In the Senate the Australian Greens will move to introduce national mandatory water efficiency standards for residential and commercial buildings after the federal election.
Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown will announce the new plan to help Australian cities plan for and cope with a water-restricted future at the sustainable 60L Building in Melbourne today with Victorian Senatec andidate Dr. Richard Di Natale.
"Despite many Australians' hard work reducing their water use, Australia still has the highest per capita water-use in the world," said SenatorBrown.
"With climate change we'll face a hotter drier future and we need a national plan to cope with the water crisis in our cities.
Greens Victorian Senate candidate Richard Di Natale said the hard work by householders to conserve water needed to be matched with better government regulation.
"Everyone who's lugged a bucket from the shower to their garden knows how stupid it is that still today new buildings are going up without basic water efficiency measures," said Dr. Di Natale.
"That's particularly important in commercial and industrial buildings where initial design makes a huge difference.
"100,000 litres per person of fresh water a year is too much. With more Greens in the Senate, we'll push for a better national system to conserve water."
The Greens new plan includes:
* Mandatory water efficiency standards for all new residential and industrial or commercial developments, including basic minimum water sensitive design features such rainwater capture, water efficient showerheads and a second pipe network for non-potable water
* Incentives and tariffs for developers to encourage better water sensitive design
* Increasing the ability of local councils to get funding for local public stormwater harvesting projects.
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
the true price of desal
The only time the true price of desal water will be revealed to Melburnians, is when it arrives on their bills. Only then will Victorians realise they’ve been duped by Brumby and his Ministers into believing the desalination plant is the answer to Melbourne’s water woes.
The Greens know there are much better options for securing water for Melbourne, it rains more in Melbourne than what Melburnians consume. A recent 2007 study found “rainwater tanks are five times more energy efficient that desalination plants…Most Australian houses are suitable for a rainwater tanks…in Melbourne 72% of existing houses have potential for a rainwater tank….fewer than 6% of the houses in Melbourne have water tanks.”
The Greens have a sensible water policy to secure Melbourne’s future water supply. Water conservation, re-use and recycling should be prioritised over energy and capital-intensive strategies such as seawater desalination or long-distance pumping. It is possible for our cities and towns to use a diverse range of water sources including tanks, urban storm water and recycled wastewater, to achieve water supply security and waterway health.
The desalination plant will create 1.2million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions during operation. It will generate an additional 70,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing waste from the plant. It will intake 380,000 small marine organisms per second whilst discharging 8,800 litres of brine per second. Not only is this an economic disaster for the family budget it is an environmental disaster for Victoria’s coastline.
The desalination plant will cost tax payers dearly. Not only in a $5.1 billion construction bill and escalating water costs. It will dump 50,000 tonnes of toxic waste every year and secure big profits for overseas companies - why would we want it?
Written in response to Kenneth Davidson's article: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/time-to-come-clean-on-the-cost-of-water-20100530-wndy.html
The Greens know there are much better options for securing water for Melbourne, it rains more in Melbourne than what Melburnians consume. A recent 2007 study found “rainwater tanks are five times more energy efficient that desalination plants…Most Australian houses are suitable for a rainwater tanks…in Melbourne 72% of existing houses have potential for a rainwater tank….fewer than 6% of the houses in Melbourne have water tanks.”
The Greens have a sensible water policy to secure Melbourne’s future water supply. Water conservation, re-use and recycling should be prioritised over energy and capital-intensive strategies such as seawater desalination or long-distance pumping. It is possible for our cities and towns to use a diverse range of water sources including tanks, urban storm water and recycled wastewater, to achieve water supply security and waterway health.
The desalination plant will create 1.2million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions during operation. It will generate an additional 70,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing waste from the plant. It will intake 380,000 small marine organisms per second whilst discharging 8,800 litres of brine per second. Not only is this an economic disaster for the family budget it is an environmental disaster for Victoria’s coastline.
