Chapter 4
Australia's Greenhouse performance and strategy
(Part b)
State and Territory Programs - Overview
4.70 As described above, many state and territory initiatives, linked
to the NGS, occur within the cooperative framework of the NGS with national
and local government. Most state and territory governments in Australia
have developed, or are developing, detailed greenhouse strategies:
- Australian Capital Territory Greenhouse Strategy 2000 [1]
- New South Wales Greenhouse Action Plan 1998 [2]
- Northern Territory Action Plan [3]
- Queensland Implementation Plan for the National Greenhouse Response
Strategy 1999 [4]
- South Australian Government Greenhouse Gas Target Program [5]
- Tasmanian Greenhouse Statement 1999 [6]
- Victorian Greenhouse Strategy (Discussion Paper 2000) [7]
- Western Australian Draft State Implementation Plan for the NGS (2000).
[8]
4.71 States and territories are also required, under the NGS, to submit
detailed greenhouse plans outlining their strategies for implementing
agreed measures. It is of some concern to the Committee that, to date,
the ACT and NSW are the only state and territory to have submitted a plan
satisfactory to the Commonwealth.
Key issues
4.72 A number of key issues are the focus of state and territory government
initiatives on greenhouse gas reduction:
- efficient and sustainable energy use and supply - Green Power programs;
- efficient transport and sustainable urban planning;
- greenhouse sinks and sustainable land management; and
- greenhouse best practice in industrial processes and waste management.
Efficient and sustainable energy supply and use
4.73 Green Power is the generic name given to electricity which is generated
from clean, renewable energy sources, instead of from fossil fuels, such
as coal. Green Power programs have existed in many countries through the
late 1990s, with the US being one of the founding countries. The main
purpose of Green Power is to pursue economic opportunities to maximise
the output of renewable energy sources. [9]
4.74 In Australia, the New South Wales Government established the Sustainable
Energy Development Authority (SEDA) in 1995. SEDA launched the Green Power
Accreditation Program in April 1997 and it has since spread to
other states and territories. [10] The Program
aims to facilitate the installation of new renewable energy projects thereby
increasing the contribution of renewable energy to the electricity mix.
4.75 Mr Christopher Dunstan, from SEDA (NSW), explained that SEDA is
focused on leadership, maximum use of available resources, and market
transformation to remove barriers to sustainable change:
The overall approach that SEDA takes can be characterised primarily
in terms of partnership… through our Green Power Program, we accredit
over 15 electricity retailers across Australia. [11]
4.76 Changes to the NSW Electricity Supply Act 1995 require
licensees to develop emissions reduction plans, distributors to investigate
demand management options prior to expanding their capacity, and the NSW
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) to use appropriate
pricing policies to protect the environment, and support research into
new technologies.
4.77 In NSW, electricity retailers are regulated by way of a revenue
cap, which is set by the IPART. In 1996, IPART decided that revenues from
future green pricing products would be excluded from the retailers' revenue
cap. This provided a clear financial incentive and signalled IPART's support.
Many utilities quickly saw the potential for green electricity products
to assist in meeting these conditions at minimum cost.
4.78 SEDA noted that, by October 1999, 11 power companies were offering
green power and about 52,000 residential and business customers, including
many large corporate businesses, had joined the various schemes around
the country. [12] The level of take-up by consumers
of the program varies from retailer to retailer and may be the result
of inadequate promotion by individual retailers or the lack of a nationally
focused promotion effort. Green Power is discussed in more detail in chapter
5.
4.79 The ACT is currently reforming the regulations and standards that
govern electricity (and other) utilities operating in the Territory. [13]
Under the new regime, each licence holder will be required to develop
and implement a plan for energy efficiency, demand management and sustainable
energy sourcing. ACTEW's domestic and small business customers are able
to purchase electricity generated from accredited renewable sources.
4.80 The Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society (ANZSES) (Queensland
Branch) urged the Queensland Government to develop a long term Queensland
sustainable energy policy, greater support for energy efficiency, further
urgent reform in the electricity market, and the introduction of carbon
emissions trading. The Society noted that Queensland has the greatest
potential of any state for the cost-effective development of renewable
energy sources and has recently established an `Energy Innovation Fund',
which can support renewable energy. [14] However,
the Society commented adversely on the draft 1999 Queensland Plan for
the NGS [15] and noted that the current $1
million per annum funding is rather insignificant.
4.81 In May 2000, the Queensland Government released an energy policy
which has been developed under a Cleaner Energy Strategy. The Premier,
Peter Beattie stated that the key objective included:
A requirement for electricity retailers in Queensland to source 15
per cent of their power sold in the State from alternative energy sources
- at least 13 per cent from gas and the remainder from renewable sources
- from January 1, 2005. [16]
4.82 The Queensland Government also announced that generation licences
for new coal-fired power stations would not be granted unless there was
a clear and demonstrated need by the State. [17]
However, the more than 2000 MW of new coal-fired generation capacity at
the planned Callide C, Tarong North, Millmerran and Kogan Creek power
stations, has been exempted from this policy, which will clearly undermine
its effectiveness. [18] Many witnesses, including
the Commonwealth Environment Minister and other energy market players,
were very critical of Queensland's approval for these new power stations.
Their views are discussed in more detail in chapter 5.
