Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice buses freeways governance government policy sustainability

Sharing the Road. The imperative for government to make it work

Whilst governments are responsible for providing road infrastructure, they also have a responsibility to ensure it is used in the most efficient and effective manner for the benefit of all road users and deliver optimal outcomes for the community as a whole. Contrary to what many motorists might care to believe, roads are not for the exclusive use of cars. They are shared by pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and others and there are rules which are designed to ensure this takes place. Motorists should also remember that the ability to drive a motor vehicle is not a right – it is a privilege and that there are conditions and rules that must be complied with. It is government’s responsibility to ensure these rules are designed and policed/enforced to make it happen.  

From an environmental and growing community perspective there is an imperative to travel less and more efficiently. Ideally this means more people getting out of their cars and walking and cycling.

Regrettably, as Natalie Fleming writes (Maurice Blackburn blog), this is not happening.

 “There’s a war taking place on our roads – between cyclists and car drivers. At its core, this battle is led by a misunderstanding, from the perspectives of all road users, about equal rights on the road. Each party is frustrated with the other – car drivers are angry with the way cyclists ride, and cyclists are concerned about being injured by oblivious drivers. All these concerns are warranted, but what can we do to bring peace between the parties? Eighty-five per cent of cyclist collisions involve another vehicle. Common accidents include  

  • cyclist being side swiped by an approaching vehicle  
  • dooring – when the cyclist collides with a vehicle door suddenly opened in front of them  
  • when the cyclist is hit from behind.”  

The latest figures report 45 cyclist deaths on Australian roads in 2014, while 5500 cyclists were hospitalised in 2012 due to road accidents. Even a small knock can lead to devastating permanent injuries”.  

Fleming argues the importance of drivers understanding the vulnerability of cyclists and their right to use the road safely, but that is only part of the solution and it is too easy to blame motorists. What we are witnessing is system failure in which there are no simple or single fix solutions and overlook the critical role of government, which has the responsibility for creating the conditions which make this happen. This includes creating the social climate and culture which enables people to comply willingly and respectfully based on a better understanding of why this important. Addressing this requires unpacking the “system” to understand how it works, identify key levers for change and ways in which these can be used effectively.

The list of levers required in this situation is long and requires action at many levels. Donella Meadows in her paper

 “Places to Intervene in A System” provides a list of the types of levers that can be used, in increasing order of effectiveness.   

9. Numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards).  

8. Material stocks and flows.  

7. Regulating negative feedback loops.

6. Driving positive feedback loops. 

5. Information flows.  

4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishment, constraints). 

3. The power of self-organization.  

2. The goals of the system.  

1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise.  

All of the above can be applied, individually or in combination in this situation but the last is the most important. If the State government has the mindset to change the “system” all levers can be used effectively. If not, there will be no change of any significance, in which case road rage and cycling trauma will continue and probably escalate and the ability to meet our social and environmental goals will be jeopardised.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance government policy

Why the city needs safe and more reliable alternatives to car usage

Blaming bike lanes for traffic jams is flawed logic and ignores the lessons of ‘induced demand’.

We can’t build our way out of congestion. Numerous traffic studies show that more road space for cars leads to more people driving, further clogging our roads – the induced demand effect.

Understandably, people hate congestion – it’s dead time. As Melbourne’s traffic worsens, more people will look to avoid the city if they feel there is no safe and reliable alternative to sitting in traffic jams.

But if we provide alternatives that get more cars off the road, everyone benefits. For drivers, it means less time in traffic and travelling to the city becomes a better experience. For everyone else, the environmental and productivity benefits are huge.

The return to city offices is just beginning to ramp up, but the good news is induced demand also impacts bike lanes. Some of Melbourne’s cycling networks have seen increased use of up to 300% over the past two years.

Data collected by the Herald Sun last week shows that cyclists already account for one in four vehicles on Melbourne’s streets. (see below media article). This compares to one in five cyclists prior to COVID-19 and one in 20 back in 2007.

Source – Herald Sun – Friday, 18 March.

Cities like London, New York and Paris are aiming to become cycling and walking friendly, seeking to cut congestion, improve air quality and create vibrant and inclusive neighbourhoods.

Research shows safety is the number one barrier for people who are interested in cycling, but don’t. Significantly, council data shows an 80% jump in people travelling on protected bike lanes during February, compared with the previous month.

Early in the pandemic we identified the risk of a growing number of city-goers preferring their cars long-term to travel to and around the inner city. This trend has now materialised.

Road use in early March was 92% of pre-COVID levels and growing by 1% each week. Meanwhile, public transport remains around half (53%) of pre-COVID levels.

Encouraging people safely back on public transport, combined with a network of separated cycling corridors, will get the city moving again and benefit our economy. Flexible start and finish times, cheaper fares for buses and permanent off-peak travel discounts would go a long way to cut congestion across all forms of transport.

If we don’t make a change now towards safe and more reliable alternatives to car usage, our traffic will keep going in the wrong direction. And that will undermine the city’s revival.

