Victoria's response to the Green Paper

Following the release of the Green Paper on June 3 2009, the Minister for Climate Change hosted a series of public forums and stakeholder workshops across Victoria to help promote and communicate the information within the Green paper and seek feedback from the Victorian community. Over a four-month period, a total of eight public forums were held throughout regional Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne along with a further seven sector specific workshops, with close to 1000 Victorians participating in these discussions.

The information and ideas put forward at the sessions will be used to help guide the development of the Climate Change White Paper, which will set out a comprehensive new climate change strategy for Victoria out to 2020.

The following summaries are the views expressed by participants of Climate Change Green Paper public forums and workshops.

Please note: The notes are collated and aggregated according to the questions which the participants were asked to discuss. No specific comment can be attributed to a particular individual, and no attempt is made to quantify the degree to which particular comments were supported amongst the participants.


Environment Groups Workshop

Summary notes of the views expressed by the 27 participants in the stakeholder workshop held for representatives of environment groups on Friday 24 July 2009 at 50 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne.

1. What are the strengths of the climate change Green Paper?

Participants acknowledged that the Green Paper set the context for the development of policies and activities to respond to climate change and its impacts. The Green Paper was seen to provide the vision and the framework for the concerted actions which needed to follow. The goals and objectives identified in the Green Paper were seen to be appropriate and the scientific analysis (and the government acceptance of it) was supported. The Green Paper was seen to be a useful contribution.

2. What are the weaknesses of the climate change Green Paper?

Participants commented that climate change required global leadership, but there were also things that Victoria itself could do. Some commented that the Green Paper focused more on analysis and discussion than on actions and commitments. There was seen to be more emphasis on adaptation than mitigation, and not
enough emphasis on what can be done to reduce the negative impacts, particularly in Victoria, of climate change.

The Green Paper was seen to be weak by some participants in particular areas, including:
3. What is missing from the climate change Green Paper?

Participants commented that the Green Paper was missing a well-articulated vision for Victoria’s responses to climate change, and clear actions with which to pursue the vision. Some participants had wanted the Green Paper to make a strong case for state action, along with commitments from government to funds. Some participants expected more of an Action Plan, with clear responsibilities for delivery. And some wanted a state-based strategy and plan for the transition away from reliance on coal.

Some participants commented that the Green Paper was missing the analysis of other models and what other governments (e.g. Scotland) are doing. Others suggested that the mechanisms for delivery were missing such as engaging with local government and/or supporting local community groups to drive the necessary changes. And recognition of the challenge of climate refugees was seen to be missing. Some participants thought that there should be more emphasis on communications and training. Communications in languages other than English were seen to be missing, and there was a call for more advice and assistance for individuals seeking alternative energy options. It was suggested that training and education at all levels would need to be sharpened and improved if it was to cope with the pace of climate change and its impacts. And it was proposed that responses should include funds for climate change risk assessments.

4. What are the priorities that most need attention?

Some participants advocated the pursuit of a better balance between population and energy usage as a high priority. Some argued that reduction of the energyuse contribution to climate change was urgent, by both greater energy efficiency and greater use of alternative energy sources. This challenge was interpreted by some as the task of decarbonising Victoria’s energy supply, which was seen to be difficult but crucial.

Some participants put the highest priority on clarifying the urgency of the science, along with clear actions and time scales for an appropriate set of responses. Others proposed specific priorities, including ecosystem monitoring and mapping, refocusing training and education systems on climate change issues, and commencing retrofitting of buildings and cars for energy efficiency.

5. What should be the roles of state government and others?

Participants identified a number of roles for state government in both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Some participants saw a key role for state government in leadership, in areas such as marketing, regulating and setting a good example. Others saw a key role in establishing consistent whole-of-government policies and strategies. It was suggested that state government should apply a climate change overlay on all legislation, in order to establish the importance of climate change considerations.

Some participants saw a role for state government in mainstreaming and legitimising climate change considerations in the general population. Suggestions for how to do this included: It was suggested that an effective response to climate change will require deep systemic changes, and government can facilitate the multi-disciplinary governance that will be required.

6. What are the biggest challenges for the implementation of climate change responses?

A number of participants saw the biggest challenges and barriers as entrenched behaviours, habits and attitudes. The adjustments that were seen to be needed included changing: 7. What are the biggest opportunities created by climate change and its impact?

