Infrastructure Australia - strategic planning or a megaphone for the roads lobby?
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Wednesday 19th March 2008, 8:56am
by TimHollo in
The Rudd Government's Bill to establish Infrastructure Australia is currently being debated in the Senate, with several amendments being proposed and debated by Christine.
In her Second Reading Speech last night, Christine said:
"I think it is a good idea that a nation should begin to predict and anticipate its infrastructure needs and demands and set out a strategic blueprint. Why I am disappointed, though, is that this whole bill is couched as if climate change and oil depletion are not real."
The debate should prove to be quite interesting, and I will post more as it becomes available through Hansard.
Any ideas that people have that could be useful while the debate continues are most welcome.
Update:
The debate has been adjourned until after question time this afternoon, but not before Christine's first amendment was rejected by the Government, Opposition and Family First.
Christine's media release on this morning's activities is here.
As it turns out, Infrastructure Australia will not even have the capacity to examine the greenhouse implications of proposed infrastructure developments unless specifically instructed by the Minister to do so. How frequently do we think that will happen?
Do we think Minister Albanese will call for the greenhouse implications of expanded coal ports and related infrastructure to be examined?
Update 2:
The debate thus far from 9.30am up to 12.30 is here.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
You could point that the
You could point that the oil-exporting countries are using more oil themselves as time goes on, so that even if they could keep up their high production forever, their exports would decline. And if their exports decline, someone is going to miss out. So those telly adverts where the car is travelling alone along a big highway will start to look more realistic.
You could point out that reducing our oil imports would improve the current account deficit. Or do they prefer that Australian money should leave Australia never to return?
You could point out that most oil money goes to Gulf countries, and those countries donate money to Sunni terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda; other oil money goes to Russia, hardly a friendly power. How do we square our War On Terror with giving money to people who then give it to terrorists? It's like the Cold War, but as if we were buying Soviet tractors.
Not having to import oil would mean we'd remove a source of foreign policy difficulties for ourselves. We wouldn't have to be involved in the mess in the Middle East, and wouldn't have to buy overpriced aircraft that don't work from the Americans, we could lower the Defence budget, or divert the money into more useful areas of Defence.
Senator Allison (Dems)
Senator Allison (Dems) thinks the sea level rise could be 25 metres within a century? The understanding of climate change seems rather poor there in the Senate. When one foolish thing is said, it makes the wise things said seem foolish.
I'm glad that Senator Milne's proposed amendment mentions "greenhouse gas emission and oil consumption implications of any development", however I am struck by a glance over the text that while climate change is mentioned frequently, peak fossil fuels are mentioned only in passing. After all, even if burning the stuff gave us vitamin C, at some point it will run short. If it's running short in the next couple of decades - and it seems it will - then it's rather senseless to expand our road network. As I said earlier, the advertisements depicting cars driving along alone on vast wide roads might come true.
We have around 14 million private vehicles in Australia, and this number is rising. But if global production of fossil fuels peaks and then drops, we can expect that the number of private vehicles will drop, too. To expand the roads for vehicles when there are less vehicles is rather wasteful.
You need to emphasise peak fossil fuels more. For example, when Senator Scullion (Nats) said, "The fact that in the legislation it says ‘to provide
advice on infrastructure policy issues arising from climate change’ is sufficient, I would have thought. It would not improve the legislation to make that more specific",, I would have replied,
"Specific problems require specific specific addressing. When I go to the doctor, I do not tell her "I'm sick", I tell her that I am feverish, or have a sore knee or blurry vision. And you mention climate change, but do not mention peak fossil fuels. It is important that this new body, in deciding what infrastructure to build or support, consider that we may not always have the same fossil fuel supply in the future."
This comes up again and again in the transcript, such as with Sen McLucas (ALP) popping up and saying "oh but we're worried about climate change, too." It boils down to,
Milne: "We need to amend it to acknowledge climate change and peak oil."
Others: "We're acknowledging climate change."
Now what Milne needs to say is, "Okay, but what about peak oil?"
When MacDonald was asking, "oh but who cares, we're just a small contributor anyway", and Milne was responding that petrol prices were bound to rise no matter what, that would have been the perfect opportunity to mention again - scarcity makes high prices, and scarcity is inevitable.
Hammer it home. They're a bit slow.
We can spend billions of dollars on infrastructure that'll be useless in a few decades, like enormous freeways, or on infrastructure that'll still be useful, like rail.
Fast trains for freight;
Fast trains for freight; fast trains for people; linking our capital cities and major rural centres. Costly, of course - but a true investment in the future to reduce reliance on diminishing oil resources and maintain support for our economy. Absolutely remove subsidies on roads - all those new roads and bridges which have to be built to higher and higher engineering standards to support the axle weight of B-doubles nose to tail flogging the highways and spewing out CO2 and other atmospheric contaminants.
I think talking about
I think talking about infrastructure is putting the cart before the horse. It is the energy generation system that should be the targeted and not the supporting infrastructure. What we are mainly talking about with infrastructure is an energy use and distribution system. Energy generation is the horse, infrastructure is the cart.
Granted peak oil is a real, but most arguments have assumed that there will be no substitute fuel/energy to power transportation and industry within a reasonable time frame.
It's a given that any major infrastructure spend will be many years, possibly decades in the making, and it's a given that the desire for the flexibility of a long range personal transport system isn't going to go away, and it's also a given that existing large infrastructure(s) already exists for cars, buses and trucks. So wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on changing the means of energy generation for the users of the existing infrastructure, whilst simultaneously arguing for more efficient and effective use?
What is likely to occur with the movement of people, goods and services? What is already in the early phases is; electric vehicles for inter urban transport not supported by mass transit systems, hybrid fuel vehicles for intra urban movements (cellulose derived ethanol/electric), and cellulose derived ethanol for trucks and trains that can't be electrified (long haul).
What is occurring with vehicular transportation is unlikely to require a huge change in the road/rail infrastructure, with the exception of better mass transit systems. Zero emissions laws will drive (pun intended) this process, as it is in Europe and California, to make better use of the existing infrastructure.
Huge infrastructure exists for electricity generation and distribution, and major changes to infrastructure are unlikely here too. Again a change in the means of energy generation is required, not to the supporting infrastructure itself. Zero emissions should be the goal and within a clearly defined time frame.
Iconic infrastructure spends will be demanding of attention, the VFT comes to mind - many a photo op there! So the need to keep Infrastructure Australia from building white elephants and wasting precious resources in the process is self evident. That said, the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater simply because it has pooped in it. Far better to toilet train the baby and those doing the washing.
In other words, a change is needed in the energy production, distribution and propulsion systems for all goods and services - but it all starts with energy production. If the energy production system is 'clean' the infrastructure that hangs of it and required to minimise emissions will become obvious.
mcfarm@4. Yes exactly,
mcfarm@4. Yes exactly, solve the energy problem and then the users of that energy will reconfigure society around it.
Another great reason for solving the energy problem urgently with clean renewables is if we don't it will be taken out of our hands and it will be done with a dirty solution like nuclear. We need to actively make positive steps now that directly lead to clean energy infrastructure as the dominant paradigm.
The time for the indirect approach we have used up till now is over, unless of course you don't mind a nuclear solution.
mcfarm and concerned, I'd
mcfarm and concerned, I'd actually respectfully disagree to an extent.
Decisions on infrastructure development play a very strong role in guiding decisions on energy sources. A decision, for example, to upgrade electricity transmission networks along the lines they currently exist would create a very strong disincentive to the development of new, large-scale renewable energy generation capacity elsewhere. These two decisions should be made together - examine the best sites for large-scale solar thermal, for example, and simultaneously look at expanding the electricity grid to facilitate development in that region.
Likewise, each decision to build or upgrade another road is a strong disincentive to build new mass transit infrastructure.
The opportunity cost in each case is huge. If we get our infrastructure choices wrong, if we keep them focussed on the status quo, we shut off the likelihood of positive change.
Tim, mass transit systems
Tim, mass transit systems and infrastructure already exist, they are simply inappropriately fuelled and perhaps there's not enough of them. Alternatively there are enough of them (do we really need the growth) but they need reorganising to work most effectively.
The most probable outcome for any new mass transit system at this point in time (and for the next ten years), is an electrified rail/ light rail system that uses coal generated power! This may in fact be cleaner than individuals driving fossil fuelled cars, but hardly a desirable outcome. However, if we were to have a zero emissions policy directive for transit systems, and this happened before any infrastructure review, the outcome would be cleaner.
Likewise with electricity transmission systems, a minimal/neutral/zero emissions policy would mean that they can't upgraded along current lines unless they met the criteria.
Another point, roads and mass transit systems are not mutually exclusive. A new road is not necessarily a disincentive to mass transit systems, it's what we allow on the roads that matters. Electrified bus systems are remarkably efficient and effective at moving large numbers of people, and they do it better in many cases than rail in urban situations by providing destination flexibility.
I understand that in the absence of a zero/neutral/minimal emissions policy the need to put and keep Infrastructure Australia on the right track, but that doesn't alter the fact that problem is being tackled arse about.
Well, no, mcfarm, I disagree
Well, no, mcfarm, I disagree again. Building new electrified rail over the course of the coming years would be a good thing to do in the context of other policies to rapidly increase our renewable energy capacity. I don't think this is, as you call it "arse about". I think, as Christine has argued, that development of both infrastructure and fuel / energy supply needs to reinforce each other, not work against each other. They need to be done together.
