Death wish

The biggest issue in Canberra politics these days is the tram (for those anti) / light rail (for those pro). For this post, I will use lr, at least for now... I have an opinion, but I also have friends with differing opinions, so I decided to test myself by attending an open seminar session on the case for Canberra's light rail convened by the University of Canberra's Institute for Governance an Policy Analysis and chaired by ex-Chief Minister Jon Stanhope. Stanhope was academically neutral, although I read in recent days in the paper that previous plans for light rail in his time had not stacked up. This seminar brought together UCan urban planner Barbara Norman (pro) and economist David Hughes (anti). They are both relevantly knowledgeable, having both held highly relevant senior positions in Canberra's local public service (ACT planning and major project analysis at ACT Treasury). Barbara spoke first, arguing for resilience, integrated "multimodal transport", "doing nothing is not an option", expected growth, "excellent opportunities for innovation" (innovation, in trams?), climate change, healthy cities, social justice, while admitting she is "not an expert on cost/benefit". David argued that lr was a "poor project" with low cost/benefit (0.5) on key measures, low carbon savings ($13m), which "doesn't do much" / "impact is negligible", that core benefits (including transport, health, congestion and environment) are just 40% of total benefits, while 60% is other questionable benefits (the same balance for Sydney's lr is 95%-5%), and that risks are on "just about everything" (budget, disruption, private involvement, patronage, future of planning and technologies).

Questions were primarily themed anti. The first doubted the cost. Barbara responded that "stars aligned" in terms of PM, ACT government, a prepared industry (I might add interest rates). David observed history of government project cost overruns, the enormity (esp of the full plan) against the ACT budget, especially given the Gunghalin line is the easiest to justify. Then climate change, town centre planning in Canberra, experiences with other cities (David argues experience is poor, claiming to use the Government's own numbers and examples - Gold Coast, Perth, Portland, etc; Barbara argues for), Barbara mentioned recent articles in the Canberra Times, including Ross Gittins in support of public transport (but ignored an editorial, perhaps the same day, on dangers of the project), "religious conversions" of tram supporters, input from Gen X/Y (David interestingly noted that Braddon has largely developed without government involvement), implications for transport and other costs and government secrecy, comparisons with Melbourne and the argument over health and activity (I hear the tram will only have 3 stops on Northbourne Ave, so walking is not optional), social equity, pleasantness of tram travel, contracts. The audience responses were sometimes one-sided. Most questions were reasonable and reasoned, although some were of the "I liked using trams on holiday in Europe" variety.

So my summation? I am very concerned about climate change and interested in city development, but I call this a tram. It seems to do little new, have numerous problems (infrequent stops, no ability for passing), will cost lots and divert government monies, is not supported by infrastructure or economic experts, is inflexible (isn't the recent tunnel problem an argument against such an inflexible system?) ... there's more but I can't be bothered writing it all here. It's certainly enough to have me writing letters to Rattenbury, Corbell and Barr. As for the arguments, I found David's detailed and evidence-rich but Barbara's vague and wishful. As I see it, this is a lose-lose situation for this centre-left voting public: Labor/Greens win next year's election and we have an expensive project of little real benefit that that will constrain good spending, or Libs win and cancel lr with significant cost in monies and trashed reputation and readiness to explore future public transport options. So, why death wish? It's the expression used by a guy I sat next to and talked with. He'd been chummy with Stanhope before the meeting and obviously moved in those circles. As he said, and I've been recently thinking, governments reach a used-by date; this looks like Labor's death wish. I reckon he might be right.

Jon Stanhope chaired a session on Canberra light rail under the auspices of the University of Canberra's Institute for Governance an Policy Analysis. UCan urban planner Barbara Norman and economist David Hughes spoke for and against the tram.