Some participants saw climate change as a vehicle to re-think a wide range of environmental issues and challenges. The magnitude of the impact of climate change was seen to provide an opportunity for agreeing on new environmental goals and targets, and for pursuing them cooperatively. It was suggested that climate change provides an opportunity to engage the whole community in a rethink of our lifestyles, and an opportunity to lead people into appropriate responses at all levels. Some participants saw this as a chance to tap into the energy within communities, and to facilitate community innovation and collaboration. Some saw it as a chance to challenge industry to change towards best practice in energy efficiency.

It was suggested that climate change offered the prospect of aligning economic development to sustainability. Some participants saw opportunities in the money to be saved by greater energy efficiency and reduced consumption. Some saw opportunities in green jobs, and pursuit of alternative energy sources. Others saw opportunities in the adjustment of subsidies as incentives for commercial innovation.

There were also some specific opportunities indentified. It was suggested that Victoria’s sophisticated road safety campaigns were a good example of the opportunity that exists to influence people’s attitudes and behaviours. It was proposed that alternative fuels (e.g. natural gas) could be used in vehicles to reduce climate change impacts. And some participants saw an opportunity for substantial investment in alternative energy infrastructure.

It was noted that communities often tend to unite and work together when confronted with a crisis, and climate change offered an opportunity for constructive local actions that also enhance community cohesion.

page top

Natural Resources and Land Use Groups Workshop

Summary notes of the views expressed by the 25 participants in the stakeholder workshop held for representatives of natural resources and land use groups on Wednesday 5 August 2009 at Macarthur Street, Melbourne.

1. What are the strengths of the climate change Green Paper?

Participants acknowledged that the Green Paper was well presented and quite readable, with good graphics and layout. Some participants particularly like the emphasis which the Green Paper placed on themes of opportunity, adaptation, and innovation.

Some participants thought that the Green Paper canvassed and summarised the issues well, with good clear goals and comprehensive coverage. There were also positive comments on the Paper’s regional approach, on its approach to economic markets, and on its cross-Departmental and whole-of-government approach to climate change issues.

2. What are the weaknesses of the climate change Green Paper?

Some participants thought that the Green Paper was not strong enough on the linkages between climate change and biodiversity, and thought that it should have placed higher priority on biodiversity risks and on the issues associated with growth areas.

Particular areas of perceived Green Paper weakness, which some participants mentioned, included: There was particular comment from some participants that the Green Paper was weak on the relationship between mitigation and adaptation, and some would have preferred to see a stronger distinction between the two, with more emphasis in the Green Paper on adaptation.

3. What is missing from the climate change Green Paper?

Some participants thought that the Green Paper was missing an appropriate scale and time perspective, particularly with respect to both the magnitude and urgency of the challenge. Some also suggested that the pace of change required may be beyond our capacity to adapt.

Specific components that were perceived by some participants to be missing in the Green Paper included: Some participants saw the Green Paper as missing an appropriate acknowledgement of the current and potential roles of local government in responding to climate change impacts, and the importance of community support for both mitigation and adaptation initiatives.

4. What are the priorities that most need attention?

Some participants thought that the highest priority should be good research and good science, and on the development of comprehensive financial modelling that provides clarity on real costs. Some participants saw the highest priority as being awareness-raising and education within the community, perhaps via TAC-style public awareness campaigns.

There were some suggestions that focussing on a particular area as a high priority could provide a short cut to the needed changes, and could catalyse other appropriate adaptations. One suggestion was that the focus be on waterways, another was that it be on capacity building, or on innovation, and another was that it be on retrofitting existing infrastructure (eg buildings).

Some participants saw the highest priority as achieving a balance of one kind or another. The balance being sought was – respectively – between carrot and stick in the government’s approach, between urgency and caution in the pace of adaptation, between community priorities and government priorities, and between changing behaviours and responding to changed behaviours (eg public transport).

5. What should be the roles of state government and others?

Participants saw a number of roles for state government in the process of adapting to the impacts of climate change. It was suggested that the market cannot cope with the rapid land management changes which will be required, and the state government should step in to assist with relocations and capacity building. It was also seen to be a state government role to invest in adaptations and to leverage private investment in the same directions.

Some participants saw the state government as a good source of small grants for local adaptations, and one suggestion was for a government-imposed Environmental Levy with which to fund adaptation. Some saw a role for government in defining the nature of good land stewardship, and then regulating to enforce it.