4.83 A major feature of the Victorian Government Greenhouse Strategy
was the establishment of a Sustainable Energy Authority with responsibility
to encourage and promote an economically viable renewable energy industry
in Victoria. [19] The Government committed
funding of $17.5 million over four years to promote the development of
renewable energy options, and a Solar Hot Water Systems grants program,
worth $15 million over three years. [20] The
Authority will build on existing initiatives such as the Government's
Energy Smart Companies programs, facilitate improved energy efficiency
in design and construction of housing and commercial buildings, and provide
energy information and advisory services.
4.84 However, Ms Esther Abram, Director of the NGO, Environment Victoria,
pointed to the perverse effects of privatisation of the State Electricity
Commission in Victoria. Ms Abram explained that privatisation meant that
a price cap was put in place on electricity prices and that:
This means that electricity prices are kept low, and for retailers
to increase their profits they have to sell more electricity. This has
led to retailers selling airconditioning systems, thereby promoting
the sale of goods that are high on consumption of electricity. [21]
4.85 Ms Abram concludes that demand management appears to be low on the
agenda in Victoria, with a $60 rebate being given to all households on
their winter electricity bills. [22]
4.86 The New South Wales Government was also concerned about price capping.
It highlighted the point that, with price capping in place, utilities
have a strong incentive to increase both the number of kilowatt-hours
supplied and the amount of energy consumed by the customer. [23]
NSW has replaced price capping in relation to electricity network businesses
with hybrid revenue capping under which utilities can only increase profits
by reducing costs. [24] This provides the incentive
for utilities to reduce the amount of electricity supplied to customers
and, to this end, to encourage customers to use energy more efficiently.
[25]
4.87 Tasmania's energy situation was claimed to be unique in Australia
because of the State's relatively high reliance on renewable energy sources.
[26] Consequently, the Tasmanian Government
called for more support for renewable energy industries. The Government
felt that:
Existing industry programs and policies are insufficient to achieve
the magnitude of required emissions reductions, and do not permit many
industry operators to invest in new renewable energy projects, particularly
in regional areas such as Tasmania. [27]
…
It would be beneficial to Tasmanian industry, and presumably industry
in other regional areas, if the guidelines for applications under Federal
programs did not impose, as mandatory, minimum limits for grants or
industry backing. [28]
4.88 The South Australian Government expressed concern that the Commonwealth
Government's policy on the development of renewable energy will be likely
to channel new investment into a few existing technologies. The South
Australian Government explained that this would inhibit development of
potentially more beneficial renewable sources and limit the geographical
development of the renewable energy industry (eg the use of bagasse (sugar
cane waste) is limited to Queensland and northern New South Wales and
this could result in an inequitable distribution of benefits that might
arise from national investment in renewable energy). [29]
4.89 The South Australian Government, being concerned about equitable
distribution of costs and benefits, added:
The 2 per cent increase in the renewable share is effectively a tax
on electricity reinvested in renewable energy and the costs and benefits
of this measure should be spread equitably across the states. [30]
4.90 In terms of energy use it is noted that the household sector accounts
for almost one fifth of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions. [31]
State initiatives in this sector complement the Federal Government's Household
Greenhouse Action Program.
4.91 The `Live Energy Smart' Program, is an initiative of the NSW Government's
SEDA [32] and has been designed to educate
consumers about products that will reduce their energy bills and household
greenhouse gas emissions, such as whitegoods, showerheads, and insulation.
Similar programs exist in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. [33]
4.92 The ACT Government has also introduced and implemented legislation,
incorporating energy efficiency ratings, to reduce emissions within the
residential and commercial sectors. [34] The
Energy Efficiency Ratings (Sale of Premises) Act 1997, requires
the energy ratings of dwellings to be disclosed to potential buyers when
sold; and the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 1997, requires
the disclosure of existing energy ratings to prospective tenants. It is
a mandatory requirement for all new dwellings to achieve a minimum 4-star
energy efficiency rating and for insulation to be installed in major extensions
to existing dwellings; and design and siting requirements for residential
buildings, which include restrictions on overshadowing, to encourage passive
solar building design.
4.93 In parallel with the Commonwealth initiative previously discussed
in this chapter, some states and territories (specifically mentioned were
South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT) are trying to promote their leadership
in the application of energy efficiency within government. [35]
Greenhouse best practice in industrial processes and waste management
4.94 Greenhouse gas emissions from industrial activities are a by product
of various production processes, and exclude emissions from the combustion
of fuels. [36] The National Strategy for Cleaner
Production has been designed to assist industry to improve environmental
performance in the design, production and delivery of products and services,
and assist with reductions in the discharge of waste water and organic
materials that contribute to greenhouse emissions. [37]
States and territories have taken part in various initiatives related
to this Strategy and have also introduced their own policies and programs.
[38] For example, the Tasmanian Government
has established a waste exchange register through the Waste into Wealth
Strategy. [39]
4.95 Greenhouse gases are emitted from a range of activities associated
with the generation, management, recycling and disposal of waste in landfills
and wastewater treatment facilities. A number of state and territory initiatives
have been developed in this area. [40]
4.96 To reduce waste being disposed of in landfill, the ACT Government
has introduced a No Waste to Landfill by 2010 Management Strategy. [41]
The ACT Government has also encouraged the development of methane capture
and electricity generation and, under the Waste Management Development
Control Code, requires acceptable waste management plans to be
submitted before development is approved.
4.97 The Tasmanian Government has accepted two goals to address landfill
waste reduction. [42] The first of these is
designed to encourage the reduction of domestic waste disposed of through
landfill and instead through reuse and recycling. Action involves the
implementation of the Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation
Council (ANZECC) Green and Organic Waste Management Strategy and a
Strategic Plan for Education and Promotion of Waste and Promotion of Waste
Minimisation and Recycling. The Government is developing Waste
Minimisation and Management legislation and a comprehensive Landfill Code
of Practice. The second goal is designed to improve management
of landfill sites to reduce and/or capture greenhouse gas emissions. Tasmania's
Solid Waste Management Policy and Landfill Code of Practice
will play a role in achieving this goal.
4.98 Similarly, the Victorian Environment Protection Authority has prepared
a Best Practice Management Guideline and is working with Ecocycle Victoria
to develop a Green Waste Action Plan. [43]
The Performance of the States and Territories
4.99 The Committee is encouraged by the initiative of some states and
territories in developing greenhouse strategies. Initiatives like SEDA
and Green Power have been national leaders, and state governments obviously
have a crucial role to play in regard to energy infrastructure, forest
management, transport infrastructure and services. Many policies with
national greenhouse implications remain solely under the purview of the
states and territories. However, the Committee is concerned by the slow
pace of state and territory greenhouse policy, and its haphazard development
and integration with the real work of the states and territories. Greenhouse
is yet to be fully integrated with all areas of state and territory policy,
particularly in the energy and transport areas.
4.100 In an August 2000 speech, the Federal Environment Minister, Senator
the Hon Robert Hill expressed considerable concern about the performance
of state and territory governments. He argued that deadlines have passed,
information for assessing program effectiveness has been lacking, and
that plans have not been provided on time:
One area which does require a significant lift,… is the performance
of state and territory governments. The state and territory governments
supported the Commonwealth's negotiating position in the lead-up to
Kyoto and they applauded the outcome we achieved. It was clearly understood
that to meet that target would require effective action from all levels
of government.
This led state and territory governments in 1998 to endorse the National
Greenhouse Strategy in which they agreed to deliver major cuts in Australia's
projected emissions growth. Actions by the states were expected to deliver
savings in emissions of the order of 2-to-3 per cent.
Unfortunately their performance to date so far has been so abysmal
that the Australian Greenhouse Office advises me that on current information
available they will be lucky to achieve half of that target. [44]
4.101 Senator Hill praised the ACT Government's commitment to an action
plan, but was critical of a lack of progress by other states and territories:
I should note that the exception to this situation has been the ACT
Government which has established a credible action plan and committed
funding to support it. However, no other jurisdiction has finalised
a clear action plan to achieve specified carbon savings, supported by
a detailed budget for the work.
Under the National Greenhouse Strategy, states and territories were
to develop implementation plans by June 1999. The plans were supposed
to identify new actions to be taken to reduce emissions, not simply
restate measures already being taken. They were also supposed to quantify
the expected emission reductions and detail funding commitments to achieve
those reductions. This process was supposed to move the states and territories
beyond vaguely worded intentions to a detailed action plan against which
their performance could be openly and transparently judged. [45]
4.102 `Only the Commonwealth and New South Wales', said Senator Hill,
`met the June 1999 deadline':
We have since received finalised plans from the ACT, Queensland, South
Australia and Tasmania, with Western Australia, Victoria and the Northern
Territory still outstanding. The Australian Greenhouse Office advises
that the quality of information in the plans received to date varies
greatly and does not readily allow emissions savings to be estimated.
For example a number of the Queensland, South Australia and Tasmanian
plans for priority emission reduction measures identify further planning
and development of options rather than delivery of action. They also
lack information about expected outcomes. In other words, they are really
action plans which commit the relevant government to develop further
action plans.
The AGO is also concerned that detailed information on financial commitment
to the implementation of state and territory measures has not been provided.
[46]
4.103 Griffith University's Professor Ian Lowe also criticised the inconsistency
in state and territory requirements for the takeup of renewable energy,
and the time lag involved with implementing policy at the national level:
The ACT and cities like Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne now have local
targets to limit greenhouse gas emissions. You would probably be aware
that the State of Queensland released two days ago an energy policy
that requires 15 per cent of its electricity to come from gas or renewables
and increases the Government's use of Green Power from 2 per cent of
its overall needs to 5 per cent. At the national level, nearly a decade
has now elapsed since the release of the ESD Energy Use Working Group
report and the consequent National Greenhouse Response Strategy in 1992,
and you would have to say that little or no progress has been made on
the recommendations of those reports, even though they followed widespread
consultation and had broad community agreement. [47]
4.104 The Committee urges the states and territories to accelerate the
development and implementation of their greenhouse strategies, and to
integrate greenhouse emissions reduction objectives into all areas of
government. The Committee also urges all states and territories to develop
specific emissions reduction strategies for transport and energy, and
to adopt the reduction in the greenhouse intensity of energy supply and
transport as a key criteria in the assessment of new energy and transport
infrastructure projects.
Recommendation 17
The Committee recommends that the states and territories set out emissions
reduction benchmarks and objectives for all relevant areas of government.
Areas such as energy use, buildings and planning, transport and vehicle
fleets, and administrative services should be a priority. Performance
against such benchmarks should be regularly, transparently and independently
assessed.
Recommendation 18
The Committee recommends that state and territory governments adopt
the reduction of the greenhouse intensity of energy supply and transport
as a key criteria in the assessment of new projects.
Recommendation 19
The Committee recommends that states and territories with outstanding
implementation plans submit them to the Commonwealth by the end of 2000.