Jonathan Spear is CEO of Infrastructure Victoria.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance government policy motorways value for money

Roundabouts, overpasses, and carparks: Hauling the federal government back to its proper role in transport projects

by Marion Terrill for the Grattan Institute

Link to original article

Pork-barrelling wastes money, is unfair, and could be dramatically curtailed if the federal government stuck to its job of providing funding only for nationally significant transport projects.

Download the report

Download the chart data

At the last federal election only one of the Coalition’s 71 transport promises valued at $100 million or more had a business case approved by Infrastructure Australia, and for Labor, it was two projects of 61.

Federal pork-barrelling on transport projects favours electorally important states.

Queensland and NSW, where federal elections tend to be won and lost, consistently receive more, and Victoria less, than can be explained by population, population growth, size of the road network, share of passenger or freight travel, or what it actually costs the state government to run the transport system.

The federal government compounds this inequity by funnelling much more of its discretionary transport funding to the most marginal seats, such as Lindsay in Sydney, Higgins in Melbourne, Moreton in Brisbane, Hasluck in Perth, and Boothby in Adelaide.

The average marginal urban seat received $83 million from the federal Urban Congestion Fund, whereas the average safe Coalition seat received $64 million and the average safe Labor seat $34 million.

Politicians who insist on pork-barrelling are wasting taxpayers’ money, and the biggest losers are people who live in safe seats or states with few marginal electorates.

Politicians are not supposed to spend public money to promote their private interest, including their private political advantage. Avoiding such conflicts of interest would be more straightforward if the federal government stuck to its national role, and did its due diligence before spending public money.

Much of what the federal government spends on transport projects is outside the role that it has agreed with the states. The federal government is supposed to focus on nationally significant infrastructure on the National Land Transport Network; state and local governments are supposed to be responsible for locally-important roads and rail.

That hasn’t stopped successive federal governments since 2009 from funding nearly 800 roundabouts, carparks, and overpasses that are unconnected with the National Network.

Before approving any transport project, the federal government should have to consider and publish Infrastructure Australia’s assessment of the project, including the business case, cost/benefit analysis, and ranking on national significance grounds.

And whichever party wins government at the 2022 federal election should stick to its job: no more roundabouts, overpasses, or carparks, just nationally significant roads and rail on the National Land Transport Network.

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance best practice government policy light rail

Transport Priorities – Back to basics

Categories
best practice climate change global warming government policy zero emissions

Planning for “Sunset” Industries

In our last forum we highlighted the need to plan for sunset industries that would struggle and ultimately have no future in a zero emission world and cited the airline industry as a prime example. TfM has expressed concern about the future of this industry for many years and anticipated growing market pressure to force change.  

This is now happening and is the subject of an article by Charlotte Grieve in The Age 31 January Green-shorters aiming to force action on climate. Short selling is a blunt tool that can push down stock prices and make raising capital harder. Green shorting as an investment strategy is in its early stages in Australia, but is likely to pick up around the world as investors develop new ways to invest sustainably, but it can also be used as a tool to coerce companies towards net zero emissions.  

Quoting from her article,  

A Sydney fund manager, Plato Investment Management, which manages about $10 billion, has launched a new global net zero investment fund that short-sells ‘‘dirty stocks’’ to drive down carbon emissions and maximise profits. (It) is targeting energy giant AGL and national airline Qantas as part of a controversial investment strategy known as green shorting, marking the start of a more aggressive approach to sustainable finance in Australia. In the words of Plato managing director Mr Hamson, We have been coercing (companies) towards net zero.  Hamson said that AGL and Qantas have both set targets of net zero emissions by 2050, (however), many ASX-listed corporates set targets with ‘‘no idea how to get there’’ and pointed to AGL’s extensive coal-fired power stations and Qantas’ reliance on yet to be developed technologies for carbon-free air travel. 

The airline industry faces huge challenges to survive, even in the short term and it is difficult to see how it can achieve zero emission deadlines. Any growth achieved in the short term is likely to be short lived at best, together with tourist and other industries it supports.   

Trade implications are profound and ultimately flow through to transport as a service industry for the city as a whole, and regional centres. The airline industry and industries it supports, including tourism are large employers and new jobs must be generated to offset their decline and ultimate demise. We don’t know what these might be but they need to be planned for. The situation will be similar to what the coal industry faces now but the implications are far greater. It is possible the shipping industry might come under similar pressure.    

It is argued that transport planning should proceed on this basis. This must be reflected in all business cases for supporting transport infrastructure: not just the airport rail line but the city more generally which takes into account the flow on impact within the city and regional Victoria. The airline industry will be one of a growing number of industries that will come under pressure and forced to adapt in coming years. Many will fail and disappear. New ones will take their place but these also need to have a future in a zero-emission world. The process of adaption will be disruptive and must be planned for.

Categories
best practice climate change global warming government policy zero emissions

Energy Use – a reality check

One of the messages we have been repeating for some time is that humankind is living beyond the means of planet Earth to support us, that there is an imperative to reduce consumption of everything if we are to have a future, and that includes energy itself. This was the subject of a presentation made by Prof Damon Honnery at the Sustainable Cities Sustainable Transport forum in 2009. It is as relevant today as it was twelve years ago, but it is the scale of the reduction required that is worth repeating. His conclusions were as follows: 

  • Energy demand will likely double by 2050, driven largely by population growth and increasing standards of living. 