Lecture website with recommended reading

Strange disjunction

There's a strange disjunction at the moment between public policy and science. I hear scientists and there's no doubt about climate change (outside normal scientific skepticism, of course) but you could think there's doubt if you followed the media or the recent actions by our new government. I know people who have that doubt and I, for one, can't understand it. As someone involved in risk management, I can't understand it, let alone as a citizen and as a parent. Scientists are talking death-ray-emergency and government is dismantling anything we may do about it. Strange and scary. I tend to take the generous view of people, that they believe what they are saying, and I understand that people read what they trust and believe it. But even this requires someone to start all the misinformation off (and the giveaway, to pay for it) and people who will sell their souls and the future of civilisation for the sake of a few bucks. What is happening?

So what's today's presentation. This was a forum, chaired by Genevieve Jacobs of ABC666 with Tony McMichael AO, Prof Barbara Norman and Dr Peter Tait. Admittedly, these are all anthropomorphic climate change recognisers. You can look up their roles (below); they were an impressive trio. The topic was Making us sick! : understanding the health effects of climate change. The session was sponsored by the Dept of Industry as an Science & Technology Australia (STA) Topical Science Forum. This was mostly questions to three speakers, so no one particular line of reasoning, but lots of factoids and quotes of note. Here are some. "Potentially catastrophic threat". There's an interdependency of health, society and environment. Human health features little in climate change discourse, and when it does, at a "trivial " level (eg, heatwaves) but the environment is essential for human physical survival. We can't expect the "white coated" view of climate scientists (this is a complex multidisciplinary topic with uncertainties) but "many of our poorly informed parliamentarians hold this image". We can quantify some issues (eg, 1deg rise = 7% rise in diarrhoeal diseases) but the biggie is food and less easily predicted. The requirement of certainly before action is a "red herring"; we need "adaptive governance". The least advantaged and more peripheral are the most vulnerable. The pathways to solutions are through cities (Ban Ki-Moon). Canberra has an opportunity to be a leader, given one government and intelligent, often expert, population (Canberra can seem like a town of "300,000 planners"). There's anecdotal evidence only in GP practice, not at epidemiological level. "Moderation in all things" must include the ruminants, thus meat and dairy. Weather influences discussions on climate change [just watch as the next El Niño sets in]. We must change systems [yes, we are all products of our social environment]. Cuts in Foreign aid display a "barricade mentality developing in this country" and it's stupid, given the implications for security and defence ("not only mean but also totally stupid"). Climate refugees will come to our doorstep and "they won't not come in because we've removed [climate change] from our budget". I liked this one: talking of not having to live in caves if we move to renewables, "in fact, if we don't reduce use of resources, we're more likely to return to living in caves". "Working in this field you can get depressed" but the best antidote is activity. This budget shows a government can do anything it wants to do [but I wondered if it can without the Senate in tow]. Surprisingly and carelessly, mud brick houses fail the environmental star system, so changes are required. Panelists desired measurements "beyond GDP" and broader news on TV replacing Alan Kohler and the share market. And following a discussion of words like sustainable, "whatever word we use, it will be misused". And some despair: "I feel we're living in mediaeval times". Thoughts on mental health and youth: "mental health is the great Cinderella problem". There was more, but this was a taste.

Tony McMichael AO is Professor Emeritus of Population Health at ANU, an elected member of the US National Academies of Science, Honorary Professor of Climate Change and Health at the University of Copenhagen and a Director of The Climate Institute.

Professor Barbara Norman is Foundation Chair of Urban and Regional Planning in the Faculty of Business, Government and Law, Univ of Canberra, Director of Canberra Urban and Regional Futures (CURF), an Adjunct Professor at ANU, Chair of the ACT Climate Change Council, Deputy Chair of Regional Development Australia (ACT), Life Fellow and past national president of the Planning Institute of Australia and Life Honorary Fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute (UK).

Dr Peter Tait is a General Practitioner for 32 years, 29 in Aboriginal health in Central Australia. He was the 2007 Royal Australian College of General Practitioners GP of the Year, is Adjunct Senior Lecturer at ANU Medical School and involved in climate change research at the UNSW and ANU.