The plans should, at a minimum, outline the measures they will implement
under the National Greenhouse Strategy, any additional measures they will
undertake, progress towards and timelines for their completion, and estimates
of the emissions savings from the measures.
Recommendation 20
The Committee recommends that the states and territories support their
greenhouse plans with adequate levels of budgeted funding.
Recommendation 21
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth take a leadership role
in facilitating the states and territories, industries and other key groups
to set clearer directions on greenhouse abatement, based on what their
`fair share' of emissions limits under Kyoto and subsequent commitments
is, and in particular:
- to assist parties to improve monitoring and accountability of greenhouse
abatement performance, to identify trends and to evaluate performance
against benchmarks (such as greenhouse gas emissions as a proportion
of Gross State Product); and
- to assist industry to achieve `world's best' emissions levels per
unit while preparing for a carbon constrained future.
Problems in State and Commonwealth Cooperation
4.105 The Committee acknowledges the importance of cooperative arrangements
between different levels of government to Australia's national abatement
effort. This is particularly crucial given that states and territories
have primary carriage of many initiatives under the NGS and control policy
and planning decisions of national environmental significance.
4.106 However, the AGO emphasised that the Federal system created difficulties
in developing, coordinating and implementing a national approach to abatement.
Its Chief Executive, Ms Gwen Andrews told the Committee:
The dialogue between the Commonwealth and the states is a very complex
one because it crosses a number of issues in a number of sectors. In
some areas the Commonwealth may feel that perhaps it is not getting
from state governments the kinds of responses we would like, for example,
with regard to their detailed plans for implementation of their responsibilities
under the National Greenhouse Strategy. But I am very well aware that
it is a process that requires continuing dialogue and engagement at
both bureaucratic and political levels. [48]
4.107 Mr Keith Orchison, representing the Electricity Supply Association
of Australia Ltd, addressed the issue of cooperation between levels of
government with some concern:
We put to you that the government at all levels has to produce an integrated
and economically viable program for the longer term, starting with research
and development and ending with end-user efficiency. In all of those
areas at the moment there are deficiencies. [49]
4.108 Mr David Coutts, Executive Director of the Australian Aluminium
Council, also looked to cooperation between governments at different policy
levels to resolve greenhouse issues, and expressed his preferred view
that:
We would prefer the Commonwealth to take leadership. We feel it has
been doing that but there are clearly at this stage things happening
in some of the states which are not necessarily meshing completely with
that. We feel it would be better if the Commonwealth and the states
work together on that. [50]
4.109 In support of this argument, and the need for coordinated policy
to avoid contradictory, overlapping and inefficient approaches to greenhouse
gas abatement initiatives, the Electricity Supply Association of Australia
(ESAA) also submitted that:
A number of programs pursued in isolation by state governments would
be more effective if nationally managed. Federal energy improvement
programs, however, are often too piecemeal, poorly co-ordinated and
lacking in effective co-ordination with state and territory jurisdictions.
[51]
4.110 Boral, acknowledging the comprehensive range of policies and measures
developed under the NGS, expressed concern about:
The lack of integration of the policies into a cohesive Federal/State
strategy which can be clearly translated into a system whereby the externalities
associated with Greenhouse gas emissions are costed into decision-making
processes. From an industry perspective, there is significant value
in a coordinated national response to the Kyoto Protocol to minimise
uncertainty which in turn impacts on investor confidence. It is our
opinion that all policies, measures and flexible mechanisms must be
evaluated in a concerted process to determine the least cost response
that complements the national interest. [52]
4.111 In relation to one specific program, Boral suggested that consistency
in requirements for Green Power schemes would better serve the attempt
to promote alternatives to fossil fuels:
As an electricity retailer operating in most Australian states, Boral
would also advocate for greater consistency in regulatory compliance
requirements across the states and for greater cohesion in the development
of eligibility criteria for `Green Power' schemes. [53]
4.112 However, in contrast, the South Australian Government questioned
the effective management of Commonwealth and state relations in programs
at the national level (with particular reference to energy efficiency).
South Australia recognised the key role that the Commonwealth Government
should play in coordination of policies and programs between states and
territories, but also felt that the states and territories should be given
greater powers to integrate projects and that this would facilitate better
outcomes:
The Commonwealth has a key role in the overall strategic coordination
of the programs [Demand Management Programs for energy efficiency].
However, if the states, through being fully accountable for the funding
arrangements, were allowed a greater level of integration at the management
level, this would more effectively utilise the state's resources to
initiate and manage individual projects in their own jurisdictions to
the benefit of the programs' national outcomes. [54]
4.113 The South Australian Government also expressed concern about economic
impacts of the measures adopted to address global warming, especially
on regional employment and economic growth:
The Commonwealth will need to work closely with the states in thoroughly
investigating and devising a regime that minimises these impacts, including
the administrative burden and costs, and equitably distributes any revenues.
[55]
4.114 The Western Australian Government advised the Committee that it
found itself in a unique position in relation to greenhouse gas abatement.