  •  Although energy will become more expensive fossil fuels could likely provide for this growth. 

  •  But the world will have to reduce its per capita carbon emissions by 3 to 10x (Australia maybe 12 to 40x) to avoid dramatic climate change.  

  •  Renewable energy would have to increase by a factor of 20x currently used, with non-hydro sources by >100x

  •  Renewables available is limited to around 50-60% current energy use. It cannot provide for growth expected, nor account for emission reductions needed. 

  •  The world will have to get use to using less energy, Australians will have to get use to using even less. 

    Some of the figures quoted above will be greater now. As Honnery said in his presentation, even the transition to renewables requires energy, with a final reminder that the concept of using carbon capture to store emissions (a fundamental assumption in the federal government’s “strategy”) is laughable. Little has changed since, except the situation has become far worse and governments at all levels continue to ignore the fundamental realities and pretend our environmental challenges can be solved using technology alone in a business as usual environment.  

    What is required now is an update of Honnery’s projections by independent scientists in an environment in which they can provide their findings and advice, which can be peer reviewed without fear or favour. The imperative then is for governments to accept these findings and respond openly and honestly with appropriate policies and programs.

Categories
climate change global warming government policy zero emissions

Counting Down to Zero – The Ticking Time Bomb

In November 2021 representatives from many countries met in Glasgow to discuss the imperative of achieving substantial reductions in greenhouse emissions by 2030 amid warnings of dire consequences of not achieving them. But this is now a distant memory for a world preoccupied with covid and a determination to return to “normal”. Consumption of goods and services of all kinds including tourism, facilitated by massive debt has been used as the main driver to achieve it. Our governments (state and federal) continue to promote population and economic growth that enables more people to consume more of the planet’s resources, own more cars, promote urban sprawl that forces people to travel further and more often, facilitated by more freeways that make this easier with endless construction that is also an energy intensive process.     

It has been a spending spree, with lots of partying as if there is no tomorrow – and that will be the outcome if this reckless and irresponsible behaviour continues – and very quickly. The clock that is counting down to zero or hothouse earth, take your pick, is ticking and we will know which path we will be on by 2030 or even earlier. At this rate we will have used up our share of the carbon budget required to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees by 2028. That is only six years away and the trends for all sectors, including transport with the exception of stand-alone electricity generation are tracking in the wrong direction, reinforced by policies that support this trend.  

One would have thought our governments would treat this as a global emergency – far more critical than covid and have plans in place to address it. But no, it barely gets a mention and solutions have been delegated to the private sector and technology – just another covid according to our esteemed Prime Minister.  It is easy to blame our politicians for this mess, and the system we use to elect them, but as President Nick Low said in his address at our forum in 2016 – “What’s the Plan, “pursuading government to make a real plan is possible, but we all have to take some responsibility for that task. It cannot be left solely to government”. But “a real plan is not just a bundle of infrastructure projects and vague aspirations illustrated with pages of colour photos and diagrams. A real plan is founded on facts”: and in this case the science, coupled with a vision for a new model for a zero-emission city that may be capable of adapting and even surviving in a zero-mission world.  

We, ourselves need to send a clear and unambiguous message to government – we can’t expect them to do all the hard work of getting to a reasoned consensus on the future we want. We the people have to do that for ourselves. This is why we formed Transport for Melbourne and use our forums as opportunities to discuss critical issues and ways in which they may be addressed. Actions required to reduce emissions are not new and many can be implemented immediately. There will be no simple single fix solutions but with a real plan and the necessary will and commitment a lot can be done to give us reasonable prospects for the future – provided our political leaders can be persuaded to act.  In the campaign against the so called East-West Motorway we have seen what citizens can do when united behind a single cause. The cause today could not be more compelling.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
climate change global warming government policy zero emissions

Getting to Zero – The imperative to change business as usual

As noted in our last forum, climate change is being driven by changes to the geosphere by increasing greenhouse emissions, but it is also the result of changes to the biosphere including pollution and destruction of the natural environment. Both are mutually reinforcing and the latter will soon dominate as the main driver of climate change. The scale of the challenge was discussed in the forum introduction. 

Covid provided humanity with an opportunity to accept the need for change and respond in a new direction, instead of fighting it in an attempt to maintain business as usual and celebrate a return to normal. But this opportunity has been squandered for political reasons and will make the process of adaption even more difficult as environmental degradation continues and with it increased pressure to adapt to the changing world around us.   

Government responses to covid demonstrate how poorly this imperative is understood, or even denial that it is a problem in the first place. Covid has been a reminder of how strongly business as usual remains rooted in every aspect of life and how difficult it is to change. But it has also demonstrated that change is possible and the critical role of leadership, at all levels, particularly government to respond. It has also demonstrated the need for honesty and integrity – to face up to the enormity of the challenge and develop strategies in a way that engages the community and enables them to respond positively and make the transition.  

Leadership could start with a declaration of new values and goals based on respect for the planet and the need to live within its limits. Values of thrift and conservation should be celebrated and rewarded, and new jobs created to promote this. This would be reflected in every aspect of community life, and by government at all levels. These values should be developed on the basis of necessity and an understanding that if humanity does not change its collective behaviour an increasingly inhospitable planet will force humanity to do so.   

