[CAMWEST-discuss] Senate Inquiry into Australia's future oil supply & Australian Energy: National and State Projection to 2030
nicku at nicku.org
Thu Dec 15 03:29:11 UTC 2005
The mailing list software is set up so that it will not send emails to
people where they are more than 500M. The document that was attached
here is 1.4M in size, so I have instead provided a link to the
original document so that everyone who wants can read it.
The report is available from:
Can you tell us what the most interesting points are in this report,
Danny, or any one else?
----- Forwarded message from Danny Hannan <danny_hannan at yahoo.com> -----
From: Danny Hannan <danny_hannan at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:46:00 +1100 (EST)
To: Martin Olmos <molmos at uow.edu.au>,
CAMWEST Discuss <camwest-discuss at nicku.org>
Subject: Senate Inquiry into Australia's future oil supply & Australian
Energy: National and State Projection to 2030
Thought that you might like to have a read of this
Australian Energy: National and State Projections to
Nick, a worth while link for our web page as well.
I have not analysed it yet to see if it is realistic
--- Martin Olmos <molmos at uow.edu.au> wrote:
> up and at'em submission writers:
> - More cycling infrastructure!
> - Stress how cycling is cheap, low risk, and has
> many beneficial side
> effects. Below an old letter to the editor re this:
> The great thing about most solutions to our
> excessive dependence on
> petrol is that they're cheap, risk-free and have
> collateral benefits.
> For example, the 'downside' of building safe
> cycleways to schools
> (assuming for a moment that petrol prices dropped
> tomorrow) would be
> healthier kids, calmer parents, cleaner air, safer
> roads, and quieter
> neighbourhoods. I can put up with that.
> - Factor in much higher long term oil prices when
> planning infrastructure.
> - More rail: Parra-Epping line, fast rail linking
> Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong, perhaps eventually
> growing to Brisbane,
> