I think you are absolutely correct in your definition of Infrastructure Australia’s role.

The timing and structure of the creature makes it purpose designed to ensure that new shipping port proposals are unencumbered by environmental concerns.

One of the problems facing our government is how best to ensure the maximum economic benefit from exploitation of our Natural reserve. We have ships backed up all along the Australian coast, creating risk to contract guarantees of export supply and bottle necking future National income.

The ‘Infrastructure Australia’ bill looks to be designed to help resolve this issue. A can of logistical grease as it where.

The observation that the process of natural resource exploitation is unsustainable is moot. We have already sold the Iron and coal and gas and all, we need to ensure however that due diligence is maintained and a code of conduct aggressively prosecuted to limit the worst immediate environmental degradation and hopefully mitigate some of the future impacts.

We need to ensure that the resource industry and the Government of the day don’t forget everything else while greasing the rails for the unfettered progress in the free for all big biz melai that is upon us.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

They say US$400B subsidy is required. Scaling down to Australian terms this is in the vicinity of AU$30B. Sounds strangely affordable :)

The inference that I draw from the bills definition of “nationally significant infrastructure” and its linkage to improved productivity is that public transport is of little benefit in itself. In national productivity terms: the time it takes to commute to work is of no consequence, provided that workers don’t turn up fatigued; and the major benefit of getting people to switch from their cars to public transport is that trucks (business) can move faster. An amendment wouldn’t have gone astray here.

Lets face it, the primary purpose of Infrastructure Australia will be to assist growth, and perpetual growth in the consumption of resources is unsustainable. This is where the Greens should be fighting.

Couldn’t agree more.

We need not be as reluctant as we seem to be to take this opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of the Australian nuclear power generation industry BEFORE it gets too big and strong to kill.

OK, initially you might have assumed an oversight, but what motive is behind rejecting the Greens amendment?

The fact that this ALP government voted with the coalition and the family first party against the amendments indicates that the ethos is a deliberate omission.

Again, proof positive that until the reliance on resource and commodity derived economics and the dance macabre with the sisyphus bride of ‘big industry’ finally winds down to a point of moment where redirection is possible, we are stuck with “political solutions”. (those solutions which you must have if you don’t wish to actually solve the problems)

My personal interest is in the energy sector post the Guarnot recommendations.

If the Energy industry is able to accept increased feed in tariffs across the board, cater to and provide incentive for point of use micro energy systems (ie. small solar urban & wind power systems) it is feasible that the new decentralised renewable POU industry can take up the lions share of urban expansion requirements.

This will make further expansion of coal derived base load systems redundant and shoot a big fat hole in the nuclear industries greatest hope for proliferation both here & close by.

A beginning in good faith for a healthier future might include photovoltaics for all new low income housing developments as a mandatory requirement, providing cut price energy for those that will be hurt most by the measures which must come if we are to make it over the rise. (in CO2 emissions)

We might then also concentrate on the encouragement of efficient public transport, all electric city commuters and penalties for the use of those ridiculous great 4 wheel drives and v8 muscle cars in urban areas.

To my mind, Infrastructure = roads, buildings, public transport (including air), utilities and public services.

It does not include CEO’s of major corporations and quarterly or long term profit forecasts for entities which will not change their practices unless made to do so.

I am hoping that if given a second term the Rudd government may start to place greater pressure on big industry to comply, having whoo’d them all and reassured the poor delicate and frightened dears that the world is indeed round and there are other ways to compensate.

Unfortunately without a good solid framework in place, such as would be ensured by the amendment that Christine proposed we will all be at the mercy of power without controls, power biased by short term profit motives and an antipathy to change.

Just an aside here, it is always not surprising that the F1 party votes against the Greens suggested amendments.

Especially when one considers that their basic codex is derived from a conservative evangelist / brethren style bias, which has decided that anything ‘green’ related is the devils work. Remember these are the good folk immersed in a fundamentalist culture which brings “creation” science to the climate change debate.

The F1 party is a known quantity, you could assume that they will ALWAYS vote against Green proposals. (Unless infiltrated by some very clever pagans)

The coalition however are a different kettle and may yet become the greatest allies for the Greens in their attempts to ensure this government brings integrity as well as hollow rhetoric to the climate change decisions table.

I’m not sure that the message about how our current lifestyle ensures energy and resource wastage and hence GHG emissions got through. From what I can see the Liberal, National and FF people seem to believe that demand is fixed forever and that drastic changes in supply are the only way to affect the changes in GHG emissions that we desire.

However, just as an example, if we were to build communities that were mostly self-sustaining in their primary resource usage (i.e. food, water, housing, etc.) and then locally exported specialities and imported other specialities, then the need to wait in a car in traffic for hours to commute to a city 20-30km away would be drastically reduced.

It is this community infrastructure that determines how people live, that is where they work, shop and socialise.

My reading of this bill leads me to believe that this advisory body will primarily listen to those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, making it all that much harder to make important decisions about our future environment in general (not just GHG emissions).

So, in summary, a wasted opportunity.