Bob Cameron at the Rockote Design Centre

Australia’s first sustainable commercial building wins international recognition

Yandina-based Rockcote, manufacturers of eco-friendly paints and renders, have gained international recognition for their Gold Coast showroom. The Rockcote Design Centre, Australia’s first truly sustainable commercial building, is built on a former wasteland at Nerang.

The building was announced as the runner-up in the prestigious international 2008 Prix D’Excellence Awards Environmental Category at the FIABCI World Congress in Amsterdam on May 29.

With architecture cleverly integrated into the landscaping of the surrounding site, the building achieves total self-sufficiency in water, waste treatment and energy.

Furthermore it sells its excess power into the electricity grid. These features are a first for a commercial building of its kind in Australia and set. It is now setting an example in its use of natural systems for heating, cooling, lighting and ventilation for others to follow.

Integral to the building’s design is the surrounding organic garden and its water capture and treatment system. They all work together to provide clean water, food, clean air, and a healthy environment. The fruit, vegetables and herbs grown in the garden are enjoyed by the building’s occupants and visitors in their cafe.

Rockcote’s owner Bob Cameron said: “Our project demonstrates that environmental objectives can be achieved at no greater cost than a conventional building of the same size.

“More importantly, its running costs are far lower, it provides a healthier and more productive environment for all who use it and gives considerable benefits for the surrounding community.”

In 2006 the Rockcote Design Centre was recognised as Australia’s best building, winning the President’s Award in the Urban Development Institute of Australia’s National Awards for Excellence.

Inside this edition we focus on one of the biggest issues facing society today – peak oil. Follow this link to go straight to the website.

As usual we have our regular features with some great articles supplied by our contributors. Without their hard work ECO would not exist. So it’s a big thank you to everyone involved.

For our previous readers you will notice some additions and alterations have been made to the website – hopefully making browsing a little easier and even more informative.

We hope you enjoy this edition and as always, please feel free to make comments on individual articles or under the ‘Your Say‘ tab.

Until next time.

“The Queensland government sees a long-term future for coal, as long as we can ensure that it becomes a low-emissions technology,” she said in Brisbane recently.

This is despite a recent Essential Research poll which found 82 per cent of Australians want coal exports capped or reduced. Yet Queensland plans to almost double its export coal capacity by 2030, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions, reportedly equivalent to 80 per cent of Australia’s current national total.

Following the Federal Environment Minister Peter Garret’s approval of the $1.3 billion Gladstone coal port expansion, in May this year the Federal Government promised $20 billion for infrastructure” most to be spent on increasing coal rail and port capacity.

Federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said the export revenue from coal is predicted to increase by around $20 billion to $43 billion in 2008/9. This increase is expected to greatly jeopardise the government’s reduced emissions requirements.

Dr Chris Reidy, from the University of Technology Sydney, Institute for Sustainable Futures said responding to climate change was urgent and suggested the government should look at other cost-efficient alternatives.

Dr Reidy believes public subsidies for the production and consumption of fossil fuels discourage investments in energy efficiency improvement and the development of alternative, low-greenhouse energy supplies.

“There is lots of sunlight and wind that can be potentially developed and could rival the export of coal,” he said.

University of the Sunshine Coast Research Coordinator of Science, Health and Education and Director for Regional Sustainability Research Group, Dr Tim Smith said Australia was not positioning its economy for the future.

“Focus on economical growth is unsustainable,” he said.

Dr Smith said the question of how important coal is to the economy should be reversed and instead posed as: “What are the implications to the natural environment”.

Despite other alternatives such as wind, solar and geothermal the Government is continuing to invest large amounts of money into the coal industry. Dr Reidy attributed this to the lobbying by Australia”s entrenched coal industry. “They can afford to pay people,” he said.

Premier Bligh said expanding coal exports was an economical multiplier for both the region and the state, estimating that another 500 jobs would be created in the construction stage and a further 130 jobs at the terminal when fully operational. However Dr Reidy disagreed and said the same argument could be used for renewable energy.

“Equally a solar thermal power station would build jobs. There are more jobs in renewable energy,” he said.

Dr Reidy said unfortunately there was not enough support in Australia for renewable energies, which is why people such as Australia’s leading solar-power innovator David Mills, are heading overseas to places like California.

“Every time solar gets government support it is taken away,” he said. Referring to the federal Government’s introduction of solar rebate means test. Dr Smith said we should be aiming to transform society towards sustainability and conserving power, instead of promoting power industries.

“Australia has a potential market niche (solar and wind). But of course we are putting our heads in the sand,” he said.

“We should explore new technologies but we are exporting technologies overseas rather then looking at it commercially.

“The whole focus is on centralised provisions centralised power feasibility of things is a flawed approach,” he said.

Dr Smith, formally a senior research scientist with the Resource Futures Program of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, is currently focused on a systems approach to regional climate change and adaptation strategies and new teaching programs to transform society towards sustainability.

Dr Smith said the questions that should be asked when it comes to coal include: “Does the (coal) subsidy result in significant social and environmental gains?”

“Are we representing democracy and our ability to represent these issues? He would like people to ask, “Why do we need extra power?” and “Why can’t we conserve power?”

Executive Director Brett Solomon identified the following problems with the model proposed in green paper:

• Free permits to pollute for trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries
• Direct payments to existing coal-fired electricity generators allowing coal-fired power stations to expand, instead of phasing into renewable energy
• Cutting the fuel excise, instead of using the money to promote low-carbon transport alternatives
• A cap on the price of carbon from 2010 – 2015, undermines the scheme’s ability to price the real costs of greenhouse pollution.

“Australia now has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transition to a low-carbon economy,” said Mr Solomon. But this green paper offers free emissions permits covering up to 90 per cent of their emissions to Australia’s biggest polluters.”

“Direct payments to coal-fired power stations would undermine the scheme. We need to transition away from coal and into energy efficiency and renewable energy as soon as we can. We urge the Government to reconsider subsidising the big polluters and instead begin planning a just transition away from coal for the LaTrobe Valley and Hunter Valley.”

Mr Solomon said by not including the big polluters there is a great risk that the effectiveness of the Reduction Scheme will be reduced from the start.

Australian Greens climate change spokesperson, Senator Christine Milne said the Rudd Government’s green paper still provides no responsible target and lacks true leadership.

“Minister Wong’s green paper protects polluters and provides no signal for investment for a zero-emissions future. Minister Wong used the term ‘transformation’ many times in her speech, but the Scheme proposed here provides no drivers at all for transformation, instead protecting existing investments at all costs,” said Senator Milne.

The Rudd Government’s plan for emissions trading has some similarities to John Howard’s task group report on emissions trading. Some commentators have suggested the green paper is simply a rebadged cap-and-trade scheme.

The secretariat for the Coalition’s task group was headed by Martin Parkinson, a former senior Treasury officer. Now he is secretary of Penny Wong’s Climate Change Department, established by the Rudd Government, and the most important bureaucrat in putting together the 516-page green paper.

The difference however, according to John Connor, chief executive officer of the Climate Institute, is that the Rudd Government’s process was better and was safeguarded from the influence of the big emitters BHP Billiton, Xstrata Coal, International Power, Qantas and Alumina Ltd.

From Sonya Wallace from the Sunshine Coast Energy Action Centre

These are truly unprecedented times for us all. The world is having to face up to the consequences of years of reliance on fossil fuels as a cheap energy source. We are facing a future of climate and energy uncertainty. Our dependency on oil as a cheap energy source has left us in a vulnerable position. We are reliant on the very thing which is causing such significant environmental damage.

And you are probably thinking will this affect me? Yes it will. What can you do about it? Well the answer is plenty. We need to act collectively and we need to act now. This is a time for a war-like response we need resources, funding, people and action. Every day, every choice you make has consequences. This is where you can make a real difference starting right now. Make choices that help you move from oil dependency and create local resilience. We will be transitioning to a lower energy future whether we want to or not. It is far better to ride that wave rather than to be engulfed by it. Here are a couple of examples of what you can do.

Food

We all eat, yet what impact is your dinner having on climate change and how dependent are you on fossil fuel for getting that food to your table?

Research by CERES in Victoria found that 29 items (dairy, meat, fresh food, legume products and processed goods) purchased at a supermarket in Victoria had travelled a total of 70,803 kilometres. That’s three times around Australia’s coastline.

So each shopping trolley passing through checkouts across Australia has the potential to have the equivalent fossil fuel use and carbon emissions of you getting in your car and travelling almost twice around the equator.

This tally of kilometres known as food miles is something we should all be considering when we shop.

Buying locally grown, in-season, organic food is one of the most important things you can do to combat climate change and to help prepare our region for the flow on effects of peak oil. By supporting these systems now and increasing demand in the region for them, you are creating a consumer demand for locally grown food and significantly reducing your household ecological footprint. Help build the systems now that will support us in the future and that strengthen our communities.