Dr Bryan Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environmental
Protection (WA), commented:
There is also the issue of differentiation within Australia. In state
implementation we need to consider population and GDP growth and the
emission intensity of the economy in looking at how the burden will
be borne across Australia. [56]
4.115 Six technical panels, set up under the Western Australia Greenhouse
Council to advise Cabinet on the implementation of the NGS in that State,
have attempted to undertake systematic cost-effective analysis of greenhouse
gas reduction measures. [57] General implications
of the findings of the technical panels suggested, rather pessimistically,
that there were a number of issues that would impede success in greenhouse
gas abatement in Western Australia:
- use of energy demand reduction in Western Australia was limited -
because of the projected 150 per cent increase in energy-intensive industry
and 50 per cent increase in population;
- opportunities for fuel switching are limited because the economic
conversions of coal or oil to gas have already occurred;
- process efficiency improvements are limited as Western Australia is
already low in CO2 produced per tonne of product and only limited cogeneration
remain;
- there are few low cost options for renewable energy; and
- the sooner sink creation is started the larger will be the offset
available in the first commitment period. [58]
4.116 On behalf of the regional economies, the Tasmanian Government also
pointed out that, although the relative impacts and incentives of these
programs are applied equitably across all regions, [59]
government policies and programs might be more effective if the AGO could
provide a presence `on the ground' in regional areas: [60]
The work of the AGO may be more effective if it were to consider a
regional presence, possibly through cooperative agreements with the
states in order to extend existing outreach capabilities and access
industry. [61]
4.117 The comments referred to above lead to the conclusion that relationships
between different levels of government remain a critical component in
the final delivery of Australia's Kyoto targets for the first commitment
period and beyond. There is a need to consider both the development of
a comprehensive, integrated governmental framework for addressing greenhouse
gas issues, as well as the need to develop similar standards for specific
programs (such as Green Power) to encourage best practice standards and
equitable outcomes between parties.
4.118 The Committee notes the diversity of views on the questions of
the appropriate balance of Commonwealth and state/territory responsibilities
and roles, and on the appropriate sharing of the national abatement burden.
4.119 Australia has a national responsibility to meet its Kyoto commitments
for 2008 to 2012. It is widely recognised that lowest cost abatement will
only be achieved by a national spread of abatement measures and actions
which raises important considerations of equity. The Committee does not
accept that one state or industry should be substantially exempted from
action to help meet Australia's Kyoto commitments. Mandatory measures
such as emissions trading do have scope for the differential treatment
of some emitters, which is discussed in chapter 9.
4.120 Where the states and territories have taken responsibility for
the development of programs under the NGS, or have planning and policy
jurisdiction over key emissions-producing actions such as transport, energy
and land clearing, they should accelerate their performance and actions
in these areas.
4.121 The Committee also urges the Commonwealth to devote adequate resources
to ongoing efforts to coordinate with the states and territories, and
to provide appropriate assistance with the design and implementation of
greenhouse abatement policies. This could take the form of project-specific
grants, better communication and consultation, the sharing of knowledge
and expertise, and efforts to streamline consultative processes. Helpful
initiatives in this regard would be efforts to assist smaller states and
territories, and assistance with (or cooperative efforts in) identifying
the cost-effectiveness and availability of abatement measures. Over the
medium- to long-term, the Commonwealth could coordinate the facilitation
of (and access to) a growing pool of technical and policy expertise in
relation to greenhouse abatement trends and opportunities.
4.122 The Committee acknowledges that the Commonwealth has already made
good efforts in regard to the states and territories. However, given the
crucial role which the states and territories will play in Australia's
national abatement efforts, further priority needs to be given to this
area.
Recommendation 22
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government make further
efforts to assist smaller state and territory governments or regional
communities develop greenhouse strategies and responses. The Committee
recommends that the Commonwealth Government improve communications, dialogue
and technical cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states and
territories.
Local Government and Community Responses
4.123 Local governments have an enormous capacity to influence the level
of greenhouse gas emissions and, in particular, further business responses
to the issue. It has been reported that local governments directly or
indirectly influence 50 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions
through direct emissions of waste, and also in the more general urban
planning issues of transport and energy efficiency. [62]
4.124 Professor Ian Lowe pointed out:
The decisions being taken by local government about urban form, about
transport systems, about building standards, are very significant determinants
of energy use. There is an old saying that when the people lead, the
leaders eventually have to follow. I think it is quite likely that we
can achieve changes toward Kyoto targets by measures that come from
the ground up, from local authorities, because the national consumption
is the sum of the consumption of all of those local authorities. There
are still national decisions and state decisions made, for example,
to subsidise energy intensive industries or to have a carbon tax or
not have a carbon tax, but there is potential for very large gains to
be made by action at the local level. [63]
4.125 A substantial and growing number of councils around Australia have
adopted policies and taken measures directed, at least in part, to addressing
greenhouse emissions. These include: energy efficiency programs; improved
waste management; land use/transport planning strategies; provision of
cycleways and footpath networks; targeted building and development controls;
support for vegetation conservation and tree planting programs. [64]
4.126 As discussed earlier in this chapter, the retail electricity market
is progressively allowing customers to select their own power provider.
Local governments can play an important role in influencing purchasing
decisions by providing advice and preparing community reform in the market;
buying all or part of their own power from renewable energy suppliers;
and acting as brokers and influencers in the renewable energy market.
[65]
Cities for Climate Protection
4.127 International programs such as Cities for Climate ProtectionTM
(CCPTM) [66] are encouraging local councils
to take greenhouse action in those areas over which they have direct control,
and in more difficult areas such as urban planning where there is often
a need for local, state and Federal cooperation. CCP is a major element
of local government response to greenhouse.
4.128 CCPTM Australia is an ICLEI (International Council of Local Environment
Initiatives) Program in collaboration with the AGO. [67]
The Commonwealth Government has a funding commitment to the CCPTM in Australia
for five years and Environs Australia conducts the Program for the AGO.
