My letter from the Office of the Hon Jeff Seeney MP

on the 26 October 2012, I wrote to the Deputy Premier, in response to his media release which stated:

Mr Seeney said the assessment showed that well-managed development could co-exist with a healthy environment. “It illustrates that we can have bulk export ports and they can operate with no threat to the Great Barrier Reef,” Mr Seeney said. 

Mr Seeney seems to have completely missed the point.  The greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef are not from the port operations but from accumulative impacts of the continued combustion of fossil fuels.

On  26 November 2012, I received the following response from:

Office of the Hon Jeff Seeney MP
Deputy Premier
Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning


Our ref: MC12/399

23 NOV 2012

Mr Rowan Barber
Street Address
Address QLD XXXX


Dear Mr Barber

Thank you for your email of 26 October 2012 to the Honourable Jeff Seeney MP, Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, about the voluntary Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA).  The Deputy Premier has asked that I respond on his behalf.

As you are aware, the voluntary Abbot Point CIA has focus on 16 study areas, and is taking a holistic look at the cumulative effects of the future port related expansion proposals at the Port of Abbot Point.

The CIA scope is about port expansion itself.  Emissions associated with the transport of coal to the port are not within the scope of the CIA.  It was a voluntary cooperative exercise between the three proponents of the existing or proposed facilities at Abbot Point.  It was coordinated by the North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation.

I suggest you provide comments to the Abbot Point Working Group through the formal consultation process on this matter.  The following link provides information on making a submission  http://www.abbotpointworkinggroup.com.au/comment.html.

Please ensure your comments are submitted prior to 5pm, Tuesday, 4 December 2012.

If you require any further information, please contact Mr Phillip Kohn, A/Director, State Development Areas, Office of the Coordinator General, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, on 3405 6674, who will be pleased to assist.

Yours sincerely


Dimity Elson
Acting Senior Policy Advisor

Office of the Hon Jeff Seeney MP
Deputy Premier

Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

the sky is falling

The following press release is Qld Government sponsored scaremongering about the imminent introduction of the Carbon Tax.

Nothing creates greater business uncertainty, than State Government Ministers and the Leader of the Federal opposition, repetitively telling us that the Carbon Tax is going to shut down industries, impoverish families and increase greenhouse gas emissions.

So I went online to see if I could find a calculator to work out how much Carbon Tax I am going to pay:

I have not found a definitive answer.  It turns out, to be swings and round abouts.

Instead I found a calculator telling me how much compensation I might get in a Household assistance package.

The Australian Federal Government released Liable Entities Public Information Database: the official list of the 248 carbon liable companies.  There is no ranking of scale of emissions, but it does provide a who’s who in paying for carbon emissions.

The Federal Government will spend that revenue on household assistance packages and a whole bunch of Programs and Initiatives.

The closer I look, the better off I seem to be. I wonder why this message is not getting through!!???

How does this appease my irrational sense of guilt, at how good my life in Australia is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Minister for Energy and Water Supply
The Honourable Mark McArdle

Monday, May 21, 2012

carbon tax will cost jobs, raise greenhouse emissions

Key investor says carbon tax costs jobs, raises greenhouse emissions

One of Australia’s key alumina industry investors, Russian giant Rusal, a 20% partner in Rio Tinto’s multi-billion dollar Boyne Island refinery at Gladstone, has backed criticism of the carbon tax by Queensland Energy and Water Supply Minister Mark McArdle, saying the tax will leave industry “confused and aggrieved”, cost jobs and reverse its intended result by raising global greenhouse emissions instead of lowering them.

Minister McArdle raised Federal Labor hackles last week when he quoted a leading Australian advisor at an international energy forum in Canada who predicted the tax would have “unexpected and undesirable consequences”.

Federal energy advisor John Pierce told the Canadian forum the global market was also spooked by Labor uncertainty about its carbon tax position which gave the policy an “uncertain future”.

Federal Energy Minister Greg Combet responded that the Queensland Minister’s criticism was a “distortion” but has not responded to parallel criticism of the tax from Rusal’s Australian Chairman, John Hannagan who echoed the Minister’s concerns about its fall out.

Mr Hannagan told The Australian today that Australian producers and investors were right in feeling “confused and aggrieved” by the carbon tax which overturned “forty years of government policy” and would actually cause global greenhouse gas emissions to rise.

He said the carbon tax jeopardized our “unrivalled comparative advantage that drove Australia from new entrant to world leader,” but said the tax will actually increase global emissions by undermining Australia’s efforts to curb emissions over the next decade as “new capacity is added in competitor countries and Australia’s share of global production falls.”

Directly contradicting Greg Combet, the Rusal Chairman said Australia already led the world in carbon emission reductions. “Australia has led the world on research into alumina refining over the past four decades and has long been regarded as the world’s most efficient producer. Despite this world-leading performance, the federal government has determined that the industry must sacrifice its position as the world’s most competitive and energy efficient producer to our global competitors.”

Mark McArdle said the Rusal Chairman’s comments showed Federal Labor was delusional. “When you have not just a world authority but now also the Chairman of a key investor in Queensland’s billion dollar alumina industry contradicting you, you know you’re in trouble. Is Greg Combet going to dismiss it all as distortion? Who does he believe, apart from his Prime Minister?

Another Letter to Campbell Newman

Campbell Newman
Lord Mayor
Brisbane City Council


Dear Lord Mayor,

I am frustrated by both the State and Brisbane City Council using reductions in GHG emissions as an excuse to build more politically popular infrastructure for motor vehicles (such as the Northern Link Tunnel).

The more roads one builds, the more lanes one adds, the more congestion one busts, the more it encourages people to drive.

From BBC's annual report:

In partnership with the Queensland Government, Council is developing a common,
intelligent, integrated road network management system to improve the coordination of the city’s 7000 kilometre road network. A pilot of the traffic signals component of the project was conducted at Indooroopilly in 2008 and demonstrated how traffic can be streamlined by synchronising traffic signals on both Council and Queensland Government-owned roads. The Indooroopilly pilot demonstrated a saving of approximately 3800 tonnes in carbon emissions per year through the reduction of travel time.

Did one take into account all the additional trips that will be made when traffic flows more freely? Does one take into account the return of congestion once equilibrium is established at a higher traffic volume?

My expertise is in water, sanitation and carbon accounting not traffic engineering. However I see a lot of parallels between the problems we are encountering on SEQ roads and the problems I have encountered in sewers. The congestion of sewers is often caused by consumer behaviour. People put things down the sewer that do not belong there (like dead pets and sump oil). The distinction between sewage and traffic is when one builds a new sewer it does not encourage people to poo more.

Is there a more robust means of GHG emissions accounting to counter the circular arguments presented to justify more "congestion busting" roads?

regards,

Rowan Barber