Victorian Green Paper submission by Lighter Footprints

From Greenlivingpedia, a wiki on green living, building and energy

Revision as of 01:27, 15 September 2009 by Fionaarmstrong (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Submission from Lighter Footprints Climate Change Action Group (working draft)


Response of Lighter Footprints to the Victorian Government Climate Change Green Paper


<Address 1>
<Address 2>


Lighter Footprints Spokesperson and Administrative Committee member

Lighter Footprints is a community climate change action group with over 300 supporters from the Boroondara area in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.

NOTE: This submission (when finalised) will be endorsed and authorised by Lighter Footprints and issued on behalf of our supporters.

This wiki article will be used to formulate the final Lighter Footprints submission to the Green Paper.

Members are encouraged to contribute to this paper as this is the only way we will get it prepared. Further discussion at next meeting in August.

Submission text follows.


Lighter Footprints welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Climate Change Green Paper. It is acknowledged by the group that climate change provides unprecendented challenges for governments, communities, individuals, businesses, societal institutions and ecosystems. It is vital therefore that the approach of the Victorian Government, in the development of the White Paper and the draft Climate Change Bill, reflects the scale and extent of the changes needed to mitigate against catastrophic and irreversible climate change, as well as strategies to adapt to the changes already underway. The government must outline comprehensive policies that will ensure Victoria accepts its fair share of the global responsibility to restore a safe climate and provide a safe transition for all people and all species. Victoria is extraordinarily vulnerable to climate change, and we must act swiftly.

Lighter Footprints takes the position that we must move at emergency speed to address the climate crisis. It advocates the stabilisation of atmospheric C02 at between 280-320ppm to ensure a safe climate future. This should be achieved through a rapid transition to 100% renewable energy by 2020 and drawing down excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

Concerns regarding the Climate Change Green Paper

One of the central issues of concern with the Climate Change Green Paper is that it relies heavily on national policy to deliver cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by assuming the establishment of a national emissions trading scheme to set a price on carbon. The CPRS is rejected as the central mechanism for driving emissions cuts, as is the suggestion that the Victorian Government can do little to cut emissions or establish targets in it own right. Emissions reduction must be planned for here, regardless of national action – this is all part of accepting our historical carbon debt and addressing our fair share of carbon emissions reductions.

As it currently stands, the federal government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will not reduce emissions effectively, if at all.

The emissions targets are set far too low, and the availability of overseas credits for offsetting domestic emissions means there will be no emissions cuts here for decades, and the Federal Treasury's own modelling assumes no cuts before 2035. The modelling behind the CPRS is aimed at a stablisation target of 450pppm, which is inconsistent with the science and sets Australia on a course for catastrophic and irreversible climate change. Leading international climate scientists Hans Schellnhuber and James Hansen advocate for a stablisation of atmospheric CO2 ar less than 350ppm, so any scheme that is predicated on a higher stablisation level will be ineffective in achieving the reductions that are necessary to restore a safe climate.

Other problems with the CPRS are that: • Agriculture and forestry are not included, despite the evidence that there are many potential gains in emmission reductions through appropriate agricultural practices and the preservation and extenstion of native forest; • The setting of a floor means that our individual lifestyle change contributions to emissions reductions will be matched by increasing industry emissions within the (too low) target, thus maintaining emissions at the same level as if we had done nothing; • The scheme does not factor in our national energy exports, and thus our contribution to increasing emissions in countries purchasing our coal and fossil fuels; • Some of our biggest polluters will get up to 94.5 per cent of their permits at no cost to them. This means people like us (taxpayers) who want to reduce emissions, are actually funding industry emissions and propping up what would be uncompetitive industries in a green economy.

The adoption of this policy as a central mechansim to reduce emissions in Australia will only serve to delay a transition to a low carbon/zero emissions economy.

The Green Paper seems to suggest the state is positioning itself to focus on adaptation and rely on the federal government for mitigation. While it is acknowledged the federal government has a stronger revenue base to fund mitigation measures, the Victorian government has a responsibility to act in the interests of the Victorian community by providing leadership through the development and implementation of policy that will ensure Victorians contribute to their fair share of the global obligation to reduce emissions.

