

Factional power

There has been widespread support within Labor for some of the changes suggested by Senator Faulkner, most notably his push to abolish the power of factions.

The co-convenor of Labor’s left faction, Senator Doug Cameron, believes the move would help reinvigorate party membership.

“I think the factional situation has got to the stage where the power has been concentrated in a few people, and it’s led to less democracy in the party, it’s led to decisions being made that probably shouldn’t have been made,” he told ABC NewsRadio, referring to the decision to dump Mr Rudd.

“I think it’s now time for the leadership of the party – I think that’s the Prime Minister – the leaders of the state Labor parties, along with the leadership of the affiliated unions and parliamentarians, to sit down and say, ‘how can we democratise the party, how can we make membership of the party more relevant?’.”

The general secretary of the ALP in New South Wales, Sam Dastyari, has enthusiastically backed the direction of Senator Faulkner’s speech, declaring that: “Either we change or we die.”

He says the rules of the party need to be updated to limit the power of factions.

“Frankly, this idea that you’ve got groups of people really within groups of people, where they come to conclusions, come to votes and bind on them, I just don’t think is in the principles of the Labor movement,” he told AM.

“There should only be one binding group and that group should be the parliamentary caucus. That’s a position I’ve outlined in the past, that’s a position I continue to hold.”

Several Labor figures today expressed frustration that even when good ideas for party reform were put forward, nothing much seemed to come of them.

“We should be bold and brave and courageous, and have an open debate about all of these issues,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

“We can’t keep talking forever – we must at some point in the near future bite the bullet and embrace some of these reforms.”

Topics:government-and-politics, political-parties, alp, federal-government, australia

First posted 1 hour 8 minutes ago

Contact Simon Cullen

You’d no longer have a say

Inbox

x

GetUp!

2:40 PM (36 minutes ago)

to me

Dear NEVILLE,

Fox, meet hen house. At a meeting this week the Federal Government will further its plan to hand over its environmental oversight and protection responsibilities to the State Premiers.

Where does this crazy idea come from? The Business Council of Australia. Why? Because states have a terrible record of protecting our most important national treasures and the Business Council wants a blank permission slip to mine, log, or develop wherever they like. If it weren’t for the protection of the Federal Government, we would have lost places like the Great Barrier Reef, the Franklin River, the Daintree Rainforest and Fraser Island a long time ago.

Most Australians have no idea this is even happening, much less what it could mean for the places we love. But we can change that. By increasing public awareness about all that’s at stake, we can counter the influence of the Business Council at Friday’s COAG and back in the politicians who want to protect the places and species that belong to all Australians.

That’s why we’re taking out a full page ad in The Australian on the day of the COAG meeting, asking the Prime Minister and Environment Minister Tony Burke to step up to their responsibilities, not hand them over to Barry O’Farrell, Campbell Newman and the other State Premiers.

http://www.getup.org.au/keep-federal-govt-enviro-powers

It beggars belief that the Prime Minister would want to hand over power to the States at a time like this: former NSW government ministers are being investigated for multi-million dollar corruption in relation to Hunter Valley mining licenses. Queensland’s Campbell Newman is trying to allow giant coal ports inside the Great Barrier Reef. And in Tasmania, miners want to dig up the ancient rainforests of the Tarkine.

Experts are already lining up to call this a really bad idea. Sir David Attenborough joined 500 of the world’s leading conservationists in an open letter to Julia Gillard, urging her to reconsider1. Former Federal Court judge Murray Wilcox has called the move “an extremely backward step” and says, “I’m just staggered, frankly, that it’s being given serious consideration.”2 Every environmental group in the country agrees with them.

Here’s why: state governments don’t exactly have a great track record with environmental protection. They’re too dependent on royalties from major projects like coal seam gas, mining and development. They have a direct incentive to push approvals through quickly and deal with the fall-out later. Don’t let them get away with it: click here to chip in to increase public pressure and hold them accountable.

It’s little wonder that the vast majority of Australians — 85 per cent according to the latest poll — believe the Federal Government should be able to block or make changes to major projects that could damage the environment.3 We simply don’t buy the idea that State governments can be trusted to make tough calls on issues of national significance; or that if you live in Adelaide you shouldn’t have a say on a giant mining proposal inside the Great Barrier Reef.

This land belongs to all Australians and it’s up to the national politicians we all elect to protect the places and species that matter the most. Don’t let the Federal Government cave to lobbying by Big Business who want this critical power in order to fast-track project approvals. Help fund a full-page ad where we know it will get the PM’s attention: The Australian on the day of the COAG meeting. http://www.getup.org.au/keep-federal-govt-enviro-powers

Thanks for all that you do,
The GetUp team.