It was suggested the federal government had a primary role in climate change mitigation, and the state government had a primary role in adaptation. The federal government was also seen to have a role in influencing the banks in their responses to those vulnerable to climate change, and in adjusting the role of its own Centrelink in dealing with those impacted.

6. What are the biggest challenges for the implementation of climate change responses?

A number of participants saw a significant challenge in what they called “consultation fatigue”, particularly amongst organisations with very limited resources. Some participants saw this challenge as associated with the difficulty of engaging the community on complex issues, and the difficult task of getting community acceptance of the scale of the changes needed, and the associated costs.

Some participants saw the biggest challenges as population growth and consumption, and the lack of widespread understanding of what lies ahead. Farmers were seen to be particularly vulnerable, with limited financial capacity to adapt, and little sense of empowerment to tackle the task.

Other challenges were seen to include the poor general understanding of biodiversity issues, the apparent inability of the state government to manage its own land, and the constant threat of bushfires and other calamities to catchment health.

7. What are the biggest opportunities created by climate change and its impact?

Some participants saw climate change as providing a major opportunity to mobilise passionate public support for action. Some saw an opportunity for leadership on the issue, and for the harnessing of the energy of small groups to push for healthy communities.

Some participants perceived opportunities to disseminate important environmental messages, and to tell the story of the “hidden” economy. Other opportunities that were seen to come from climate change included the pursuit of food security and the revegetation of catchments. Some participants also saw an opportunity for partnerships that would have otherwise been more difficult.

page top

Melbourne Forum

Summary notes of the views expressed by approximately 190 participants in the public forum held on Tuesday 21 July 2009 at the Melbourne Town Hall.

1. What are the strengths of the climate change Green Paper?

Participants were positive about the initiative which the Green Paper represents, and about the discussion and debate which it will catalyse. Some participants described it as a good comprehensive overview, with useful broad principles and frameworks. Some were positive about the aspiration of the Green Paper to set the bar higher, and about its acknowledgement of the impact of climate change on vulnerable people.

There were also positive comments on the Premier’s commitments in the introduction to the Green Paper, and on the emphases within the paper on accepting the science, and on the pursuit of innovation and green jobs. It was noted with approval that the Green Paper was printed on recycled paper and that it was well presented.

2. What are the weaknesses of the climate change Green Paper?

A number of participants thought that the Green Paper was weak on specifics and details. Some participants would have preferred clear targets and strategies, such as proposals to pursue some particular legislation or to resolve some specific issues. Some participants described the Green Paper as woolly, with high level discussion but no clear vision of the future to pursue. Particular areas of perceived weakness which were noted by participants included the absence of: Some participants perceived the Green Paper as weak in its over-reliance on a national CPRS and in its implied protection of carbon-expensive industries. Some wanted the Green Paper to be stronger in its advocacy of adaptation actions in general, and in its advocacy of emissions cuts in particular.

3. What is missing from the climate change Green Paper?

A number of participants thought that the Green Paper was missing a sense of urgency, particularly with respect to energy supply and use. Some participants wanted priorities and timeframes for the decarbonisation of Victoria’s electricity, and a much more vigorous pursuit of renewable energy sources.

The Green Paper was seen by some participants to be missing particular components including: Of particular concern to some participants was the absence of a Victorian scheme to complement (or if necessary replace) any national CPRS which emerges.

4. What should be done to respond to the physical impacts of climate change?

Participants proposed a number of adaptations that could help Victoria respond to the physical impact of climate change, including: A number of participants saw adaptation as best approached at the local or regional level, via regional risk assessments and the development of regional self-sufficiency. It was proposed that national and state measures should be analysed for their different implications in different regions, and region-specific blueprints developed for adaptation.

5. What should be the role of state government and others in responding to climate change impacts?

Participants proposed a number of roles for state government in responding to climate change impacts, including: Of particular concern to some participants was the lack of coordination between Federal and state government departments, and between state and local government, on responses to climate change. It was suggested that a key role for state government should be the facilitation of consistency and coordination between the three levels of government. Some participants also saw a particular role for social scientists and community workers to work with communities and prepare them for the impacts of climate change.

6. What should be done in response to an Australian CPRS (and who should play which roles)?

A number of participants had suggestions for how the proposed national CPRS could be improved, including the urgent inclusion of agriculture, stronger commitments to precise targets, and building in energy efficiency requirements. Some participants also wanted the Federal Government to play a stronger role in the
mitigation of climate change, and in support of the infrastructure that will be required to adapt to climate change.