There are many ways you can access fresh local food; farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture programs, organic food co-operatives, bulk buying with neighbours, school and community gardens, neighbourhood food growing co-ops and growing some (or a lot) of your own food at home in your backyard.

Buying organic food is also an important choice you can make. Non-organic food relies heavily on the application of fossil fuel-based fertilisers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides to feed the soil, manage pests and treat fungal and weed problems. As fuel prices rise, so to will the flow-on effect the food you buy. Organic food production does away with the need for these.

Organic soil is supported by using compost, worm castings, green manure crops and crop rotation methods. Pests are managed predominantly without sprays, but if anything is applied the product is certified organic and safe for human consumption.

Your consumer choice can make a difference. Support local solutions to energy issues. A decentralised, diverse, resilient food supply system will help us manage a smooth move from oil dependency to local resilience. Ask for local and buy local.

Waste

Fifty percent of what goes into the average wheelie bin in Australia could (and should) be composted on-site at a household level.

When putrescible waste, that is waste likely to become putrid (for example, kitchen and food scraps), is added to wheelie bins it goes on to create big problems. The waste is picked up by a large truck, which runs on fossil fuel. It is then taken to a landfill site and dumped. Landfill sites are compacted and the waste then becomes anaerobic. Anaerobic putrescible waste produces methane. Methane is around 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. There is also a great risk of pollution leaching into waterways from landfill.

About 50 per cent of the contents of the average wheelie bin could be composted.

Here is another way you can make a real difference. Learn ways to manage your household’s compostable waste on site set up compost bins and worm farms. Reduce landfill, reduce methane in the atmosphere, grow your own soil and put that back into your garden and grow your own vegetables and herbs. Simple, easy-to-do solutions for your family.

Transition Sunshine Coast

These are just a few of the many ways we can all individually and collectively do something significant about climate change and peak oil. If everyone makes changes it does make a difference.

In September 2007 the Sunshine Coast was recognised as Australia’s first Transition Initiative and the first outside the British Isles. The movement is taking off around the world as people and communities get together to act on climate and energy issues. The solutions to these problems go beyond what can be covered here in this article, but you can be part of those solutions.

Transition Sunshine Coast offers Australia’s only community education courses in energy descent action planning. Whether for your own home, your local neighbourhood, your community or for the entire region, energy descent planning is a structured and proven way to action real strategies across all areas of our lives that are being affected by fossil fuel use. Food, transport, water, waste, energy, health, communication, buildings, agriculture, infrastructure, development, education, governance, land use, natural ecosystems, employment, finance, culture, arts, heritage — its all there and it all needs to be addressed.

Community action is the way forward on these issues. We must all work together, make the necessary changes, demand and support change at all levels of government and work collectively and collaboratively toward a better future. But we must act now. Let the decision makers know what we can and should be doing.

Be part of the solution

Transition Sunshine Coast and the Sunshine Coast Energy Action Centre will be presenting a range of courses and facilitation workshops later this year to assist and support the community in preparing for climate and energy uncertainty. Using the established models of transition initiatives, re-localisation and permaculture, we will explore, discuss, plan and enact strategies to move our region and our supply systems from oil dependency to local resilience. From learning how to compost and worm farm, to contributing to a regional plan for reducing our energy use and dependence  join SEAC and Transition Sunshine Coast and be part of the solution.

We will be supporting the establishment of Transition Towns across the Sunshine Coast.

Transition Initiatives are based on four key factors

1. That life with dramatically lower energy consumption is inevitable, and that it’s better to plan for it than to be taken by surprise.
2. That our settlements and communities presently lack the resilience to enable them to weather the severe energy shocks that will accompany peak oil.
3. That we have to act collectively and we have to act now
4. That by unleashing the collective genius of those around us to creatively and proactively design our energy descent, we can build ways of living that are more connected, more enriching and that recognise the biological limits of the planet.

Strategies for climate change and peak oil

• Community-driven solutions
• Transition initiatives
• Energy Descent Action Plans
• Climate-friendly communities
• Community supported agriculture
• Diverse and robust organic food supply systems
• Energy appropriate transport solutions
• Land trusts
• Credit unions and local economies
• Locally owned, decentralised energy supply companies
• Small decentralised solutions generally
• Not overextending limits of eco-systems
• Social justice and equity
• A strong emphasis on community education and empowerment

Further information: visit the Sustainability Hub

A study finds Nambour is relatively well protected from the expected blows of peak oil, however other Sunshine Coast locations won’t be so lucky.