I still believe, as I have stated before on this blog, that relying on one over-riding policy directive to head towards zero carbon is never going to be entirely sufficient. We will always need an array of complementary policies to achieve something as complex as complete decarbonisation.
Tim, you're sounding more
Tim, you're sounding more like a politician by the hour - an array of complimentary policies indeed :-)
It is the over-riding policy of complete decarbonisation that will ensure a complex array of policies are complimentary.
I appreciate Tim's
I appreciate Tim's arguement. It has to be addressed wholistically. To assume that there will be uses for the energy you create is ludicrous unless you also plan for the demand. And I believe that current systems have to be altered to consume the new energy, so for example that disrrupts current systems like public transport. So that is expensive, time consuming, the system loses efficiency during the upgrade and it is resource consuming.
My personal opinion is that developing new sources of renewable energy have to be linked with the developement of new facilities that are specifically designed to support the energy. Old facilities/systems can be upgraded in progressive stages, once the energy producing facility has been established.
I enthusiastically agree
I enthusiastically agree that investment in clean generation must contemplate anticipated uses of electricity. This is obvious and merely the most basic required assumption. You can afford to give us a little more credit Tim :) .
It makes no sense at all (especially in current context of runaway emissions) that you must actually create new uses of electricity before you invest in renewable generation. With respect Tim this seems to be what you are arguing, if this is not what you think then could you please explain more clearly.
As a simple example we can invest in clean generation and implement in a way that anticipates that that it must support rail between major centres before the rail networks are actually built. In the very worst case, if the rail is never built (perhaps due some economic catastrophe preventing its construction), then we still win because our emissions are reduced and even better we got the clean generation in place before the collapse that would otherwise have prevented us building it.
The discussion above of upgrading electricity networks seems a slightly tangential since clean generation is relatively well suited to distributed generation. Combine this with efficiency measures and you can forestall network upgrade for some time.
Its the dirty generation whose business case is best supported by network upgrades.
Here's a sobering recent quote from a nuclear promoter anticipating a not to far away tipping point towards broad support for nuclear:
"If people start dying in hospitals because there's no electricity, if people can't get water because there's no electricity to pump water from dams, if people can't keep their food cool because there's no electricity for refrigeration, then I think there'll be a very, very, very rapid change of opinion."
We can avoid this if we understand that EVERY Gigawatt of IMPLEMENTED clean generation is a nail in the coffin of the prospective business case for a nuclear reactor. Time is running out before we lose our capacity to choose a nuclear free future.
Implementation clean generation must be our highest priority for infrastructure, the alternative just seems so deeply irresponsible.
mcfarm @ 9, you are on the
mcfarm @ 9, you are on the greensblog ;-)
The thing is, watching the behaviour of governments on a daily basis, I fear that an over-riding policy of decarbonisation won't achieve diddlysquat unless you can force it through in a referendum or similar to make it a consideration that governments actually aren't allowed to ignore. Given the unlikeihood of that happening, we will need to make sure on a case by case basis that all policies and pieces of legislation that are relevant to achieving the target all point in the same direction. That's what this is about. The Rudd Government clearly hasn't got that yet - they think they can get away with saying one thing about reducing emissions, introducing an ETS here, a higher MRET there, but maintain the status quo with pretty much everything else, including fossil fuel subsidies, fossil fuel focussed infrastructure, etc.
Concerned @11, I certainly wasn't arguing that we need to create new uses of energy before we invest in renewbles. I was merely arguing that we can justify creating new demand such as electric rail as long as we are simultaneously massively ramping up renewables capacity. To be more comprehensive, we should also, of course, be ensuring that we move strongly for energy efficiency in every sector at the same time.
I agree with your point that shifting to decentralised renewables can avoid upgrading distribution infrastructure for a while. That actually backs up my argument in a way that I could have made explicit - if Infrastructure Australia (in the absence of climate constraints directing its work) recommends upgrading distribution networks along the fossil-based lines (ie Hunter Valley to Sydney, Latrobe to Melbourne), you create a huge incentive for governments and industry to invest in more generating capacity in those regions, which will be coal because it's easy. By recommending against such upgrades, you create a huge incentive for investment in decentralised renewable generation. Do you see my point?
I also, however, believe that, if we are to make a very fast shift to zero carbon generation, we will need some large-scale renewable generation capacity to come online fast. Something like gigawatt scale solar thermal out near Bourke or Mildura. That will mean upgrading distribution networks from those regions to the metro areas.
Totally agree re comments on nuclear. A very good point.
Post new comment