The participants had a number of suggestions for the role of state government with respect to a national CPRS, including: Some participants saw particular roles for local government with respect to a national CPRS, including the development and promotion of local examples of successful adaptation, and the facilitation and promotion of local and regional education programs to prepare communities for a CPRS. Some participants saw the CPRS as an
opportunity to drive cooperation between the three levels of government, and to ensure that national policies are appropriately translated into regional and local actions. There were reservations expressed about the CPRS itself, and some participants proposed parallel initiatives that might assist. These included a roadmap for reducing
compensation, incentives for low carbon power generation, promotion of energy efficient appliances and buildings, measures to address anticipated market failures, and tools to effectively monitor and evaluate the CPRS itself.

7. What opportunities are created by climate change for new technologies and initiatives (and who should play which roles?)

The participant saw climate change as providing a number of potential opportunities for positive changes. Some participants saw opportunities at the level of the economy, with investments in start-up innovative companies and in the development of intellectual property, and with seed funding for new R&D innovations. It was suggested that the federal government should provide incentives to keep green industries in Australia.

Some participants saw opportunities in specific initiatives, such as energy from waste or non-food biofuels, gross feed in tariffs, water efficient agriculture, the development of cool rooms and pavements, and personal carbon allocations. It was suggested that Victoria could become a leader in efficient manufacturing, via transformation of industry processes. Some participants saw climate change as providing an opportunity to phase out coal and develop an alternative future for the Latrobe Valley. There was interest in incorporating innovation into retrofits of existing buildings, including government buildings. And there was support for education and training to prepare industry and people for green jobs and the shift to renewable energies.

Some participants saw a role for state government in trialling geothermal and wave power, and in providing incentives for changes in individual behaviours. It was suggested that regulation and incentives could be combined (carrot and stick) to encourage greater use of energy efficient transport and housing options, with associated
social and health benefits. It was suggested that all levels of government should play a role in setting a good example (e.g. in their procurement practices), and in supporting local initiatives. Some participants saw climate change as an opportunity to enhance the role of local government, particularly with the potential for a local or regional focus and for the development of sustainable small town pilots and models.

The capacity of local communities to initiate change was seen by some participants to provide state and federal governments with an opportunity to “surf the wave” of innovation from community groups and networks. However, some participants warned against shifting the cost of climate change responses from federal or state government to local government.

Some participants thought that climate change was such a significant issue that it required the appointment of a Royal Commission, in order to attract the level of attention and resources which the challenge deserves.

page top

Bendigo Forum

Summary notes of the views expressed by the 69 participants at the public forum held on Friday 17 July 2009 at the All Season Quality Resort in Bendigo.

1. What are the strengths of the climate change Green Paper?

Participants commented positively that the Green Paper signalled that the Victorian Government accepted the scientific evidence for climate change and its impacts, and that the Victorian Government seemed willing to take actions in response. The Green Paper was seen to be a useful vehicle to start the public conversation about climate change. The consistency between the positions taken by the Federal and Victorian governments was seen to be a positive. Some participants thought the Green Paper was well written, and described the current circumstances and issues quite well. Some thought it was a well presented and attractive document.

2. What are the weaknesses of the climate change Green Paper?

Participants commented that they found the Green Paper too general and lacking detail. It was described as essentially a discussion paper, without proposed actions or priorities. It was seen by some participants to be weak in particular areas, including: There was concern expressed about an apparent lack of urgency, and some participants thought the Victorian Government’s claim of leadership on climate change was overstated. The Green Paper was seen by some to be incomplete on approaches and adaptations taken so far and some of the data used was challenged. There was a suggestion that it promoted cost-shifting to local communities.

3. What is missing from the climate change Green Paper?

Participants commented that the Green Paper was missing short-term goals and action plans, and clear definitive proposals. Some participants thought the Green Paper was Melbourne-centric, and needed clearer guidance on personal and shared responsibilities and on community empowerment and engagement, perhaps to the point of secondary documentation of specific regional impacts and actions. Analysis of the impact of population growth (and consumption) on sustainability was seen to be missing, as was a clear government resolve to move away from carbon pollution sources of energy.

An emphasis on the role of education was seen to be missing by some participants, and some thought that the Green Paper would be enhanced by stories and case studies that people could relate to. A group of participants argued for inclusion of a population policy for Victoria, and there was the suggestion that an Executive Summary of the document would be helpful. There was also the suggestion that the Green Paper was missing a sense of hope, to offset its negative pictures of the future.

