30 March 2006

Cr (full name)

Brisbane City Council

GPO Box 1434

BRISBANE QLD 4001

Dear Cr (surname)

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT CITYSHAPE DOCUMENT

I attended the first CityShape workshop on March 4 at The Gap High School.

My general comment is that the document fails to adequately address the urgent issues of climate change and ‘Peak Oil’ (the forthcoming peak in global oil production).

Former US President Bill Clinton calls climate change ‘the world’s biggest problem’, while some commentators consider that Peak Oil has the potential to cause unprecedented disruption to our cities and our economy.

The justification for my general comment on the CityShape report is set out below.

CityShape does not adequately address climate change

·         As a participant in the Cities for Climate Protection program, Brisbane City Council has accepted to some degree that the Brisbane community has an ethical responsibility (in addition to Council’s own duty of care to Brisbane residents) to take action today so that the welfare of future generations throughout the world is not adversely affected by climate change;

·         I understand that even Council’s modest 2010 greenhouse gas reduction targets for the Brisbane community (in Council’s Sustainable Energy and Greenhouse Action Plan) will not be achieved, mostly due to increases in vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) per capita and electricity consumption per household;

·         Council has the capacity to influence vehicle kilometres travelled by travel demand management measures and also by controlling where new development is located;

·         There is nothing in the CityShape report to suggest that addressing greenhouse gas emissions has been an integral part of the CityShape process – any greenhouse benefits are only incidental to the achievement of other objectives;

·         According to some estimates, we will need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50% over the next 15-30 years to reduce to an acceptable level the risk of a major climate catastrophe;

·         With currently feasible vehicle technology, achieving such reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Brisbane will require very significant reductions in VKT per capita – contrary to the current trend of increasing VKT per capita (see Queensland Transport’s Smart Travel Choices for SEQ Green Paper);

·         There is very little in the CityShape report which addresses the need to drastically reduce car use – the report proposes to continue greenfield residential development on the urban fringe (relatively far from employment and services) and also proposes major road infrastructure (the TransApex projects) which will encourage further growth in car use;

·         The TransApex projects in particular will directly increase Brisbane’s high levels of greenhouse gas emissions (already some of the highest per capita levels in the world) by encouraging longer trips now discouraged by congestion.

CityShape does not adequately address Peak Oil

• In its submission to the current Senate Inquiry into Australia’s future oil supply and alternative transport fuels, the National Committee on Transport, Engineers Australia (the peak body for professional engineers in Australia) states that ‘global oil production will not be able to continuing rising for much longer, while demand for oil is increasing’;

• The submission states that the peaking of global oil production is ‘uncomfortably close, probably within 10 years from now’ and that ‘the transport sector will be badly affected (by restricted oil availability) because of transport’s high dependence on oil at present’;

• The submission goes on to state that ‘this is an issue of national importance which is not taken into account in national or most state strategies yet’;

• There is no discussion of Peak Oil in the CityShape report – a plan which covers the 20 year period during which Peak Oil is quite likely (in the opinion of the National Committee on Transport, Engineers Australia) to occur;

• Restricted oil availability will impact significantly on Brisbane which is highly car-dependent, with outer areas particularly vulnerable (see the Griffith University report ‘Oil Vulnerability in the Australian City’);

• As cheap oil underpins the whole economy, the impact of escalating oil prices on the economy ‘will almost certainly be extremely damaging’ (see The Hirsch Report http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf)

• Unless we begin to drastically reduce demand for oil at least a decade ahead of the peaking of world oil production, there will be insufficient lead time to prevent a large shortfall in liquid fuels available for transport, with ‘protracted economic hardship’ being the consequence (see The Hirsch Report http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf)

• Proposals to build major new road infrastructure (such as the TransApex proposals) are entirely inappropriate at this time - Peak Oil is quite likely to occur before much of this infrastructure is operating;

• Similarly, proposals for greenfield development should be tested for their vulnerability to restricted oil availability.

Conclusion

There is an urgent need for a full and open public debate on how Council’s planning can address both climate change and Peak Oil. Without pre-empting the outcomes of this debate, it can be confidently stated that significant restrictions on car use will be a necessary part of the response to both of these issues.

I understand that Council has until June 2007 to finalise its response to the SEQ Regional Plan. This will allow sufficient time to have a full public debate on how our city can successfully address both climate change and Peak Oil through Council’s land use planning and transport planning programs.

Yours faithfully

BRIAN FEENEY