A recent study has found Nambour to be relatively protected from the pain of escalating fuel prices.

As part of his environmental planning honours studies at Griffith University, Phil Woods questioned many Nambour residents about how rising fuel prices are affecting their day-to-day lives. He found the town’s facilities and infrastructure are cushioning many of the working and retired population. Even though others are feeling a pinch in their hip pocket nerve, they are not.

“Nambour is an old established town compared to the strip development along the coast,” Mr Woods said. “It has a localised economy of its own — a major hospital, a TAFE college, some industrial businesses, retail and commercial businesses, schools and so on. Without the coast, Nambour could still function quite well on its own.”

Nambour’s localised economy means that around one third of its workers travel less than five kilometres to work. Retirees in Nambour, too, are generally not feeling the pressure at the petrol bowser because, while many own cars, the number of kilometres driven is comparatively small. These are the people whose lives will probably continue unchanged if prices rise beyond two dollars a litre.

However another third of Nambour’s workers travel to workplaces more than 30 kilometres away. Others have children with diverse recreational and sporting activities requiring relatively long and frequent trips in parents’ cars on weekends. Others rely on social networks and interests in areas away from Nambour. These people are most vulnerable to rising petrol prices.

Many are already changing their habits to minimise their petrol costs. By far the most popular response was to plan ahead and undertake several tasks during one trip. Others were cutting back on holiday trips or non-essential expenses, using the smallest family car more, and car pooling.

“I was expecting to see the trends of using more public transport and moving to scooters and motorbikes, because this is what’s happening in other areas,” said Mr Woods. “However I found that people love the convenience, comfort and freedom of their car, and they see public transport as neither reliable nor comfortable.

“While in capital cities there was a seven-fold increase in scooter sales in as many years, and a doubling of motorcycle sales in general, Nambour drivers were concerned about bikes and scooters being driven off the road by cars. In cities, people turn to scooters because of congestion and traffic jams, but we don’t have that here in Nambour.”

The results of the study raise questions about how other parts of the Sunshine Coast will fare without advantages such as Nambour’s.

“In every town in Australia, almost everyone has a car, but it’s the amount of travelling done in that car. If where you live has a localised economy, then the population as a whole is probably less vulnerable,” Mr Woods said. “So coastal towns that only have tourism and accommodation, for example, are more vulnerable than Nambour.”

By examining impacts at a household level, Mr Woods’ study builds on work undertaken by Jago Dodson and Neil Sipe of Griffith University. Their 2005 report Oil Vulnerability in Australian Cities examines the impact of rising oil prices at a neighbourhood level. It found poorer outer suburbs in Australian cities are likely to be most affected by rising petrol costs because of their dependence on motor vehicles and limited access to public transport. In contrast, wealthy inner suburbs are less vulnerable because of their higher incomes and better access to public transport.

“The reason why rising fuel costs will impact on lower socio-economic groups in the outer suburbs is twofold. First, these households are already at a greater risk of adverse impacts from any socio-economic change,” Dr Dodson said.

“Secondly, these households are more dependent on cars for travel. This dependence means residents who rely on cheap petrol to drive to work or the shops are highly vulnerable to increased fuel costs. This may be compounded by the lack of alternative modes of transport, such as public transport, walking or cycling.”

Dr Sipe said governments need to understand how rising oil prices will affect Australian suburbs and plan to limit the impacts on car dependent neighbourhoods through provision of better public transport services.

The report found Brisbane’s outer growth corridors were most vulnerable to rising petrol prices. These areas included the suburbs of Beenleigh, Caboolture and Ipswich.

The report, Fuel for thought: the future of transport fuels: challenges and opportunities, looks at the need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Australia’s transport sector and how Australia can best deal with the reality of peak oil.

“This report puts policy makers on notice about government’s clear role to prepare Australia for the twin realities of climate change and increasingly scarce and expensive oil,” said ACF’s Sustainable Australia program manager Monica Richter.

“Australia’s economy has been shaped by cheap and abundant oil,” Ms Richter said.

“Transport is responsible for about 14 per cent of our total greenhouse emissions. When considering the design of Australia’s emissions trading scheme, the Government cannot just ignore emissions from transport.”

The report recognises the pain caused by soaring fuel prices and supports government investment in public transport. However, it also sees a future where fully electric vehicles are the norm.

“The CSIRO modelling predicts plug-in electric vehicles could account for about two-thirds of the kilometres travelled in Australia by 2050, so there is an urgent need for governments to help manufacturers re-tool to build cleaner cars here in Australia,” Ms Richter said.