4. What should be done to respond to the physical impacts of the climate change?

Participants in the public forum noted that climate change impacts will vary across regions, but there was a call for state-wide policy consistency. There were also calls for a broad debate on population policy and on resource usage patterns, and for education and awareness-raising activities on climate change across Victoria. Some participants thought that the practical climate change response actions of individuals and communities should be publicised and promoted.

Some participants thought that significant reductions in energy demands were needed, others expected there to be depopulation of the most severely affected regions. There were calls for better computer modelling of holistic consequences, and for a National Covenant with industry, to respond to climate change. Some participants wanted planning regulations to ensure that appropriate infrastructure (e.g. solar power) was suitably located. A group of participants wanted more public forums to empower and leverage the momentum of local environment groups.

5. What should be the role of state government in responding to climate change impacts?

A number of roles were suggested for the Victorian Government in responding to climate change impacts, including: There was some enthusiasm for the state government supporting and empowering the work of the Loddon Mallee Sustainable Development Network, and associated community-based regional environment groups.

6. What should be done in response to an Australian CPRS (and what should be the role of the state government)?

Some participants were not supportive of the CPRS currently proposed by the Federal Government, but they noted that the Victorian Government had indicated that it would cooperate if the CPRS is introduced. Some participants suggested that the Victorian Government should lobby the Federal Government to improve the CPRS, and to strengthen its urgency and the use of national mitigation actions.

Suggestions of responses to the CPRS included: Some participants suggested that part of the response to the CPRS should be planning for climate change refugees, and that state government will need to both complement the actions of the Federal Government and support the actions of local government.

7. What opportunities are created by climate change for new technologies and initiatives (and what should be the role of state government?)

A number of forum participants saw numerous opportunities in transport, including greater and easier use of bicycles, more freight to rail, better use of ports, and development of regional public transport systems. Other participants saw opportunities in planning, including requirements for more sustainable cities and towns, stronger building codes for energy savings and the use of renewable energy.

Some saw renewable energy sources as the opportunity for new research and service industries and green jobs, particularly in areas such as solar, wind and/or biomass power, storing soil carbon, or the development of smart energy grids. Opportunities were also noted in changes towards sustainable land use and in farming practices, such as reducing the use of water and increasing productivity in horticulture. Other suggestions included the creation of wildlife corridors, incentivising local habitat protection, and using community managed models for the local use of renewable energy.

Climate change was seen by some participants as creating an opportunity for local communities to work more closely together, and to develop an integrated climate change response for each region. It was also seen as an opportunity for state government to set a good example, with the removal of the silos within government that are working on the issue, and with more public servants demonstrating energy efficient work patterns.

page top

Geelong Forum

Summary notes of the views expressed by the 73 participants in the public forum held on Wednesday 22 July 2009 at Kardinia Park in Geelong.

1. What are the strengths of the climate change Green Paper?

Some participants were positive about the acceptance of the scientific evidence which was seen to underpin the Green Paper. Another strength was seen to be its emphasis on partnerships and collaboration, between different levels of government and between the public and private sectors. Also seen to be strengths were the logical style and comprehensive agenda of the Green Paper, and the sense of opportunity which it presented.

Some specific foci were noted as positive aspects of the Paper, including transport, agriculture, new technologies and renewable energy. Some participants also welcomed the commitment to engagement with the community, which was seen to be demonstrated by the Paper itself, and by the associated consultations about it.

2. What are the weaknesses of the climate change Green Paper?

Some participants saw the Green Paper as lacking urgency and details, without a clear commitment to real change. Some questioned what difference the Green Paper will make to achieving a healthy environment, since they saw the Paper as lacking the boldness and enthusiasm that would be needed to match the size of the challenge.

There were a number of particular perceived weaknesses which were identified by some participants, including: 3. What is missing from the climate change Green Paper?

Some participants would have preferred the Green Paper to draw more on the experience of other countries, and for it to be more prepared to acknowledge that Victoria is a relatively high contributor to climate change. Some would have preferred to see more questioning of basic underlying assumptions about current behaviours and consumption patterns.

It was suggested that the Green Paper demonstrated a disjoint between the needs and the actions proposed, and that it was missing a commitment to the proactive leadership that will be required. Other components that were seen to be missing by some participants included: Areas which some participants would have preferred to have been covered included the use of early education for awareness-raising, the pursuit of food security, and compensation for climate change disadvantage.