Leadership by government would be demonstrated by discouraging mass consumption of goods and services of every kind and promotion of maintenance, reuse, recycling. It can be demonstrated in the transport context by abandoning all projects that are traffic generators such as the West Gate Tunnel, North East Link, Suburban Rail Loop and many level crossing removal projects, and by implementing measures that encourage people to travel less, less often and more efficiently. It could be demonstrated by rejecting population and economic growth to improve or even maintain living standards, and by city planning and development strategies that limit growth with a plan that anticipates the need for growth to be reversed and ultimately for negative growth and contraction around service centres that reduce the need for travel and transport services. But words are easy, it needs a plan, a plan that is underpinned by new values, aspirations, expectations based on a realistic understanding of the environmental imperative and scale and complexity of the challenges ahead. It will require a new vision for our city, a model that can adapt and ultimately survive in a zero-emission world – providing we have the courage and strength to meet targets provided by our scientists.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
climate change global warming government policy zero emissions

Achieving zero emissions for Melbourne

The enormity of the task only dawns when we start developing a plan. It is only then that governments and societies start to understand the scale and complexity of our challenge, realise that technology is not the answer and that we have to change our behaviour, fundamental values and expectations if we are to achieve our goals.

The following are conclusions from our forum round table held on December 6th

  • Rapid reductions in transport emissions can be achieved using a combination of technological refinements and behavioural change. Most of the measures required to achieve these are not new, are not difficult to implement and have been discussed at length for decades. The problem has been the mindset and lack of commitment to do them by state and federal governments. Whilst reductions cannot be assessed in quantitative terms precisely at this time it should be possible to achieve reductions of at least 40% by 2030
  • Achieving zero transport emissions by 2035 for Melbourne’s transport is not possible based on business as usual. Achieving this may ultimately be impossible but reductions that could result in outcomes close to zero are feasible within this timescale
  • Transport emission reductions cannot be pursued in isolation: they impact and are impacted by changes in the broader economy, so an emission reduction strategy must be carried out as an integral part of a broader plan with a similar mindset
  • Emission reductions must be an integral part of a zero-emission world in which restoration of the biosphere and limits to growth will become increasingly critical and determine the shape, size and level of social and economic activity that can be supported by the city and ultimately the magnitude and type of transport activity required to service it
  • It is anticipated population and economic growth trends will be determined by environmental factors that will limit growth, reverse current trends and proceed at an accelerating rate of decline in the future
  • Ultimately government has a choice: commit to meeting targets scientists have given or pursue a compromised strategy based on business as usual. If governments at all levels pursue the latter, and it is adopted globally, they must accept that such a path will almost certainly put humanity on a hot house earth trajectory that will lead to mass extinction. This path will become increasingly unpleasant for all societies and later adaption strategies will become difficult and ultimately futile. The choice is a moral one and must be stated publicly at the outset
  • The challenge for government is to find ways of meeting these targets in a way that engages the community and maintains support for change in the coming crisis. Governments at every level must assume the role of change agent, provide the mechanisms for change, the means to manage the transition to a new zero emission world and provide the leadership to make it happen.

If governments are genuine about their commitment to meet environmental targets there must be a fundamental change in mindset which abandons business as usual and the thinking and values that underpins it. It is business as usual that has got us into this mess in the first place and it will not be the solution to our problem. The mindset required must accept the climate catastrophe is real and what is driving it. The starting point is to declare a state of emergency and do whatever it takes to avert catastrophic climate change. Once this is declared we can start being serious about actions required to avert it, adapt and survive.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
climate change global warming government policy zero emissions

Getting to zero transport emissions – Changing the mindset

Whilst climate science, trends and the implications have been well understood for decades our politicians continue to ignore it by pursuing what has got us into this mess in the first place. That is business as usual. It is time to get back to basics and throw out many of the ideas, beliefs, dogma that underpins it. Two of these are discussed below. The first is the belief that population and economic growth must be a top priority and are essential to improve living standards with no limits in the foreseeable future at least. The second is that we can, in the words of the Prime Minister rely on technology and “Can Do Capitalism” alone to get us out of this mess.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
climate change global warming government policy zero emissions

Zero emissions for Melbourne’s transport What is the plan?

One of the aims of the forum is to provide a better understanding of the complexity of the issues that must be addressed in a plan to reduce emissions quickly, starting immediately, get to zero, and the implications. All are poorly understood. Whilst the forum will focus on transport it cannot be considered in isolation. Transport is a service industry, a derived demand that is a function of the broader economy (primarily local but also national and global), the characteristics of the city itself and the social and political environment in which it operates.   

Global impacts are becoming increasingly critical. COP26 has constantly reminded us of the impending environmental catastrophe and the imperative to reduce emissions now. The discussion is no longer about 2050, it is 2030 and the necessity to achieve substantial reductions this decade to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. Even this is a political compromise: the situation is worse than many are prepared to admit so we are between a rock and a hard place with little room left for error. As Prince Charles put it recently “this is our last chance saloon”. 

