14 April 2016, Kelvin Thompson MP, Population Growth Driving Infrastructure Deficit. Josh Gordon is absolutely right to raise the problems associated with Melbourne’s rapid population growth of the past decade. It is absolutely correct that politicians and economists are allowed to get away with murder by talking about economic growth when they should be required to talk about GDP per capita. It is like saying that because more people have moved into your street, that the street has more money, and therefore you are richer. You are not personally richer at all – indeed the probability is that your street is more crowded and that in amenity you are poorer. Melbourne’s rapid population growth is the reason there is an infrastructure problem. The Queensland academic Jane O’Sullivan has done research which shows that in a stable population the community needs to set aside around 2 per cent of its income to repair and replace ageing infrastructure, but that in a community growing by 1 per cent it needs to set aside 3 per cent of its income to keep up, and in a community growing by 2 per cent it needs to set aside 4 per cent of its income. The infrastructure task doubles, with only 2 per cent extra people to pay for it. Read More here
Category Archives: Cities Response
4 April 2016, Renew Economy, Canberra and Adelaide leading world in climate disclosure, action Australia has featured prominently in the latest global rankings for climate leadership, thanks to the state-based efforts of Canberra and Adelaide, both of which have been listed among the top 10 cities “setting the bar on climate disclosure” by London-based non-government organisation CDP. In a list published on Monday, the CDP – formerly the Climate Disclosure Project – ranked Canberra and Adelaide alongside Atlanta (US), Durban (South Africa), Leon (Mexico), Mexico City, New Taipei City (Taiwan), Oslo (Norway), Ravenna (Italy) and Vancouver (Canada) as world leaders in reporting on climate change. CDP said the 10 cities selected “scored highly for the quality and completeness of their environmental risk reporting,” a form of disclosure it said was “critical” for guiding investment decisions and addressing environmental risks. “These cities’ accomplishment is significant,” the CDP said in a statement on Monday. “More than 300 cities now use CDP’s system to report on their climate change progress. This group of cities includes many of the world’s largest and greenest cities, including more than 90 per cent of C40 cities.” On Adelaide, the report praises the Adelaide City Council for being “actively and continuously engaged in climate change mitigation and adaptation” since 1996. “It has consistently demonstrated leadership in delivering real and lasting reductions in carbon emissions,” the report says. On Canberra, the report notes the significant efforts the Capital’s government has made to release an annual inventory of greenhouse gases since 1998, calculating emissions back to a 1990 base year. Read More here
16 March 2016, The Conversation, Hot cities: the ‘smart’ response to urban heat threats. Significant urban policy and planning efforts have been directed at the problem of rising heat in cities. “Smart” cities create new relationships and interdependencies between people, technology and urban environments. The concept rests on the efficient, responsive and adaptive capacities of urban infrastructure. But how well does the smart city respond to the devastating scale and impact of urban heat threats such as bushfires and heatwaves? The Australian Medical Association has warned heat is a “silent killer”. It notes that more Australians die each year due to heat than on the roads. Heatwaves have contributed to more deaths in Australia than any other natural disaster. Bushfires are also expected to increase, with significant impacts on Australian cities and urban communities such as the greater Melbourne region. This is a pressing issue for Australian cities and urban regions, at a time when Australian climatologists are warning of the increasing frequency, severity and duration of heatwaves and bushfires. Smart urban infrastructure New digital technology is entering cities, homes and workplaces. These are performing complex tasks. Self-driving cars and cashless payment systems are examples of significant change. But they also increase a city’s vulnerability in the event of a system breakdown or failure. The ways that these dependencies make cities highly vulnerable during a crisis are poorly understood. For example, smartphone-enabled bushfire and heatwave warning systems are one of the key policy responses proposed and trialled as part of the smart city. But, the benefits and challenges of such responses are still largely unknown. While the invisibility of smart city technology and infrastructure may rise to the surface and become exposed in the face of urban heat-related threats and crises, an array of important considerations lurk in the shadows. Read More here
18 March 2016, ECOS, Building disaster resilience systematically. The cost of replacing essential infrastructure damaged by disasters in the next 35 years is estimated to reach $17bn according to the latest set of reports from the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities. The reports, Building Resilient Infrastructure and the Economic Costs of Social Impact of Disasters, outline the costs associated with replacing essential infrastructure damaged by disasters and provide an overview of the direct costs of physical damage with the total economic cost of disasters. In 2015, the total economic costs of disasters exceeded $9bn, a figure that is projected to double by 2030 and reach $33bn per year by 2050 – funds that could be apportioned elsewhere on other major national projects. And as Heinrich Eder, CEO of reinsurer Munich Re, noted, these projections are based only on economic and population growth; they do not even include the increasingly detectable effects of climate change. These are big, and socially traumatic, numbers. Long-term they have the same sort of potential to create holes in national and state budgets as our ageing population does—the subject of repeated Intergenerational Reports and eventual decisions about adjusting retirement age. It is clear to us, based on our work, that investing much more in disaster resilience as a nation will reduce physical damage, avoid social disruption and trauma, and lessen this capricious burden on state and national budgets. In fact, estimates suggest that well-targeted investments in resilience could result in significant savings for the government. Read More here