4. What should be done to respond to the physical impacts of the climate change?

Some participants saw the response to climate change impacts as best pursued at the regional level. The suggestions for responding included the creation of regional alliances and regional think tanks, and the identification and monitoring of regional carbon footprints. Targets and timelines for each region were also suggested.

Some participants saw the response as best pursued by behavioural and financial incentives. The suggestions included: disincentives for high energy use; making public transport more available and attractive; investing in alternative technologies; and expansion of waste recycling infrastructure.

Other responses suggested by participants included: 5. What should be the role of state government and others in responding to climate change impacts?

Some participants saw a role for the federal government in allocating funds (perhaps from the CPRS) to new initiatives, in order to better respond to climate change impacts. It was also suggested that the federal government should find ways to enable top Australian climate change scientists to stay in Australia.

The participants identified a number of adaptation roles for state government, including: Some participants saw a key role for industry, particularly the energy and building industries, in adapting to climate change impacts.

Local government was seen to have a potential role by some participants, with easy water tank permits, free water tanks, and subsidies for the associated plumbing.

The community was also seen to have a potential role by some participants, with identification and management of their own risks, and with the building of local capacity to respond and adapt to the local impacts.

In general, some participants wanted to see all levels of government being more transparent on their climate change activities, and they wanted to see clearly defined roles and more leadership on climate change from governments.

6. What should be done in response to an Australian CPRS (and who should play what role)?

Some participants saw the proposed CPRS as not good enough to constitute an appropriate response, and they saw a role for the state government in advocating a stronger scheme and a more urgent response. Some participants advocated a leadership role for Australia in South East Asia on climate change issues, and in helping developing countries to respond.

Some participants argued for Victoria to call for and participate in close monitoring and strong enforcement of any CPRS that is introduced, and to facilitate the implementation of any changes that are implied by the monitoring. There was also a call for state government to implement parallel activities to cover areas not within the CPRS itself, such as public transport development, coordination of implementation, and education and awareness raising at all levels.

The CPRS was seen by some participants to be a potential marketing tool for businesses, and some saw it as a tool for pursuit of equitable costs (and benefits) associated with climate change impacts. Some participants saw the CPRS as an opportunity to assist the pursuit of sequestration.

There was a call from some participants for transparency at all levels in association with the CPRS, particularly with respect to the funding model. Some participants wanted the funds to be targeted specifically to climate change impacts and/or to community education on climate change and the CPRS.

7. What opportunities are created by climate change for new technologies and initiatives (and who should play what role?)

Some participants saw climate change as providing an opportunity for more significant support to be directed towards a range of sensible initiatives, including: Some participants saw potential for Victoria to become a world leader in manufacturing production, via R&D and infrastructure investment for energy efficiencies. Some wanted Victoria to particularly invest in solar energy, and to catch up with the quality and quantity of solar energy use in other countries.

There were also opportunities seen to exist at the local level, with more emphasis on working at home (via broadband) and more local foodmarkets with regional produce. Local government was seen to be well placed to facilitate local initiatives.

Some participants saw a role for state government in the use of subsidies and incentives to empower local communities to work together to pursue changes. It was also seen to be a potential role of state government to switch freight from road to rail, and to facilitate the introduction of refunds on returned glass and metal. State government was also seen to be the potential source of quality control and assurance in climate change responses, in order to minimise carpetbagging and green washing.

Some participants saw climate change as providing an opportunity to develop a population policy for Victoria (and Australia) and to impact on the excessive consumption patterns of Australians. These initiatives, and others, were seen to require a greater (and highly desirable) level of efficiency and cooperation across governments.

page top

Benalla Forum

Summary notes of the views expressed by the 98 participants in the public forum held on 18 August 2009 at the Benalla Town Hall.

1. What are the strengths of the climate change Green Paper?

Comments included that the Paper is a good starting point for discussion and that it provides an accurate depiction of the science and sets out a comprehensive picture of climate change. Participants were positive about the Green Paper’s acknowledgement of the challenges and attempt to set some goals and priorities.

Some participants were positive about the Paper’s acknowledgement of the impact of climate change on vulnerable people (particularly those involved in agriculture) and the creation of opportunities for businesses and households to use more renewable energy.