The question then becomes what is the plan? 

Our Prime minister insists it can be solved by technology and the impressive skills and drive of “Can-do Capitalism”. If that is the case, given we have had more than thirty years to respond to this impending crisis, why is it our Can-do Capitalists have not seen it coming and are still stuck in “business as usual”, and why are some of the wonderful technological breakthroughs people have been talking about still unproven pipe dreams.  

We need to question assumptions that underpin such a strategy and start with the following:  

  • Do the technologies our government is pinning its hopes on really exist, and can they be developed quickly enough during the early part of this decade (beyond this will be too late)  
  • If so, can they be delivered at scale and at a price that can be afforded  
  • In the transport context, this applies to all vehicles: road, rail, air, sea, service vehicles, agricultural vehicles and machinery for all types of journeys and tasks 
  • What are the risks and how can they be addressed
    • Scale-ability  
    • Supply shortages (raw materials, critical technology etc, manufacturing skills and capability) 
    • Logistics – capability and bottlenecks  
    • Supporting infrastructure 
    • Supporting industries (that may not exist yet, such as a circular economy for processing and recycling waste etc)    
    • Energy required and emissions generated in the process (Prof Ian Lowe carried out a similar estimate several decades ago for the energy required to replace all coal fired power stations with nuclear. It was huge and would have resulted in unacceptable levels of greenhouse emissions. A similar exercise is required for transport).    
    • Potential for disruptions of all kinds
      • Local – social, economic and political barriers  
      • Global – the above plus other factors such as global conditions (recession/ depression, trade and other disputes (even wars) over strategic resources such as rare earths (dominated by China), computer chips (dominated by Taiwan) etc, or more general resource shortages. 
    • Fundamental assumptions or omissions which invalidate the model. For example:
      • EV’s require a whole of life assessment which includes embodied energy for extraction, processing, transportation of raw materials, manufacture, supply and distribution, operations including maintenance and renewables (tyres, oils etc) as well as electric power, disposal at the end of the economic life 
      • A power source that is 100% renewable and can be supplied at scale without compromising demand from other sources and in a way that can be managed, particularly during times of peak demand or crisis  
      • Includes emissions (including embodied energy) to provide/construct, operate, maintain/repair/renew or upgrade supporting infrastructure. This applies to all modes of transport; road, rail, airports/seaports etc and ability to cope with shortages of raw materials, etc  
      • financing capability to meet the above and affordability at every level (note this applies at every level; government, business, household).  
      • Technology will automatically improve outcomes. It may improve efficiency of use but may not necessarily change behaviour, and on its own may even promote undesirable outcomes.  

Achieving zero emissions will require action that delivers measurable outcomes in a predictable and controlled manner. This requires a combination of behavioural change and improved efficiency. Whilst technology may be an aid in achieving this its value as a control measure on its own is limited and requires other measures to be effective. The challenges are endless and complex with no simple single fix solutions but solutions must be found and there is growing pressure for change which delivers measurable outcomes and ensures emission reduction targets are met. This pressure is becoming increasingly broad based, including:   

  • Industry which is now demanding government leadership and intervention to change direction and create the conditions necessary to make it happen.   
  • The broader community, which will vote accordingly. 
  • Other countries which see Australia as a laggard and impose penalties of all kinds to encourage us to lift our game 
  • Similar pressure from financial organisations that deny essential capital because they view Australia as a poor opportunity to invest.   
  • An increasing body of environmental case law which will impose penalties on recalcitrant governments, and corporations. National pledges to reach zero emissions are being rendered irrelevant in country after country by court action almost before the rhetorical words are uttered. There has been a cascade of judgements based on the European Convention on Human Rights or national constitutions compelling governments to act faster. The Grantham Institute says there were 1841 climate action cases worldwide as of May. Two cases in the Haig are particularly relevant. One against the Dutch government itself and one against Royal Dutch Shell. It is expected the success of these two will set a precedent for many more.  
  • Scientists who continue to present evidence that demands action and positive responses to our environmental challenge. 
  • Changes in the natural environment itself and the capacity of the planet to support life which will put increasing pressure on communities to adapt.   

This pressure will increase further as more governments formally declare a state of emergency in response to climate change. A declaration of this nature can provide a catalyst for rapid change similar to the response created by WW2 or the OPEC Oil crisis in the 1970’s or more recently the covid pandemic which enabled vaccines to be developed within a year instead of the norm of 15 years.  

Achieving 2030 or 2035 at the latest and intermediate targets will require fundamental changes in the way we think about this challenge, our expectations and behaviour and the environment in which we respond to the challenge. It will demand “system change”. This will require “levers” that change the current mindset and create the environment in which this can happen.  This will require political leadership and intervention from all instruments of government. But this will not be pain free and will require actions most politicians find electorally difficult. There are many questions that must be asked. For example:  

  • How will people travel if the technological challenges associated with EV’s and other zero emission vehicles remain unresolved?   
  • If concerns raised earlier about the viability of electric vehicles, hydrogen powered and others can be resolved how will people travel if these cars are in short supply, if refuelling/charging infrastructure is not available, or simply unaffordable for most people, particularly those living remote from public transport, essential services and those with large debts (mortgages etc) or who are socially and economically disadvantaged. This situation is expected to worsen if the global economy enters a period of “stagflation”, a combination of depressed economic conditions and rising inflation. 
  • What measures will be taken to phase out fossil fuel powered vehicles and machinery, over what time and how will the process be managed. 
  • What will be the impact on supply and distribution of essential goods and services, particularly food including agricultural production much of which involves long haul bulk transport. 