Achieving this will mean comprehensive changes to the energy sector are needed; however many initiatives outlined in the Green Paper are predominantly targeted at individuals, such as encouraging household solar power and energy reductions through voluntary measures - the effects of which are unevenly distributed and only marginally effective in reducing state wide emissions. In targeting the community, the government is ignoring the huge contribution being made to climate change by the Victorian energy sector, specifically coal.The Green Paper outlines a range of policy “levers” but fails to recognise that voluntary measures have allowed many industries and sections of the community to continue to ignore their contribution to emissions growth. There is no longer time to delay; relying on voluntary action is no longer appropriate as action must be immediate and it must be effective.

As the Green Paper acknowledges, climate change has now reached a point that catastrophic tipping points are very near or may have even been passed. However the Green paper has failed to clearly document the predicted consequences of ongoing growth in carbon emissions.

The advice to the government from the Premier's Climate Change Reference Group outlined in the Green Paper appears to have been largely ignored. For example, the group advises the establishment of targets at the state level of: a peak in emission by 2010, emission reduction targets of 25-40% below 1990 by 2020, and 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. It also recommends the establishment of an aggressive energy efficiency strategy.

The reference in the Green Paper to the global financial crisis serves only to underscore the importance of shifting our economy to a low carbon economy so we do not face another financial crisis when we reach peak oil, or when high emissions industries are suddenly forced to close because of a global carbon price. The argument that the costs of targets are too high (p.30) is a false one – as pointed out in the Stern report and the Garnaut review, the costs of failing to cut emissions effectively will be much higher later.

The modelling in the Green Paper does not take into account the potential for strong emissions cuts as demonstrated by the recent reports from the Nous Group McKinsey and Co. and Climate Risk. The evidence suggests it is possible and affordable to substantially reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in a relatively short time without major technological breakthroughs or even major lifestyle changes – if governments, business and the community act quickly.

Achieving emissions cuts in Victoria

Lighter Footprints supports the implementation of strong policy instruments such as legislation to regulate emissions treating excess CO2 as a dangerous and harmful gas and mandating its reduction to restore atmosperic CO2 to pre-industrial levels.

This will require: transformation of the energy sector to renewable energy supply; substantial changes to both modes of transport and their energy supply; significant improvements in energy efficiency; changes to the way we approach the built environment; changing the way we use land and water, and in the production and management of waste; and effecting large scale societal change to not only engage the whole community in addressing the challenge we face but in contributing to the solutions to achieve a safe climate. All of this requires strong leadership from and within the Victorian Government, not least of which be effected by demonstrating a committment to emissions reductions within government departments and agencies.

According to a 2008 McKinsey and Co report, an annual investment of around $300 per Australian household could achieve cuts in emissions of 30% below 1990 levels by 2020.

A 2008 report by the Nous Group, Turning It Around, found even more significant cuts in Victorian greenhouse gas emissions are possible. If significant investments were made in Victoria in renewable energy (with concurrent efforts to reduce energy demand), greenhouse gas emissions in Victoria could be reduced by 60% by 2020.

We not only have the technology we need - we also have the financial means to shift to a low carbon economy. A 2009 Climate Risk report reveals the costs of shifting to a low carbon economy are well within our reach: demonstrating Australia could successfully transform to a low carbon economy at less than half the amount spent by the federal government on the recent economic stimulus package. While the time-frame for the report of 2010-2050 is outside the parameters required to address dangerous climate change, it is instructive in that its' estimate of the costs of making this necessary transition over four decades would be a relatively small investment - AUD $28.3billion.

Unfortunately, the modelling also reveals that neither the Federal Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, or its Renewable Energy Target, will generate the amount needed to meet the required investment.

Transforming our energy sector

The energy sector is responsible for 67% of Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions – therefore this must be a priority for the Victorian Government in legislating to cut emissions.

Lighter Footprints advocates the development of a suite of policy measures to provide a transition away from the use of coal as an energy source in Victoria and to boost the roll out of renewable energy technologies in the fastest possible timeframe.

There is strong evidence that there will not be any technology commercially available to capture and store carbon from coal fired power in the time frame we have. We need to make very strong emissions cuts within just a few years, therefore we must concentrate on making a complete transition to clean, renewable energy technology as soon as possible. Transforming the energy sectors over several decades (as proposed on p. 34 of the GReen Paper) will not avert dangerous, irreversible climate change.

This will require investment in incentives boost the capacity of large scale solar power generation and wind energy, as well as support for more local community co generation projects - keeping generation of power closer to communities that use it. Example of this include the initiative by the Boroondara Council and its trial of co-generation for pools [more information required].

We need to establish a Smart Grid that will not only support the increased contribution of intermittent supply from renewable energy, but will also provide opportunities for households as well as organisations to understand their own energy use in order to reduce where possible, as well as purchase power according to range of pricing plans that will reduce the pressure of peaks and troughs in supply and demand.

All energy users should be supplied with smart meters.

Look at freeing up provision of permits particularly for wind power.

The govt should be focussing on the opportunities offered not procrastinating and delaying.

We may have to just walk away from coal. The benefits of legislation are that it provides predictability for business; it provides guaranteed outcomes for the community (reduced emissions); it is an act of risk management for the state; and it promotes long term investment. It is fair, and it ensures accountability (provided it has strong reporting and auditing mechanisms included). Legislation also allows the govt to address any legislative inconsistencies that may interfere with compliance with the new regulations. An emissions reduction target is vital to provide long term climate certainty and certainty for investment in a low carbon economy.

The document addresses seven areas for discussion in part 3 of the green paper. These were outlined and the group looked at the ways that Government should be taking action.

Discussion highlighted the need to look at some of the work already done to show what would be feasible – like the McKinsey Report – eg it says that for a Gov expenditure of $300 per household, 30% reduction in emissions could be achieved. May revisit this report in writing up our response. There is a strong argument for govt intervention – the market has failed!

In a transition to a zero emissions economy, Lighter Footprints does not support compensation for industries that have failed to prepare for the introduction of a carbon cost. These organisations must accept their failure to prepare to transition to low carbon economy was a commercial risk for which the consequences are their commercial reality.

Transport (3.3)

This is described as having no simple solution which seemed to be quite wrong. It offers nothing in terms of modal shifts to trains which could achieve big changes. Concern that our lack of work in building rail means we’ve lost the skill. Other states esp WA, Qld are building rail so the skill is still in the country. Highlight that Vic must build more lines, and more rolling stock. They are doing this to some extent for freight, but have a long way to go for public transport.The green paper claims there is no simple solution to reducing transport emissions (p. 37) – this is untrue, California has done it very successfully and remains a thriving economy.

There is a lack of accessibility particularly in respect of trains in respect of certain members of the community: eg the aging (but not disabled), persons recovering from injury/illness, the chronically ill, and families with babies or pre-schoolers. These groups need to be able to park a short distance from the station because they have limited reserves of energy. Consider providing additional parking and a doctor issued parking pass of either a temporary or permanent nature depending on the condition and a parking for parents pass for families with children under 5. Passes for the elderly and families with young children might be limited to off peak times.

In addition, consider introducing plastic wristbands which could be worn by those persons who need a seat: eg persons with a chronic illness or recovering from illness or injury, aging persons who are losing some of their balance, pregnant women (if they so need) etcetera. Again bands could be of a permanent or temporary nature. This would be a convenient way of showing who both wishes to sit and has a need for a seat.

Consider introducing roving conductors on the trains as are used in Sydney. Also consider introducing a misconduct button in addition to the emergency button so that if passengers are abusive towards other passengers, are vandalising the train, or have vomited or are shooting up on drugs,the carriage can be filmed and a conductor summoned (and, yes, all of these things do happen on our suburban trains - particularly outside of peak hour).


Need pressure to move through short term hybrid to electric. One mechanism that is easy to use and has not yet been proposed is differential registration of vehicles based on emissions levels – very much reduced for electric. Weight of car could also be a factor in registration. This can apply to freight vehicles as well –electric vans now available. Buy back scheme for old vehicles. The business of parking is one where pressure can be applied so that electric and hybrid vehicles are given priority, possibly even free parking, in the city. This would need to be discussed with the Melbourne City Council. This could also apply to the size of cars so that small cars are allowed access but large cars simply dont fit or are disqualified.

Energy Efficiency (3.2)

Needs to be beefed up. Most powerful contributor is insulation and double glazing and draft stripping (back to McKinsey). Support for house audits, and commercial as well and local communities assisting. Need more incentives.

Built environment (3.4)

Address expanding city boundaries and re-iterate need for denser living esp along transport corridors and around rail for activity centres. The issue of building standards for both houses and other buildings must be addressed - currently unacceptable.

Go beyond 5 star, and insist that they address passive solar issues of aspect as well as insulation and other fundamentals.

We should adopt the same standards as Europe: 7 star. This should be done immediately.

A higher energy efficiency standard is particularly important in respect of flats and apartments. Flats and apartments should have an equal or higher energy star requirement to houses or units. This is because the occupants will not have access to the same range of measures home occupiers have to ameliorate their energy expenses or water consumption. Occupants will be able to use measures such as purchasing energy efficient appliances and window insulation, but only a few flats will have access to a Northern facing roof and solar energy, only a limited number of flats will have space available to install a BlueGen or similar power generating unit, most flats will not have space to collect tank water for use in toilet and laundry. This leaves the occupiers of flats and apartments more exposed to increases in electricity and water costs than persons who occupy a home with land. Failure to adopt 7 star and higher energy star requirements for flats and apartments has real potential to increase social division within the community.

Free standing houses and units should have the land space to collect at least 5000 litres of water, and preferably 10,000 litres, for internal and garden use. They should also have space for a BlueGen unit (about the size of a dishwasher) or similar power generating unit. Any development that is approved without such space should be obliged to reach a higher energy star requirement to protect future occupants from increases in electricity and water costs.

Exposure to increased electricity and water costs is also true of renters. Measures should be in place to encourage or coerce owners of rental properties to install insulation, including window insulation, water tanks, BlueGen and or solar panels and to landscape for maximum cooling effect.

Planning of the built environment is poor – innovative options exist but are not being utilised, but must include strong regulations of emissions standards.

Introduce a 5 star rating for landscapes: streetscapes, shopping & commercial zones, parks and private gardens. This must be done not only to combat temperature increase from climate change but also to avoid the full 5 degrees of temperature increase associated with the urban heat island effect. The greater the number of people Melbourne is expected to house the greater the heat generated and the more important it is to use the landscape to insulate the environment as much as possible. This can be done by (1) shading built structures - with trees, vines, plant walls, screens and covered walkways, (2) planning and planting for transpiration and evaporation to maximise the cooling potential of our landscapes (3) avoiding overuse of both plants and built materials that contribute to the Albedo effect.

In addition,architects should be encouraged to work with garden designers to incorporate the effective use plants for shade and insulation into building design, and to allow sufficient area for water capture and storage. For maximum efficiency landscaping should be designed in conjunction with the building design to ensure that there is an effective use of space on the land. If the building and the landscape are designed in tandem less space will be required to landscape effectively, however effective landsacping will require the use of some space on the block.

Some arid garden designs, popular over recent years because of water restrictions, raise local temperatures. The focus needs to move to water efficient gardens, where water is sourced from sources other than mains or bore water, designed with plantings that shade structures and provide cooling through transpiration and evaportation.

Currently, there is neither a landscaping policy nor any landscaping aims in the green paper in respect of commercial or residential properties or streetscapes and parks.

Forest policy (3.6)

To be discussed further.

Land use

Need to consider land use (p. 44) for emissions cuts (e.g. carbon sinks). Need to see significant investment in planting trees, improved land management, stopping deforestation.


Waste management – need to mandate recycling; tax non-recyclable materials; subsidise recycling of all materials. Need to look at cradle to grave product regulation.

Green jobs

Carbon leakage is unlikely because: the costs of relocation are very high; there will be lack of skilled labour; will only delay the onset of carbon price for short time. Need more funds for innovation (and implementation) research. Need more incentives for businesses (p.56) to cut emissions. Shifting to renewables is the best thing we could do for the Latrobe Valley (p. 58)in terms of long term job security.


Water security is already a huge problem, making action on climate change mitigation even more important for Victoria.

The Government should be aware of research by Clive McAlpine et al. linking deforestation on the Eastern Coast of Australia with loss of rainfall. This research has impacts both for rural and urban land use.

People within the urban area of Melbourne should be encouraged to transform the landscape into 5 star landscape to insulate the environment. This means using plants for shade and transpiration, treating the soil in such a way as maximises its capacity stay damp, including water features and pools, particularly in multistorey living areas, avoiding the use of unshaded built surfaces in landscape, avoiding paving that drains into the stormwater, and being aware and limiting the use of of plants and built surfaces that contribute to the albedo effect. To maximise the potnential of the soil to remin damp for as long as possible over the summer will require the use of mulch and water (tank/grey/water from BlueGen units). The Government should consider a sliding scale of tank rebates to encourage homeowners to install tanks/BlueGen Units where the water is for garden use only where it is too expensive to adapt existing plumping to tank or BlueGen water supplemenation.

Changing behaviour in communities aross Victoria (6.1)

Levels of climate science literacy in the community are generally poor and govt needs to do a great deal more to explain the risks we face and the consequences of inaction, or inadequate action.

The Government needs to treat climate change seriously if the people are to do the same. Leaders do not wait for others to act first, and you can’t get ahead of the pack by starting last. People will only treat climate change seriously if they are shown a serious example by Government. That means Government should do everything it can to change its behaviour and publicise that it is doing so.

Adoption of Micro Measures – Cheap, Cost Reducing or Same Price Options that Involve a Shift In behaviour

The Government needs to act in respect of ‘micro’ measures as well as bigger picture items – not because they will fix climate change but because it sends the message that climate change is so important we are prepared to do everything possible. Because to do the small things 1) has a small impact which is better than no impact 2) involves shifting the way government thinks about its behaviour 3) involves altering its behaviour. The more the government can change its behaviour and alter its approach to ‘business as usual’ the stronger the message to the people that they can and should do the same. (See answer to 6.2 Government leading the way for examples of such behaviour).

The Government sends a bad message when it sets aside climate change issues

It sends the message that climate change isn’t really that important and you don’t really need to change the way you act every time the government dismisses an environmental impact statement, or frames the terms of reference in such a way as to hamstring the effectiveness of the impact statement.

It reinforces the message that climate change isn’t important every time the government announces a major project and does not refer to any energy saving measures included in the project. An example is the Building in Schools Project: there has been no information as to whether the 6 building plans available to Government Schools are 5 star energy rated, better or worse. This example is a particularly disappointing one because Government Schools are used by most families in the community, and these buildings could have showcased passive energy efficiency and other energy saving measures. This would have sent the message that this is a normal consideration when building. Instead the message sent was: it is more important to build quickly than to adapt to climate change.

Government School Newsletters Government Schools have weekly Newsletters. Many of these are online. The Department of Education could provide a few paragraphs of green living hints, altered on a weekly basis for Schools to include in their Newsletter. Green living hints are about living more cleanly and with less impact on the planet which is desirable even without the prospect of climate change.

The Government needs to consider a new range of advertising campaigns to target particular behaviours.

The black balloons campaign has had a result. However, there are many other areas that could also be addressed. Here are 2 examples.

1 The ‘bargain shopper’. Marketers know that individuals tend to follow certain sets of behaviours in their shopping habits. One set is the ‘bargain shopper’ for whom a only a cheap product or bargain is a smart buy. But even within this class of shopper you can prompt change. Here is an example of an advertisement:

Advertising Campaign aimed at Bargain Shoppers A Dad, in very white and clinical kitchen, is unpacking goods from plastic bags: brown and white packages with labels such as ‘tinned fruit 100,000+ food miles’ ‘special high salt and phosphorus washing powder’ ‘extra packaged biscuits’ ‘ordinary water in a bottle’ and ‘bug spray’. Small child ‘Look Buggy’ points to a digitally enhanced and very beautiful butterfly. Dad picks up the bug spray and zaps it (butterfly dies cartoon style death). Pause White screen, sound effect of child starting wailing. Comment ‘Green choices aren’t dumb’.

2. Cleaning Product use within the home.

It is unfortunate, but true, that many people believe that if a little cleaning chemical is good then more is better and so they use more than the recommended amount to wash clothes, dishes and surfaces within the home. They empty they excess water and chemical, and rinse cleaning cloths soaked in neat cleaning product into the sewage. The result is water the water that arrives at the treatment plants is laden with unnecessary chemicals and costs more for everyone to treat.

What is needed is a campaign to turn put people in a position where they regard their use of cleaning products from a different viewpoint. Here is an example of such an advertisement

A different perspective on cleaning products and waste water Visuals show the inside of a factory while a voice over delivers this message: ‘How would you feel about a factory that used twice as much chemicals as it needed to in its processing unit? (Visual shows employee with exaggerated lack of concern measuring out chemical and then adding a good dollop (at least as much again more) How would you feel if the cost of removing those chemicals was born by the whole community in sewage treatment costs? (visuals show bubbling water gurgling down the pipes) How would you feel if that factory could use environmentally safe chemicals for the same price or less but was unwilling to make any changes to the way it always did things? How would you feel if you lived next door? How would you feel if you lived in it?’ (vision of factory spins into picture of suburban home and cleaning equipment) ‘Your home is your factory. Do you use the recommended amount of cleaner and no more? Are you aware that because Melbourne has soft water you only need to use ½ the recommended dose of clothes and dishwashing powder? If you are willing to make changes please visit..... (website) for information. Because our decisions add up.’ (Pan out moving up from overhead view of one house to full screen of city roofs.)

How should Government lead the way in reducing its own emissions and adjusting to a carbon price? (6.2)

There are so many things at a micro level that the Government can do, and just as importantly, publicise that it is doing:

1)Follow the lead of the NSW government and ban the sale of bottled water. Of course, to have the desired effect which is to have people choose to drink tap water, jugs of drinking water & clean glasses will need to be available, as done in cafes and bars to allow people to feel tap water is a desirable and acceptable choice of drink.

2) Use recycled office paper & toilet paper.

3) Use fairtrade/locally grown tea and coffee.

4) Ensure that any government canteens have an appealing vegetarian selection. Also ensure that there is a choice of healthy, high fibre breads and salads.

5) Go a step ahead of the NSW Governemnt and only sell soft drink that is mixed on site - it is much more efficient to only transport the syrup rather than the pre-mixed drink. Syrups do not have to be limited to commercial soft drinks - cordials can also be mixed with carbonated water.

6) Set the air conditioning and heating to a range outside that in which it is comfortable to wear a suit. If the Government doesn't do this it sends the message that wearing a suit is more important than conserving energy. People don't only apply that to the work envrionment: they take that message home with them and adjust the heating/cooling in their home instead of their clothing.

7) Use environmentally freindly inks.

8) Turn off all but essential lighting at night. This should include tourist lighting - if the government considers some icons are important enough to be lit they should be lit with 100% green energy.

9)Keep the workplace informed: put New Scientist, Sceintific American, Nature & the CSRIO mags in their office lunchrooms along with the newpapers and the Financial Review.

10) Use environmentally safe cleaners in their workplace.

11) Ensure all toilets are water efficient.

In which areas can Government use its significant expenditure on goods and services to drive Victoria’s green economy? (6.2)

As above: purchase recycled tiolet and office paper, use environmentally friendly inks, fairtrade/locally grown tea and coffee, water efficient toilets...

Other points

Insurance projections and liability risks are not being considered inGreen Paper .

Some sectors are completely ignored in Green Paper – all are important in reducing emissions, including transport, manufacturing, IT, logistics, food, health, education tourism, and the arts. Govt must outline policy for each sector and identify the responsible government department. Climate change requires cross sectoral, cross departmental responses.

If Government is serious about climate change adaption it needs to be prepared re-assess the cost of population growth. To develop Melbourne to house more people is going to cost more: whether in terms of structures (eg proposed multi-level buildings along transport routes) or in terms of infastructure and new public transport(new suburbs). No attention has been paid to the role of landscape in insulating the urban enviroment nor to the cost of adapting landscape use to allow for this to happen. In addition, building is going to become more expensive because of the need to include water and energy saving devices.

It is often an (apparently) cheap, quick option for the Government to import skilled workers rather than train them here. This does not necessarily reflect the desire among Australians to work in those occupations. For example many students want to do medicine but there are so few places, and we keep importing Doctors. Students are aware of this and it does nothing for their morale to know that the Governemnt would rather rely on migration than educate more of our brightest students in medecine. How much work has been done on assessing whether, for example, the intake could be doubled by having medical classes run in shifts? Hospitals run on shifts, afterall.

If the Government can predict where there will be a demand in jobs in 6 years time it needs to be communicating this to schools, so that when students enter high school they can have an idea about what subjects are going to lead to jobs. The degree of enthusiasm, and consequent achievement, in a subject varies with the perception of its relevance amongst students. Many students will have discounted science as a pathway before they reach upper high school: by that stage it is too late because students attidudes and view of their achievement in science are already set.

Overall the idea of talking to the community about Climate Change needs more attention. Look at US precedence here. (Peter Campbell to follow up). Also we will revisit the ClimateCare proposal as part of our response to this issue for the green paper.

There was a view that Victoria could become the advocate for the rest of Australia.

In addition a proposal for a climate change bill will be worked on. This may be broad and consist of a vision and principles but may also include some of the points raised here. This element is being worked up separately at this point ( in conjunction with FOE and CEN) but will come together before we finalise out response in September.

Personal tools