The document was described as user friendly. Comments included support and appreciation for ongoing community involvement and consultation of the sort conducted during the Benalla forum on this day.

2. What are the weaknesses of the climate change Green Paper?

A number of participants thought that the Green Paper should have outlined a clearer, more specific vision for Victoria and its leadership role including setting clearer measurable targets. Some participants thought the Paper focussed more on larger centres (Melbourne, large towns) than country/regional Victoria and the needs of farming communities. Some responses showed participants thought the document was weak on specifics and details. Some thought that the Paper overemphasised adaptation rather than mitigation and that timeframe of 2050 was too distant. Many participants sought a sense of urgency within a shorter timeframe.

Participants noted areas of perceived weakness including seeking more clarity about how: and content addressing: Some participants perceived the Green Paper as weak in its over-reliance on a national CPRS and in its implied protection of the market and carbon-expensive industries. Some wanted the Green Paper to be stronger in Victoria’s advocacy of adaptation actions in general, and in its advocacy of emissions cuts and a more urgent timeline in particular.

Some participants noted an over-reliance within the Paper on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as the primary means to reduce emissions at the expense of more proven, cleaner technologies such as solar and wind. CCS was considered to be experimental and decades away from being operational.

3. What is missing from the climate change Green Paper?

Participants stated that the initiatives outlined in the Green Paper do not provide a vision for a low carbon future and do not match the scale of climate change-related problems that lie ahead.

Some participants wanted a much more vigorous pursuit of renewable energy sources, more aggressive energy efficiency standards and greater clarity about intentions regarding Victoria’s water future.

The Green Paper was seen by some participants to be missing particular components including the: 4. What should be done to respond to the physical impacts of climate change?

Participants proposed a number of adaptation actions that could help Victoria respond to the physical impact of climate change, including: A number of participants saw adaptation as best approached at the local or regional level via a strong role for local government.

5. What should be the role of state government and others in responding to climate change impacts?

Participants proposed a number of roles for state government in responding to climate change impacts, including: Of particular concern to some participants was the perceived lack of coordination across governments and departments on responses to climate change. It was suggested that a key role for state government should be the facilitation of consistency and coordination across all levels of government.

6. What should be done in response to an Australian CPRS (and who should play which roles)?

A number of participants had suggestions for how the proposed national CPRS could be improved, including the urgent inclusion of agriculture, stronger commitments to precise targets, and building in energy efficiency requirements. Participants sought more information and wider and more comprehensive education on CPRS and associated issues such as where agriculture sits with the scheme.

Some participants also wanted the State Government to apply pressure to the Federal Government to play a stronger role in mitigation of climate change (including for renewable energy and incentives for industries to encourage change to renewable energy sources) and in support of the infrastructure that will be required to adapt to climate change.

The participants had a number of suggestions for the role of state government with respect to a national CPRS, including: Some participants saw particular roles for local government with respect to a national CPRS including the development and promotion of local examples of successful adaptation and the facilitation and promotion of local and regional education programs to prepare communities for a CPRS.

There were reservations expressed about the CPRS itself, and some participants proposed parallel initiatives that might assist. These included suggestions for reducing compensation, incentives for low carbon power generation, promotion of energy efficient appliances and buildings, measures to address anticipated market failures, and tools to effectively monitor and evaluate the CPRS itself.

7. What opportunities are created by climate change for new technologies and initiatives (and who should play which roles?)

Some participants thought the Paper was too limited in exploring opportunities for new technologies and suggested other examples such as wave technology, tidal energy and nuclear energy. Participants also saw climate change as providing a number of potential opportunities for positive changes.

Some participants saw opportunities in specific initiatives, such as energy from waste, water efficient agriculture and improving storm water catchment, increasing use of solar energy, locating bio-energy industries on non-arable land and improving landfill capture facilities.

Other suggestions included: Some participants saw climate change as providing an opportunity to phase out reliance on coal and develop an alternative future for the Latrobe Valley. Comments showed concern for the scale and scope of the challenges that will be faced by the Latrobe Valley. Suggestions for supporting the Latrobe Valley during transition included training/retraining.

There was interest in incorporating innovation into retrofits of existing buildings including a third, grey water system. And there was support for education and training to prepare industry and people for green jobs and the shift to renewable energies.

It was suggested that regulation and incentives could be combined (carrot and stick) to encourage greater use of energy efficient public transport (particularly rail) and housing options, with associated social and health benefits.