This raises questions about how governments will respond, setting up the administrative and governance structures to develop a plan to achieve zero emissions, fund and administer it, monitor outcomes, take corrective action as required in a way that ensures it is given top priority. It will also require strategies to engage the community and manage the transition at a time of increasing financial hardship. The social, economic and political implications are profound but do not appear on the government radar. 

The task of achieving zero emissions to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, currently focusses only on the geosphere but this will not be sufficient. It must be carried out in combination with actions to address the degradation of the biosphere and limits to growth. These interact and are mutually reinforcing. Addressing this will be critical and impacts are becoming increasingly obvious, particularly in poorer countries in Africa, the Middle East and now Afghanistan.  

Contrary to what many people think, Australia is particularly vulnerable to climate change. It is the driest inhabited continent in the world and is warming faster than the global average. It has “warmed” 1.4 degrees over the last 120 years compared to the global average 1.1 degrees and most of it is becoming drier. It is also the most variable climate in the world. Many of the agricultural activities survive on the margins, dependent on carbon intensive energy sources for their operations and most agricultural practices have European origins or reflect other practices that are incompatible in the long term with the uniquely Australian environment. All of this has made our food bowls vulnerable. The challenge of converting these practices to make them more resilient in response to the changing environment is enormous. Similar challenges exist within our cities which also rely heavily on fossil fuels to sustain almost every activity. Much of this is the result of the way our cities have grown, exacerbated by a wasteful consumer driven culture. Changing this culture will be difficult and governments at all levels have, so far, shown little willingness to tackle it with the level of seriousness and urgency it demands.  

Australia has two options.  It can pretend to act without achieving meaningful change as it is doing at present and rely on technology to maintain business as usual or it can treat the situation as a genuine emergency and act accordingly. Neither option will be easy or pain free but the first option will almost certainly guarantee a hothouse earth trajectory and ultimately extinction for humanity as a species.  The second will require the abandonment of business as usual which got us into this mess in the first place and the philosophy, values and mindset that underpins it. It will demand a profound change in our collective behaviour and the way we use technology to support change instead of a means to maintain business as usual. This option will create a world that provides a better chance for our children and grandchildren and give us the best chance of survival as a species but this survival mindset must be applied to every government portfolio, including transport. There are opportunities to address these challenges which will be presented at the forum but in the end the outcomes will depend to a large extent on the willingness of governments at every level to create the environment for change, provide the means for it to happen and their capacity to manage and guide the transformation.


A forum on this vtial topic will take place on Monday 6 December.

Click here for more details

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Categories
climate change global warming government policy zero emissions

Meeting Zero Emissions by 2030

The capacity to respond in a crisis

If humanity is serious in its determination to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees and achieve zero carbon emissions by 2030 as one of the critical targets to achieve this, it is running out of time and change based on business as usual processes will not be fast enough, nor sufficiently transformative to avert a climate calamity.

There is therefore a compelling case to look for other strategies/mechanisms that can trigger a more immediate and more transformative response that involves all tiers of government and be applied at an international level. But it will also require a thorough understanding of the scale and complexity of the challenge and a willingness to apply lessons from earlier crises. The “climate emergency” is a crisis driven in two ways. Firstly by pollution of the geosphere by greenhouse gasses and secondly by degradation/ destruction and pollution of the biosphere. These are linked and interact but it will be the latter that will soon dominate as the principal driver of climate change. Both are the result of human activity so it is a crisis of our making but its impact has been so profound that it has upset many of the natural cycles and functioning of the earth system.

Crises of various kinds have occurred throughout human history, many of which resulted in the collapse of society. Most have occurred at a local level but increasingly at a district or larger regional level. All provide valuable lessons and it is critical these be understood and applied in an attempt to address our current crisis which has become global in scale.

Lessons from previous collapses were the subject of a presentation by Dr Graham Turner at the Sustainable Cities Sustainable Transport forum in 2009. He concluded by saying the underlying cause of failure was the very common recourse to using technology rather than changing behaviour. It is essential this lesson be applied in response to our “climate emergency”, but is at odds with current thinking, particularly by politicians and most governments that technology will be the answer to our environmental problems. This does not deny the role technology can and should play in addressing our climate emergency but it must be used as a tool to promote behavioural change, not business as usual.

Changing this mindset will be a huge challenge but it presents humanity with a choice which ultimately is about its collective determination to succeed or fail. If humanity is serious in its determination to succeed it is running out of time and change based on business as usual processes will not be fast enough, nor sufficiently transformative to avert a climate calamity. There is therefore a compelling case to look for other strategies/mechanisms that can trigger a more immediate and more transformative response that involves all tiers of government and be applied at an international level.