The desalination plant will cost tax payers dearly. Not only in a $5.1 billion construction bill and escalating water costs. It will dump 50,000 tonnes of toxic waste every year and secure big profits for overseas companies - why would we want it?
Written in response to Kenneth Davidson's article: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/time-to-come-clean-on-the-cost-of-water-20100530-wndy.html
Saturday, April 10, 2010
no flow for snowy
I recently toured East Gippsland and found myself in Marlo where the Snowy River meets the sea. A wonderful part of Victoria, the place bursting with recreational anglers, kayakers and bushwalkers, enjoying the great natural environment.
But underlying this beautiful slice of Victoria was the sad and sorry state of the Snowy River. It was alarming to see the state of the river, degraded, with obvious signs of strain and lack of water flow. The silting, apparent, above the water line, was a tragic sight of how this mighty river is suffering under years of lack of natural water flows.
It is a tragedy to see this iconic Australian river in such a degraded state. If there is any hope of saving the Snowy and restoring it to a much healthier state there must be environmental flows of 28%, to do anything less is failing our heritage and our future.
As far back as 1996 the Expert Panel Flow Assessment of the Snowy River Below Jindabyne recommended a 28% mean annual natural flow needed to maintain a healthy Snowy River.
The current Labor government under Steve Brack’s leadership promised they would restore 28% flow to the Snowy. That all changed when the Snowy Hydro was corporatised in 2002, however legislation committed to funding the restoration of 21% of annual natural flow to the Snowy below the Jindabyne Dam.
The legislated environmental flow targets for the Snowy River indicate by 2009 the return of 15% flows, by 2012 the return of 21% flows and after 2012 the return of 28% of environmental flows in line with the advice of the Expert Panel back in 1996.
The reality of the water flow in the Snowy is a stark difference to the legislated flows and paints a picture of a river under extreme duress. Actual Snowy River Environmental flows are shocking, in 2002/03 the environmental flows were 1.7%,
2003/04 3.3%, 2004/05 2.8%,
2005/06 4.3%, 2006/07 3.9%,
2007/08 3.5%, 2008/09 4.04%
and for this year (2009/10) planned releases of 4.01%.
A long way from the legislated 15% and nowhere near the 28% the Snowy needs to recover.
But underlying this beautiful slice of Victoria was the sad and sorry state of the Snowy River. It was alarming to see the state of the river, degraded, with obvious signs of strain and lack of water flow. The silting, apparent, above the water line, was a tragic sight of how this mighty river is suffering under years of lack of natural water flows.
It is a tragedy to see this iconic Australian river in such a degraded state. If there is any hope of saving the Snowy and restoring it to a much healthier state there must be environmental flows of 28%, to do anything less is failing our heritage and our future.
As far back as 1996 the Expert Panel Flow Assessment of the Snowy River Below Jindabyne recommended a 28% mean annual natural flow needed to maintain a healthy Snowy River.
The current Labor government under Steve Brack’s leadership promised they would restore 28% flow to the Snowy. That all changed when the Snowy Hydro was corporatised in 2002, however legislation committed to funding the restoration of 21% of annual natural flow to the Snowy below the Jindabyne Dam.
The legislated environmental flow targets for the Snowy River indicate by 2009 the return of 15% flows, by 2012 the return of 21% flows and after 2012 the return of 28% of environmental flows in line with the advice of the Expert Panel back in 1996.
The reality of the water flow in the Snowy is a stark difference to the legislated flows and paints a picture of a river under extreme duress. Actual Snowy River Environmental flows are shocking, in 2002/03 the environmental flows were 1.7%,
2003/04 3.3%, 2004/05 2.8%,
2005/06 4.3%, 2006/07 3.9%,
2007/08 3.5%, 2008/09 4.04%
and for this year (2009/10) planned releases of 4.01%.
A long way from the legislated 15% and nowhere near the 28% the Snowy needs to recover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
