All (and Bill in particular)
I would like to share my attitude to life and the world we live in.
I would like to share it under this debate as our "attitide to life and the world" is extremely important in this debate.
Personally I think I can and will make an impact.
Certainly as a Council employee, I feel Councils (who work with citizens at the grass roots level) can make a more significant impact. I also think we as Aussies can "bat above our weight" and make an impact.
I do not assume that others (in other countires etc) will act in our best interest.
We cannot keep our head in the sand and hope things will be OK.
So onto Global Climate change (note I do not refer to global warming as this confuses people when they experience some cold weather) or even better Global Environmental Sustainability.
With now more than 9 Billion people on this planet, we need to be able to cater for this.
We (as Aussies) can make a difference and we need to.
As previously stated Councils are moving to considering longer term sustainability of assets/infrastructure and the services they need to provide now and in the future. This is a great step forward.
What this is showing is that previous generations were not "pulling their weight" in renewing assets so consequently Councils across Australia (in fact across the world) had huge (almost insurmountable) backlog of asset projects that needed to be completed (to get assets back to an acceptable level) for future generations.
A new focus (since 2007 approximately) sees Councils developing long term plans to deliver sustainable services to their communities. These plans showed a requirement for increased funding and rate rises above the standard regulated rate rises. This is happening and is being accepted by communities (because the benefits are being marketed).
Communities (rate payers) are feeling some pain, but are now starting to see the gains (and their kids and kid's kids) will be the ultimate beneficiaries.
My point - Councils cannot always leave the ultimate strategic (longer term) decisions to community members and busy rate payers who have multiple pressures on family, life, job security, incomes, expenditures etc.
Often the longer term solutions need to be thought out and promoted by people who know and care (e.g. Council employees).
Suffice to say that sustaining the environment and adapting to climate change (I am assuming but also stating that sustainability is the issue - another debate at a later stage) is a much longer term project which needs a strategic approach.
Councils (and other governments) have the people, the support systems and the combined knowledge to attempt to solve long term problems (on behalf of their communities). Their communities will come to expect nothing less. But having said that it is not the sole responsibility of Councils - everyone has a vested interest in ensuring environmental sustainability for future generations.
We all need to get involved and support those (us) who are ready, willing and able to develop solutions to solve longer term problems.
I am glad to be working in a council that has the foresight and interest in Environmental Sustainability.
We need more knowledgeable, willing, enthusiastic participants.
-------------------------------------------
Darron Passlow
Asset Planning PRF
Warringah Council
DEE WHY NSW
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-01-2012 21:09
From: William Peach
Subject: Environmental Sustainability
G'day Darron
Your comments raise some matters that are dear to my heart. I am glad that you have provided an opportunity for a more detailed response and will take the easiest one first.
In my recent experience there is often a big difference in thinking between "council" - include both council staff and councillors - and ratepayers. In this part of the world "council" feels it has the need to do what it thinks is best for itself; future communities; tourism; the envirinment; etc.; etc. In actual fact it is put in power by the ratepayers and should carry out their wishes - be they good or bad!!!.
Does a majority of ratepayers in any particular council under consideration consider that
1 Global warming is going to be destructive to the world, or more particularly themselves?
2 Global warming is actually taking place?
Irrespective of the answer to these questions, do they want their own council to do anything about it?
In my experience council (again including staff) have taken it upon themselves to decide these questions and dictate what it thinks is best for those that have put it there and who pay its/their wages. There is. of course, significant pressure being exerted on councils by state and federal governments to override ratepayers wishes on these and many other matters. If, for whatever reason, the ratepayers think that they can look after their grandchildren's futures by taking a particular course of action; or alternatively do not wish to do so then, in my opinon, council MUST comply with their wishes.
To help clarify my point about the analysis; I am saying that, in relation to any proposed action on 'environmentally sustainable' policies we as engineers can and are capable of doing the numbers based upon the literature that is out there in the ether. We should do so not only for our own benefit but for that of others who are not so well informed and have been caught up in this populist theory. The short answer to such an analysis - and I am happy to be corrected by numbers, not heresay, if someone disagrees - is that if my or your council totally ceased its carbon dioxide emissions altogether then it would have an infinitessimal effect on world emissions and global warming (if such is actually taking place). Compare then the burden on the ratepayer of any proposed "sustainability action" with an all but nil outcome and the answer is clear. Our attempts to provide for future generations are futile and we do so at great expense.
If world wide action on global warming; sustainability; etc; is taking place then there is a good agrument that we should participate, but to act alone is lunacy.
Cheers
Bill Peach
-------------------------------------------
William Peach
Manager
W L Peach & Associates
Gordonvale QLD
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-01-2012 20:19
From: Darron Passlow
Subject: Environmental Sustainability
Bill
As engineers we are trained (indoctrinated) to use facts (to prove theories and to design and implement solutions). This is a givien.
Cost benefit and sensitivity analysis, primarily comes with training and our experience in the real world (as opposed to academia!)
One of the difficulties I am finding with engineering solutions for the environment (at the moment) is doing and justifying the cost benefit analysis, where the costs will occur now and the benefits will accrue much later (for our grand children's children) - perhaps 30, 40, 50 to 100 years out.
Councils are currently looking (struggling) to build 10 year forecasts (e.g. in asset management).
Our current corporate focus on short term gain from short term pain is often not appropriate.
I think we need a new financial model. What do you think?
Also you seem to be talking about "council" and "rate payers" as almost separate, opposing entities.
Surely part of a new solution is for everyone to get involved ("community engagement").
Council must be effective and effficient (as it is using others dollars), while the community (rate payers and others) need to get involved and do their bit.
Councils are in a great position to provide leadership and encouragement for meaningful community (self help) involvement while leading the way in driving relevant, important (perhaps bigger) initiatives (projects).
I welcome your thoughts and the thoughts of others on this and how we get out of the "analysis paralysis"!
Regards
-------------------------------------------
Darron Passlow
Asset Planning PRF
Warringah Council
DEE WHY NSW
-------------------------------------------