History has demonstrated that when humanity has been confronted with a crisis and recognised it as such there have been occasions when it has been averted using a combination of radical behavioural change, coupled with innovation and technological developments and that this can be achieved within timescales that had previously been considered unrealistic or impossible. This was demonstrated in WW2 and more recently by the OPEC oil crisis in the 1970’s which is the subject of a paper prepared by the Rapid Transition Alliance, April 2017 “ From Oil Crisis to Energy Revolution – How Nations Once Before Planned to Kick the Oil Habit”. This paper has been quoted extensively below and illustrates the scale and impact of the response.

The 1973 oil crisis shocked most Americans and the world in general because it was a rebuke to the growing prosperity of the postwar era, which was built on an ocean of cheap energy, but it demonstrated that great innovation can emerge as a direct result of crisis. Oil prices almost quadrupled to over $12 a barrel and the ensuing energy crisis marked the end of the era of very cheap gasoline. The share value of the New York Stock Exchange dropped by $97 billion, ushering in one of the worst recessions the world had ever seen.

It resulted in energy conservation and a whole new industry based on renewable energy. Overnight, national governments were forced to put in place measures to drastically reign-in consumption – and people had to change their behaviour. Despite the deep recession this caused, economies survived and industries adapted. Faced with a sudden lack of oil, energy conservation and efficiency became a top priority. Research into renewables also stepped up.

The US government was forced to introduce fast, severe measures to ensure the economy did not grind to a halt: Americans used to cheap, plentiful fuel found themselves in queues around the block to fill their cars, daylight saving measures to reduce the need for energy for lighting continued throughout 1974-75, and a new national speed limit of just 55 miles per hour was introduced. Notably, there was an understanding that during this period of rapid adaptation it was vital to prioritise the population’s overall welfare and that policies should be implemented with demonstrable fairness. A ‘Congressional Declaration of Purpose’ announced that ‘positive and effective action’ was needed to protect ‘general welfare . . . conserve scarce energy supplies’ and ‘insure fair and efficient distribution’.

Congress created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ensure the supply of at least 90 days of oil in case of another embargo. Similar emergency measures were swiftly enacted by governments across Europe and the rest of the developed world, leading to improved energy use and efficiency in a variety of sectors- and embedding the idea of saving energy in the minds of a generation.

Scientists, green activists and inventors in several European countries and North America turned simultaneously to the idea of harnessing the wind, the sun and geothermal hot water to produce electricity domestically. None of these technologies were new, but they were all experimental or used in a limited way- such as US western rural wind-powered water pumps, alternative fuel cars, and, ironically, solar systems on oil rigs.

The oil crisis of 1973 forced us to examine energy use and efficiency, encouraging accelerated innovation and research into renewables. This encouraged changes in behaviour alongside state sponsorship of alternatives, with the birth of energy conservation laws and governmental and non- governmental organisations to monitor use.

The car industry changed overnight as US car manufacturers saw a sharp decline in demand for its big, heavy gas-guzzlers. There was a shift of balance in the automotive industry toward the more fuel-efficient models designed in East Asia and Europe. The quest for better fuel economy, lower fuel bills and so-called energy independence brought about the start of hybrids and electric vehicles. It also brought a wave of technology innovations that continue to deliver increased efficiency, including turbocharging, lightweight materials, front-wheel drive, eight-speed transmissions, and direct fuel injection.

Government programs in many countries invested funds in alternative sources of energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal. From the mid 1970s through to the mid 1980s, the US government worked with industry to advance wind turbine technology and enable large commercial wind turbines. This effort was led by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and was a successful government research and development activity.

Denmark became a pioneer in developing commercial wind power during the 1970s, and today a substantial share of the wind turbines around the world are produced by Danish manufacturers and component suppliers. To encourage investment, families were offered a tax exemption for generating their own electricity locally. Some families bought their own turbines, but most purchased shares in cooperative-owned community wind turbines. In 2015, wind power produced the equivalent of 42.1% of Denmark’s total electricity consumption. The cooperative model spread to Germany and the Netherlands.

The oil crisis hit the country hard, resulting in frequent power blackouts and a three-day working week. In January 1974, the government started financing research and development into energy, including renewable resources such as geothermal and hydropower. The UK government used TV advertisements, posters, and “Switch off” stickers to encourage consumers to use less. It also subsidised energy surveys, which led to the rise of energy consultancy. The Energy Conservation Demonstration Projects Scheme subsidised early adopters of new technologies in return for the right to disseminate information about the results.

In Sweden, the oil crisis, coming on the back of environmental legislation, resulted in the wood pulp industry reducing its fossil fuel use by 70%. Most of the shift came from developing biofuels. Initially, reductions in oil consumption and improvements in energy conservation were accomplished by relatively small measures, but long-term research and development (R&D) was required to push technology development further. The need for international competitiveness played a role too, as the government encouraged inter-firm and state-firm collaborations toward the “greening” of the industry.

The industrialised world had shifted from coal as the major source of energy in the 1950s to oil by the 1970s. By 1970, the UK was dependent on oil for 94% of its total energy consumption.