“Decarbonising our society is a big challenge, but the sooner we start the easier it will be and the less it will cost us.”

The Garnaut report (released July 4), models a range of emission reduction plans, but appears to fall short of mentioning any actions needed to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases at safe levels. A CO2 concentration of around 400 parts per million is widely agreed as safe in preventing the so-called run-away temperatures predicted at higher greenhouse gas levels.

ACF executive director Don Henry said Professor Garnaut delivered a credible yet conservative report.  The most ambitious emission reductions assessed by the Garnaut Review only give a 50-50 chance of saving the Great Barrier Reef from complete decline.

“We cannot afford to take such a big gamble with climate change if we want our kids to be able to see the Barrier Reef in real life, not just in a documentary,” said Mr Henry.

“If the Government wants to avoid Australian families facing permanent water restrictions in the future and Australian farmers enduring longer and worse droughts, it will need to take even stronger action than Professor Garnaut’s report recommends.

To avoid the financial burden falling on the most vulnerable and poor, any scheme designed to reduce emissions will need to take on the big polluters. This includes focusing upon the two top polluting sources, coal-fired electricity and transport.

“Emissions from transport cannot simply be ignored, they must be part of the emissions trading scheme,” said Mr Henry.

He suggests a weak or delayed start to the task of reducing emissions will not do the job.

“Cutting emissions at the scale required is a big challenge, but it is a job we must take on and our children and grandchildren are worth it.”

The site was so remote that it took five days before D’Arcy got word by telegram in England.

“If this is true,” he replied, “all our troubles are over.” It was indeed true, and more rigs hit oil elsewhere in Persia, including another huge one in September.

How things have changed.  Whatever happened to telegrams?  Whatever happened to the oil?

The 20th Century will undoubtedly be remembered for the explosion of technology, steam, then oil, then nuclear and solar powered technology.  I stress, powered technology.  Most people confuse technology with energy and unfortunately, they are not interchangeable; something fast becoming obvious as we approach the 21st Century era of peak energy and limits to growth.

There is so much nonsense in the media today about the reasons why petrol (and diesel of course) is so expensive, that it’s mind boggling.  Surfing the media’s web blogs’ tailing articles on petrol prices quickly exposes the man in the street’s ignorance of the truth.  Not that we can point the finger at ‘people’.  The media, outside of publications like this one, is doing very little to educate or inform their readers or viewers.

So, when I predict that within as little as four or five years we may not be able to buy any fuel at all, at any price, people of course think I’m a complete nut case.  I can understand this.  The government is hardly showing signs of any such concerns, especially when they propose to build new freeways and tunnels to the airport.

Peak oil is often misconstrued as ‘running out’ of oil.  In fact, it’s ‘only’ the point at which roughly half the oil has been extracted.  This has been thoroughly documented in the USA which was by far the largest oil producer until after WWII.  That nation peaked in 1971 and even though the largest oil field in all of North America (Prudhoe Bay) was put into service shortly thereafter, US oil production never recovered: inexorably decreasing to its current level, slightly less than 50 per cent of peak.  Peak Oil is no theory, the American experience proves this beyond any doubt.

So what of Australia?  The news, I’m afraid, is grim indeed.  Australia’s oil production peaked in 2000.  The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) has, for reasons known only to itself, consistently incorrectly predicted our future oil production.  This is most baffling.  Just who are they trying to kid?  Do they pick figures out of thin air?

Greens Senator, Christine Milne and Ian Dunlop, formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, now also challenge our resources peak body for misleading everyone, not just once, but at least for five years running.  This, in my opinion at least, borders on criminal negligence.  One has to realise that very important decisions are made on the back of these predictions like enlarging airport runways.

When a nation’s oil production peaks, it must then rely on imports from elsewhere.  The US imports oil from Canada, Mexico (now collapsing) and Venezuela, with some top up from the Saudis and Africa.  We in Australia, you may be surprised to find out, import oil from Vietnam, PNG, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Brunei and, as a further surprise, New Zealand.  We actually get more oil from NZ than we do from Saudi Arabia.

There is a problem with importing oil from less developed nations.  They want what we have,  and they are developing at an accelerating rate.  Since Vietnam is our biggest single supplier (currently 28 per cent of all imports), let’s analyse their situation.

Figure 1 shows Vietnam’s oil production, which did not start until 1986 and steadily rose to a peak of just over 400,000 barrels per day in 2004.  It has declined ever since.