The Program was started in Australia in 1998 and 96 Australian councils
(out of approximately 700 councils throughout Australia) are involved
in the Program. [68]
4.129 CCPTM provides local governments with a strategic milestone framework
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by assisting them to identify the emissions
of their council and community, set a reduction target and develop and
implement an action plan to reach that target. Participating councils
are required to complete five Milestones:
- conduct an energy and emissions inventory for council and the community;
- forecast energy and emissions;
- establish an emissions reduction target;
- develop a Local Action Plan (outlining how targets are to be achieved);
and
- implement agreed policies and measures. [69]
4.130 45 councils out of a total of 96 in Australia have completed Milestone
1, 8 have set emissions reduction targets and 2 have developed Local Action
Plans. [70] Participating local councils set
a greenhouse emissions reduction target for their own operations and their
community's activities. [71]
4.131 Council actions might include: reducing the energy used in facilities
owned by local government such as street lighting, car fleets, swimming
pools and town halls; capturing the methane from landfill sites; and incorporating
energy efficiency into purchasing policies.
4.132 Local government initiated community actions can include: incorporating
energy efficiency rating schemes into building approvals for new houses
and commercial buildings; incorporating solar site maximisation; public
and non-car transport into urban planning; providing a home and business
energy advisory service and revolving loan scheme; and integrating sink
and revegetation considerations into land use planning. [72]
4.133 The AGO is developing and delivering local action modules - packages
of assistance that will enable councils to more easily identify and implement
greenhouse reduction initiatives. For example, a module may include introductory
workshop and workbook and feasibility study assistance.
4.134 Mr Wayne Wescott, Executive Director, ICLEI - Australia/New Zealand
commented:
One of the benefits of local governments is acting regionally and collectively.
We have an enormous capacity in local governments to do that. [73]
There is a lead time, and one has to try and encourage all those who
are impatient for action to remember that. It takes some time to wind
councils through this process. Our target is 200 councils as participants
in the CCP campaign in Australia. That is our target, which is a very
large one and one that we are committed to reach over the [next] five
years. [74]
4.135 However, Newcastle City Council noted a number of significant problems
relating to the absence or poor quality of, available data on energy consumption
in local government areas. [75] This is described
as the biggest hurdle to participation, along with the resource constraints
faced by councils in need of such information. Newcastle City Council
made the point that it is not enough to have to substitute state average
data, in the absence of local government data, when dealing with energy
providers. Adequate funding would appear to be an important prerequisite
for program success at the local government level.
Other Local Government initiatives
4.136 In December 1998, Newcastle City Council established the Australian
Municipal Energy Improvement Facility (AMEIF). [76]
In partnership with the AGO and the CCPTM (Australia) and with state and
Federal governments, the AMEIF has worked with at least 49 Australian
councils and with the AMEIF Green Energy Learning Programs:
[Newcastle City Council]… have established a simple computer software
package that provides the opportunity for each of those council…
general manager knows how much energy they are using each quarter compared
with the two previous quarters. The graph that is then plotted indicates
how they are going in terms of accumulated costs and consumption during
that year. We are now adding a greenhouse graph so that people become
familiar with what the emissions resulting from their energy use are.
We have written a policy called `Financial Loss Control - Energy' and
the idea of that is to have the connotation that, if you do not doing
this, you are losing money. `Financial Loss Control - Energy' will be
adopted as a formal policy by Newcastle City Council. [77]
4.137 The Council has also introduced initiatives which include: Greenhouse
Action Showcase; Residential Energy Monitoring Program; Gas Milestone
1 Project; and Greenhouse Action in Newcastle Plan (GAIN Plan).
4.138 To demonstrate how local authorities can significantly reduce greenhouse
gases, in November 1992, South Sydney City Council Steering Committee
launched its `Greenhouse Effect Policy Statement'. [78]
The Strategy highlighted the importance of functions such as: regional
and land use planning; transport planning; recycling facilities; drainage
amplification works; control of air pollution emissions; energy-efficient
building policies; and promotion of public awareness and understanding
of the greenhouse gas effect.
4.139 Mr Alex Serrurier, Chief Environmental Health Officer, City of
Ballarat, advised that progress was prospective at this stage:
Our greenhouse policy in the City of Ballarat is not a formal one at
this point. There is a move to have a cross-departmental environmental
policy. [79]
4.140 Community organisations also adopt the adage `act local and think
global', with respect to environmental issues. There is large potential
for individuals to make a difference to greenhouse gas reduction through
personal decisions relating to almost every aspect of their behaviour.
4.141 The role of the community has already been discussed in this chapter
under schemes such as the National Household Greenhouse Action Program.
[80] Other efforts have been made to
involve the community in greenhouse gas abatement, through local government
initiatives such as Bushcare and Landcare, waste management strategies,
consumer purchasing decisions, and Greenfleet.
4.142 However, in his submission, Mr Peter Kinrade pointed out that:
A third major deficiency with the NGS and related programs is lack
of community input. As with its predecessor, the community played little
part in the development of the NGS and the majority of the community
are still largely unaware of the Strategy's existence. [81]
4.143 It can be concluded that a concerted and sustained local government
and community greenhouse education campaign is required from all levels
of government to help facilitate changes in personal behaviour which favour
emissions reductions, especially in the areas of energy efficiency and
current and future energy requirements.
4.144 The School of Physics at the University of Sydney concluded that:
Given the important role that education plays in communicating pro-environmental
consumer behaviour, it is essential that individual responsibility for
climate change along with effective abatement strategies is adequately
addressed in education materials. [82]
Recommendation 23
The Committee recommends that a clear strategy be developed and coordinated
at the national level to effectively communicate the issues associated
with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to the broader community.
Recommendation 24
The Committee recommends that all levels of government take responsibility
for raising awareness about climate change and current greenhouse gas
abatement policies and programs.
Footnotes
[1] Environment ACT, ACT Greenhouse Strategy:
The ACT's commitment to reduce the threat of global warming, 1999.
[2] NSW Government, Position Statement: Emissions
Trading, November 1998 (NSW Government Submission 198, p 2100).
[3] Northern Territory Government, Land Planning
and Environment, Environment & Heritage Division, lpe.nt.gov.au/enviro/Contact.htm
(04/09/00).
[4] env.qld.gov.au/environment/environment/green/n.html
(31/08/00), p 2.
[5] Environment Protection Authority Annual Report 1998/99;
anddenr.sa.gov.au/epa/pdfs/annualreport9899.pdf (04/09/00).
[6] Department for Primary Industries, Water
and Environment, Tasmanian Greenhouse Statement, Tasmanian Government,
July 1999.
[7] Victorian Government, Victorian Greenhouse
Strategy: Discussion Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment,
2000.
[8] WA Greenhouse Council, Background Paper
(Submissions Vol 11: 2700): Dr Bryan Jenkins, The role of Western Australia
in the National Greenhouse Strategy.
[9] Environment ACT, ACT Greenhouse Strategy:
The ACT's commitment to reduce the threat of global warming, 1999,
p 14; Department for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmanian
Greenhouse Statement, Tasmanian Government, July 1999, p 10 and pp
12-14; Victorian Government, Victorian Greenhouse Strategy: Discussion
Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, 2000, pp 19-20;
Government of South Australia, South Australia: Reducing the greenhouse
effect, EPA, January 2000, pp 7-8; Proof Committee Hansard,
Perth, 17 April 2000, pp 465-66; and Queensland Government, Queensland
Energy Policy, May 2000.
[10] See appendix 5 of this report which provides
a table of distributors of Green Power in Australia.
[11] Official Committee Hansard, Sydney,
22 March 2000, p 268.
[12] Sustainable Energy Development Authority,
Green Power Report, October 1999.
[13] Environment ACT, ACT Greenhouse Strategy
– the ACT's commitment to reduce the threat of global warming,
1999, p 14.
[14] Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy
Society – Queensland Branch, Comments on the 1999 Queensland Implementation
Plan for the National Greenhouse Response Strategy (1998), 16 July
1999, Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society, Submission 75, p
555.
[15] Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy
Society – Queensland Branch, Comments on the 1999 Queensland Implementation
Plan for the National Greenhouse Response Strategy (1998), 16 July
1999, Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society, Submission 75, p
543.
[16] Queensland Government, Queensland Energy
Policy: A Cleaner Energy Strategy, May 2000.
[17] Queensland Media Statements, Energy
Policy Delivers For Far North, 26 May 2000, statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/
(31/08/00).
[18] Queensland Government, Queensland Energy
Policy: A Cleaner Energy Strategy, May 2000, p 9.
[19] The Sustainable Energy Authority was established
under the Renewable Energy Authority Victoria (Amendment) Bill 2000.
[20] Department of Natural Resources and Environment,
nre.vic.g…/ (16.08.00), p 1.
[21] Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne,
20 March 2000, p 163.
[22] Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne,
20 March 2000, p 163.
[23] New South Wales Government, Submission
198, p 2196.
[24] New South Wales Government, Submission
198, p 2196; see also Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March
2000, p 281.
[25] New South Wales Government, Submission
198, p 2196.
[26] Department for Primary Industries, Water
and Environment, Tasmanian Greenhouse Statement, Tasmanian Government,
July 1999, p 10.
[27] Tasmanian Government, Submission 185,
p 1978.
[28] Tasmanian Government, Submission 185,
p 1983.
[29] South Australian Government, Submission
199, p 2116.
[30] South Australian Government, Submission
199, p 2116.
[31] http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/household/
(3.9.2000).
[32] energysmart.com.au/WES.html (07/08/00).
[33] Department for Primary Industries, Water
and Environment, Tasmanian Greenhouse Statement, Tasmanian Government,
July 1999, pp 11-12; Government of South Australia, South Australia:
Reducing the greenhouse effect, EPA, January 2000, p 6; and Victorian
Government, Victorian Greenhouse Strategy: Discussion Paper, Department
of Natural Resources and Environment, 2000, pp 23-24.
[34] ACT Greenhouse Strategy: The ACT's
commitment to reduce the threat of global warming, Environment ACT,
1999, pp 115-18.
[35] Department for Primary Industries, Water
and Environment, Tasmanian Greenhouse Statement, Tasmanian Government,
July 1999, pp 10-11; Government of South Australia, South Australia:
Reducing the greenhouse effect, EPA, January 2000, p 3; and Environment
ACT, ACT Greenhouse Strategy: The ACT's commitment to reduce the threat
of global warming, 1999, pp 19-20.
[36] Department for Primary Industries, Water
and Environment, Tasmanian Greenhouse Statement, Tasmanian Government,
July 1999, p 19.
[37] Department for Primary Industries, Water
and Environment, Tasmanian Greenhouse Statement, Tasmanian Government,
July 1999, p 19; The Industry and Waste Technical Panel, Report to
the Western Australian Greenhouse Council, (The Western Australian
Government, Submission 210, p 2550 ff); and Victorian Government, Victorian
Greenhouse Strategy: Discussion Paper, Department of Natural Resources
and Environment, 2000, p 35.
[38] Victorian Government, Victorian Greenhouse
Strategy: Discussion Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment,
2000, p 38; Environment ACT, ACT Greenhouse Strategy: The ACT's commitment
to reduce the threat of global warming, 1999, p 25-26; Department
for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmanian Greenhouse
Statement, Tasmanian Government, July 1999, pp 17-19; and The Queensland
Government, 1999 Queensland Implementation Plan: National Greenhouse
Strategy, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Module 7, p
59.
[39] Department for Primary Industries, Water
and Environment, Tasmanian Greenhouse Statement, Tasmanian Government,
July 1999, p 19.
[40] Victorian Government, Victorian Greenhouse
Strategy: Discussion Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment,
2000, p 38; Environment ACT, ACT Greenhouse Strategy: The ACT's commitment
to reduce the threat of global warming, 1999, p 25-26; and Department
for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmanian Greenhouse
Statement, Tasmanian Government, July 1999, pp 17-19.
[41] Environment ACT, ACT Greenhouse Strategy:
The ACT's commitment to reduce the threat of global warming, 1999,
p 25.
[42] Department for Primary Industries, Water
and Environment, Tasmanian Greenhouse Statement, Tasmanian Government,
July 1999, pp 17-18.
[43] Victorian Government, Victorian Greenhouse
Strategy: Discussion Paper, Department of Natural Resources and Environment,
2000, p 38.
[44] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Opening
Address to the Insurance Council of Australia's Canberra Conference,
10 August 2000, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Media Release
and Speeches, environment.gov.au/minister/env/2000/sp10aug00.html (13/08/2000),
pp 5-6.
[45] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Opening
Address to the Insurance Council of Australia's Canberra Conference,
10 August 2000, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Media Release
and Speeches, environment.gov.au/minister/env/2000/sp10aug00.html (13/08/2000),
pp 5-6.
[46] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Opening
Address to the Insurance Council of Australia's Canberra Conference,
10 August 2000, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Media Release
and Speeches, environment.gov.au/minister/env/2000/sp10aug00.html (13/08/2000),
pp 5-6.
[47] Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane,
26 May 2000, p 549.
[48] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra,
9 March 2000, p 18.
[49] Official Committee Hansard, Sydney,
22 March 2000, p 333.
[50] Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra,
10 March 2000, p 49.
[51] Electricity Supply Association of Australia
Ltd, Submission 83, p 636 and see also p 631.
[52] Boral Limited, Submission 184, p 1960.
[53] Boral Limited, Submission 184, p 1962.
[54] South Australian Government, Submission
199, p 2115.
[55] South Australian Government, Submission
1999, p 2113.
[56] Proof Committee Hansard, Perth,
17 April 2000, p 454.
[57] Western Australia Greenhouse Council,
Background Paper (Submissions Vol 11: 2700): and Dr Bryan Jenkins, The
role of Western Australia in the National Greenhouse Strategy, pp
2700-01.
[58] Western Australia Greenhouse Council,
Background Paper (Submissions Vol 11: 2700): and Dr Bryan Jenkins, The
role of Western Australia in the National Greenhouse Strategy, p 2708.
[59] The Tasmanian Government, Submission 185,
p 1978.
[60] The Tasmanian Government, Submission 185,
p 1979.
[61] The Tasmanian Government, Submission 185,
p 1978.
[62] Official Committee Hansard, Sydney,
22 March 2000, p 295.
[63] Proof Committee Hansard, Brisbane,
26 May 2000, p 559.
[64] Australian Local Government Association
(ALGA), National Local Government Policy on Climate Change, adopted
at the 1997 National Assembly of Australian Local Government, alga.com.au/green.htm
(14/08/00), p 1.
[65] Australian Local Government Association
(ALGA), Cities for Climate Protection - Australia, alga.com.au/cities.htm
(14/08/00).
[66] See paragraphs XX.
[67] greenhouse.gov.au/lgmodules/ (07/08/00).
[68] http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/lgmodules/
(07/08/00); and iclei.org/org/ccp-au/currentfolder/current.htm (28/09/2000).
[69] http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/lgmodules/
(12/09/00).
[70] ICLEI Australia/New Zealand, Submission
108, p 940; and Newcastle City Council, Submission 73, p 530. Participation
requires a $5,000 contribution from the Council with a $1,000 per year
contribution to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.
The Federal Government Contribution is $7,000 per participating Council
(Council of the City of Armidale, Submission 24, p 113).
[71] Environment Australia, Climate Change:
Australia's Second National Report under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, November 1997, p 42.
[72] Htttp:// www.greenhouse.gov.au/lgmodules/
(07/08/00).
[73] Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne,
21 March 2000, p 205.
[74] Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne,
21 March 2000, p 209.
[75] Newcastle City Council, Submission 73,
p 530. See also ICLEI Australia/New Zealand, Submission 108, p 940.
[76] Newcastle City Council, Submission 73,
p 529.
[77] Official Committee Hansard, Sydney,
22 March 2000, p 287.
[78] City of Ballarat, Submission 138, p 1449.
[79] Proof Committee Hansard, Melbourne,
21 March 2000, p 201.
[80] See paragraphs XX.
[81] Mr Peter Kinrade, Submission 164, p 1652.
[82] School of Physics, University of Sydney,
Submission 124, p 1269.
Top
|