[sustran] [sustran] Strategy for 50% greenhouse gas reduction

[Mark Diesendorf]

MEDIA RELEASE

Embargo Monday 25 September 2000, 1600 hours

Strategy for 50% Greenhouse Gas Reduction

An expert on sustainable energy today challenged all levels of 
government in Australia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, saying 
that we could cost-effectively make enormous savings with only small 
improvements in technology.

Over the next 30 years Australia could reduce its greenhouse gas 
(GHG) emissions from energy and transport by 50%, compared with the 
1990 level, and by 2010 could meet its "weak" Kyoto Protocol 
commitment to an 8% increase compared with the 1990 level.

These claims are made in a discussion paper circulated today by 
Professor Mark Diesendorf, Director of the Institute for Sustainable 
Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney.

In the run up to the 6th Conference of the Parties to the Climate 
Change Convention, to be held in The Hague in mid-November, Professor 
Diesendorf proposes that a number of key actions be adopted by 
Federal, State and Local Governments.

"My overall strategy is that the economic savings achieved by 
substantial increases in the efficiency of energy use and the removal 
of subsidies to inefficient energy use be used to fund the transition 
to an energy supply system based on a mix of renewable energy and 
natural gas sources for electricity, heating and cooling, and a 
greater role for public transport, cycling and walking in cities", he 
says.

He suggests that over a billion dollars a year could be redirected 
from tax concessions and other de facto subsidies by Federal and 
State Governments that currently encourage greenhouse gas emissions, 
including:

o	tax deductions for the purchase and use of company and government cars;
o	very low import duty on 4-wheel drive vehicles compared with 
that on cars;
o	subsidies to oil exploration and to the production of shale 
oil, a fuel with double the GHG emissions of petrol;
o	cheap electricity and infrastructure received by aluminium smelting;
o	biased funding of roads compared with infrastructure for 
public transport, cycling and walking;
o	failure to follow New Zealand's lead and implement mass-distance charges for heavy trucks in populous areas of Australia;
o	inadequate taxes on car parking in city centres and sub-centres.
Using the revenue obtained from eliminating these and other 
concessions, Professor Diesendorf proposes a number of key actions to 
reduce emissions, for instance:

o	Increase the funding to local governments from the Cities for 
Climate Protection program of the Australian Greenhouse Office by a 
factor of 10. The present funding, he says, only provides the 
"microscopic" average amount of about $3,500 p.a. per Council.

o	With this and other funding, Councils would develop 
integrated local transport and land use plans and implementation 
programs, including demand management of traffic, improved facilities 
for cyclists and pedestrians, orientation of streets and blocks in 
new subdivisions, and incentive programs for local businesses to 
monitor and reduce GHG emissions.

o	Increase the modest target for new renewable electricity 
generation from 2% to 5% of total electricity demand in 2010 and set 
a similar target for renewable sources of heat.

o	Mandate energy ratings and energy performance standards for 
all homes, equipment and appliances.

o	Adopt legislation similar to the USA's Transportation Equity 
Act, which requires roads to compete with rail for federal funding, 
and includes environmental impacts in assessments of proposals.

o	Ensure that new investments in major transport links, 
suburbs, power stations, shopping centres and employment centres are 
planned to minimise GHG emissions, as partially implemented in the 
UK. In practise, this could mean a ban on new urban freeways, new 
coal-fired power stations and new shopping malls located outside 
walking distance of public transport nodes.

o	Remove subsidies from electricity and fuel prices in rural 
areas, and replace them with equivalent rural-area location 
allowances. This would enable country people to invest in 
cost-effective energy efficiency measures, solar hot water and 
small-scale solar and wind power.

o	Remove incentives for selling excessive electricity from 
electricity retailers in all States. The goal should be the reduction 
of energy bills, not the price of a unit of electricity.

Professor Diesendorf points out that most of these proposed actions 
would involve institutional change and so would be inexpensive to 
implement. A few would require "real funding".

  "For Australia's international credibility, something similar to 
this package of key actions is essential", he says.


Further information:  Professor Mark Diesendorf
Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney
phone (02) 9209 4353 bh direct; fax (02) 9209 4351; email: 
Mark.Diesendorf at uts.edu.au
The complete discussion paper can be viewed on 
http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/, see under News.
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type text/enriched