It was suggested that all levels of government should play a role in setting a good example and in supporting local initiatives. Some participants saw climate change as an opportunity to enhance the role of local government, particularly with the potential for a local or regional focus and for the development of sustainable small town pilots and models.

page top

Box Hill Forum

Summary notes of the views expressed by 198 participants in the public forum held on 20 August 2009 at the Box Hill Town Hall

1. What are the strengths of the climate change Green Paper?

Many comments stated the Green Paper is comprehensive as it touches every important sector and provides a good starting point for discussion of key climate change issues. There were positive comments about the Green Paper’s acknowledgement of the science on climate change, recognition of key challenges and attempts to set some goals and priorities.

Some participants were positive about the Victorian government encouraging discussion of climate change issues (eg mainstreaming the focus, providing summary information in the Paper) and involving communities in consultation. Some participants commented that strengths included the conduct of the Box Hill forum on this day.

The Paper’s acknowledgement of the potential impact of climate change on vulnerable communities was seen as a strength. Some participants thought the Paper created valuable opportunities for green jobs and for households to use more renewable energy. Some participants were positive about the Paper’s inclusion of public/private action and support for local government.

2. What are the weaknesses of the climate change Green Paper?

A number of participants thought that the Green Paper should have canvassed broader solutions (eg gas, CCS) and outlined a clearer, more specific vision for Victoria and its leadership role including setting clearer measurable targets and creating a more pressing timeframe for action.

Some responses showed participants thought the content was too high level, contained some inconsistencies and remained weak on specific actions and funding. Comments included a request for clarity on funding and standards, guidelines and regulation and transition arrangements.

Weaknesses in the Paper were identified in comments related to: Some participants consider the Green Paper is weak in its focus on a national CPRS and sought state-based targets. Some participants considered that targets had to be achievable but also not too low (5% is too low).

Some participants wanted the Green Paper to be stronger in indicating Victoria’s advocacy of adaptation actions, emissions cuts and a more urgent timeline.

Several questions were raised and some doubts were expressed about the science related to climate change as outlined in the Paper.

3. What is missing from the climate change Green Paper?

Some participants stated that the Green Paper misses a comprehensive understanding of solutions, practical actions and concrete suggestions to address the scale of problems. Some participants sought a more vigorous pursuit of renewable energy sources and higher energy efficiency standards (eg from 5 star to 7 star ratings for buildings).

The Green Paper was seen by some participants to be missing particular references and /or components including: 4. What should be done to respond to the physical impacts of climate change?

Participants proposed a number of adaptation strategies that could help Victoria respond to the physical impact of climate change, including: A number of participants saw adaptation as best approached at the local or regional level via a strong role for local government. Some participants commented that adaptation would be best served more by ‘carrots than sticks’ and by implementing small, local, achievable steps where everyone can play a part in using energy more efficiently.

5. What should be the role of state government and others in responding to climate change impacts?

Participants proposed a number of roles for state government in responding to climate change impacts, including: 6. What should be done in response to an Australian CPRS (and who should play which roles)?

Some participants sought clarity about how the CPRS will operate and what the scheme will deliver. Some participants questioned if carbon emissions contribute to climate change. A number of participants had suggestions for how the proposed national CPRS could be improved, including stronger commitments to precise targets and building in energy efficiency requirements. Some participants thought $10 a tonne was insufficient to drive real change. Comments included the need for CPRS to be predictable for low carbon industries to grow.

Some participants also wanted the State Government to apply pressure to the Federal Government to play a stronger role in relation to CPRS. Some participants had a number of suggestions for the role of state government with respect to the CPRS, including: There were reservations expressed about the CPRS itself and some participants proposed parallel initiatives that might assist. These included suggestions for reducing compensation, incentives for low carbon power generation, promotion of energy efficient/self-sustaining buildings and tools to effectively monitor and evaluate the CPRS itself.

Some participants commented that environmental management systems need to be well regulated and no rely too heavily on market forces.

7. What opportunities are created by climate change for new technologies and initiatives (and who should play which roles?)

Some participants thought the Paper was too limited in exploring opportunities for new technologies and suggested other examples such as wave technology, tidal power, geothermal, air conditioners powered by solar and nuclear energy.

There was a suggestion to set targets for collaboration between universities and business. Some participants saw opportunities in specific initiatives, such as energy from solar, waste and improving water efficient food production.

Other suggestions included: page top


Clouds Footer