In 1972, the US Secretary of the Interior released an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) stressing the importance of minimizing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

The rapid transition away from oil in 1973-74 was painful for many, but it was accomplished very quickly. Governments provided the framework, the legislation and the financial support; while individuals responded to the need for energy conservation; industries funnelled money into R&D to reduce energy use and to find alternative sources; and environmentalists started to hold everyone to account.

The idea of the oil running out was a familiar nightmare in the popular psyche. The developed economies had known since early in the process of mass mining of coal and oil, that there would be a peak and a time when these resources ran out. Theories about how to replace fossil fuels had been discussed since long before they assumed their late 20th century dominance. Even in 1912, a paper in Scientific American hypothesized that soon fossil fuels would run out, leaving solar power the only option for the US, and investment in solar power technology was popular up until the First World War. In the 1950s, the concept of peak oil began a new drive towards renewables and solar, hydropower and others forms of energy generation were seized upon by both environmentalists and industrialists.

Meanwhile, a growing environmental movement, the development of environmental sciences and a push against pollution (such as the Clean Air Act in the US and equivalents in other countries, most of which passed in the 1960s and 1970s) meant that more than ever before, renewable energy became not just a scientific innovation for the future, but a necessity.

When governments legislate for a change that is needed, it is surprising how quickly people respond.
One of President Nixon’s first moves after the OPEC ban on exports was to initiate “Project Independence”. The US was to meet its own energy needs “without depending on any foreign energy sources” by 1980. In November 1973, Nixon called for people to make a personal sacrifice: “It will be essential for all of us to live and work in lower temperatures. We must ask everyone to lower the thermostat in your home by at least 6 degrees…”

The new US Department of Energy started its Low Income Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) program, helping the nation’s most vulnerable reduce energy use. The Residential Conservation Service (RCS), established by the 1978 National Energy Conservation Act, promoted energy audits and asked consumers to insulate their homes, weather-strip windows, wrap water heaters, turn down thermostats, and turn-off lights. Some states offered offered a price per kWh paid for verified energy savings. In 1977 the US Department of Energy launched the Solar Energy Research Institute in Colorado – the first federal facility dedicated to harnessing power from the sun.

In the UK, a four-fold increase in oil prices forced not only the creation of the first Department of Energy that year, but also a rethink about energy efficiency. The Department’s Industrial Energy Thrift Scheme was the first industry-wide attempt to gather information on energy use and to provide advice on how to improve energy efficiency on site. Over 6000 site visits were carried out during the mid to late 1970s and the information gathered was aggregated and published in industry sector guides.

In 1970, less than a quarter of one percent of electricity was generated from renewable sources worldwide. In contrast, by March 2019, globally, around one third of electricity generating capacity was from renewables including hydropower. New generating capacity from renewables now outstrips all new fossil fuels combined. Some nations generate more than 50% of their total electricity from renewable sources. Famously, in 2015 Costa Rica generated 100% of its electricity from renewables. In July, 2018, Baynes (2018) reported that Germany generates enough solar energy in six months to meet the nation’s energy needs for an entire year.

In 1973, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) formed a separate committee, the AIA Committee on Energy, dedicated to researching passive systems, such as reflective roofing materials, and technological solutions, such as triple-glazed windows.

The “DTH zero-energy house” was designed in Denmark by by Prof. Vagn Korsgaard (Kopenhagen, 1973) as a Passive House. Simultaneous experiments in the US and Germany developed super- insulated homes. US federal investments in energy R&D more than doubled from 1973-1976.
In 1977, US President Carter delivered an energy speech arguing for conservation and alternative fuels. 1978 saw the world’s first solar powered village at the Tohono O’odham Reservation, Arizona. December 1980 saw the world’s first modern wind farm comprising 20 wind turbines built in New Hampshire, USA.
Rapid Transition Alliance presented the following lessons for rapid transition:

• Crises and innovation are often linked. When circumstances demand it, major changes can occur and very quickly when societies are confronted with a crisis.

• For rapid transition to be acceptable, changes have to focus on protecting general welfare and be delivered with demonstrable fairness.

• Governments can – and should – conscientiously galvanise, support and incentivise positive action toward rapid transition.

We have little choice now but to pursue this path if we wish to avoid a global calamity but there are other lessons.

Firstly the need to recognise the crisis, formally declare it as such, and embody it in legislation to ensure change is institutionalised. This may sound obvious but climate denial has been strong for many years and has stymied action.

Secondly the need for pressure for change to be maintained, with action plans, milestones and measurable targets which are monitored and can be modified as required, particularly if the situation becomes more urgent and demands more rapid change.

Thirdly, counter interest groups such as the fossil lobby and other business lobby groups that have a vested interest in preserving business as usual and seek to derail the change process or use the climate emergency in a way that promotes their own agenda and that compromise overall goals.

Fourthly, recognition of the dimension, scale and complexity of the challenge, that there is no simple single fix solution, that it requires fundamental system change and must address challenges associated with the biosphere as well as the geosphere.

Fifthly, behavioural change is key, and must be the primary aim and that technology must be used as a tool to promote this, not business as usual.

Sixthly, do what works, even if this means abandoning accepted beliefs, values and aspirations/ expectations etc, recognising as Prince Charles urged our Prime Minister recently, “this is our last chance saloon”.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn