Some one-off short comments and observations...
Ethanol;
Climate Change(2); Climate Change(1);
Be Nice
Ethanol
There is obviously increasing concern about the potential of
ethanol as an alternative to petrol. Although it generates lower greenhouse gas
emissions than petrol when burnt, it contains less energy so more of it needs to
be burnt for a given output. Furthermore, it appears that if you take full
account of the environmental and economic costs of ethanol's production, then
its use has a greater environmental impact than that of petrol. Of most concern,
in my opinion, is the potential impact of a petrol substitute becoming a
mainstream agricultural crop. What effects will this have on agricultural land
use and the price of food throughout the world, as the oil price moves
inexorably higher? The preliminary indications are very worrying. Accordingly,
there is absolutely no rational case on either environmental or economic grounds
for ethanol production to be subsided by governments, let alone having its use
made compulsory, which is a real possibility in some countries (including
Australia) at the present time.
5 January 2008 (partial reference to article on page 17 of The West Australian
[same date])
Climate
Change (2)
While considering the subject of climate change and the complex
social, economic, environmental, ethical and governance issues with which it is
associated, one should contemplate for awhile the fact of the Hummer.
Australia used not import Hummers, but in 2007 (the year we signed up for the
Kyoto Protocol) that situation changed. We need no longer feel deprived because
we can now also experience the daddy of all 4wd 'burb crawlers not fitting into
a normal car parking space. Joy.
29 December 2007Climate Change
(1)
There is considerable disagreement about the possible future consequences
of climate change. Dire warnings emanate from prominent people, but we know from
experience that doomsayers are more often wrong than right. Furthermore, the
actions of our governments, from which we may reasonably expect some relevant
leadership, are ambiguous to say the least (e.g. underwriting of a new coal-fired
power station in WA in the same month Australia signs up to Kyoto). So do we
really need to worry about climate change? How should we act, given the
uncertainties? In order to
avert climate change disaster we are urged as a society to significantly reduce
pollution and waste, live more efficiently (and plan our cities to facilitate
this), stop demolishing forests, etc. Do these measures seem unpalatable and draconian?
Or are they simply things we should want to do anyway for aesthetic, ethical as
well as rational economic reasons? So it simply does not matter whether the
doomsayers are right or wrong. Averting climate change disaster will be the
natural result of living sensitively and sensibly, for its own sake.
28 December 2007
Be nice
As urban planners we are primarily concerned (one way or another)
with the quality of the built environment. But of what use or value is a
pleasant, functional urban environment if the people who inhabit it are
unpleasant to one another? Social unpleasantness ranges all the way from an
impatient grimace to murder - and unfortunately we have experienced the full
gamut in WA these holidays. Are we planners just fiddling while Rome burns?
27 December 2007