Figure 1

Figure 2 shows Vietnam’s domestic oil consumption, rising very quickly to 275,000 barrels per day (in 2006) as that country’s economy grew at a mighty 7.1 per cent annually — a doubling of GDP (and by definition, consumption), every ten years.  By now, production is probably down to 300,000 barrels per day and consumption is up to about 300,000 barrels per day.

So where’s our oil going to come from now?  And, how dare they use it all up!  Figure 3 shows Vietnam’s net export in virtual free fall from 175,000 barrels to 90,000 barrels per day in a matter of just five years.

Figure 2

At the time of writing it might be possible, that like Indonesia (which has just left OPEC), Vietnam has become a net oil importer, just like we are. Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism, Martin Ferguson worries about a deepening trade deficit of some 25 billion dollars from importing oil, but I worry about there being none at all left to buy.

There is not the room here to analyse what is happening to the other nations we import from, but I can tell you that apart from the United Arab Emirates (representing just 12.5 per cent of our imports), the picture is similar everywhere, including Saudi Arabia.  Oil exporting nations are rapidly declining and soon there will be none to turn to.

Figure 3

Within five years (give or take a year or two), unless another Bass Strait is found, Australia will be left with a maximum of 10 per cent of the oil we now take for granted.  This is what extrapolating ABARE’s own optimistic data shows.

Now we might find another Bass Strait, but you have to understand that even if another 250,000 barrels per day of Australian oil comes on-line over the next five years, we would still only have about one-third of the current demand.

This is not the time to build new freeways and tunnels to airports, which may even be quasi abandoned within five years as airlines all over the world go belly up.  What we need is a major effort to build new rail infrastructure and other associated public transport.  I see no other option but to start rationing fuel and fairly soon, allowing only essential services like farming, medicine, fire brigades and so on to continue operating.  Time is short, we must act now.  We need visionary leadership.

Suggested reading:

The Oil Drum
Future Scenarios
Peak Oil
Discussion group
Permaculture Noosa
Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2007

About the Author: Mike Stasse is a Sustainable Housing and Energy Efficiency consultant and an accredited BERS energy rating Assessor.  He lives with his wife in the Noosa hinterland at Cooran in their Award Winning eco-solar house.

Also see Mike Stasse on You Tube.

The solution to ozone depletion was delivered via governments around the world. A ban on the offending chemicals resulted in a relatively quick adaptation by industry, and the public. Simply using your finger to pump the spray pack was deemed palatable.

Enter climate change and things have taken a strange and somewhat insidious turn. People calling out for change are being labelled hair-shirted activists in some of our nation’s newspapers. One or two dubious reports hit the streets and we have a wave of ill-informed statements such as the ‘unproven hypothesis of man-made global warming’.

Scientists and economists, supported by their respective governments, have presented a very clear message. Do something now, or else. Jobs will not be lost if we adapt and develop local businesses, manufacturers and community organisations, now.

Contradictory to their own reports, governments now appear enslaved by opinion polls and the revenue earned from the big greenhouse-gas offenders. Coal and oil are rapidly becoming the CFCs of the 21st century, but this time the politicians have selected hearing. This time the solutions are more complex.

Turning a light off that is powered by a coal-fired power station, is like asking someone to use a CFC-based spray can sparingly. It certainly helps and most certainly should be encouraged, but the only long-term fix is for governments to ban the harmful substance.

The Prime Minister recognises climate-change-induced coral bleaching is killing the Barrier Reef. At the same time we witness an expansion of coal infrastructure to accommodate increased Queensland exports.

As for oil, the Queensland Government in one instance leads the way in recognising it as a finite resource (Queensland’s vulnerability to rising oil prices – taskforce report), whilst it continues to encourage more roads and urban sprawl.

Reducing fuel tax, or protecting the coal industry is irresponsible and will not help Australians prepare for the aftermath of peak oil and the problems of climate change.

Southeast Queenslanders are acutely aware of finite resources such as drinking water. Other than its absurd insistence on spending tax-payer dollars on a shallow body of water masquerading as a dam at Traveston Crossing, the Government correctly recognised the need to use our existing water supplies more efficiently and sparingly. Why are we not seeing large-scale public projects aimed at reducing oil dependence? Why aren’t we witnessing the rapid birth of an array of renewable energy sources as a viable coal alternative?

Reports on climate change and peak oil are not hypotheses that require further debate. They arose from sound, scientific theory. Our politicians need to stand up and meet community expectations. More importantly, they need to have the courage to lead the way and take action just as they did with CFCs.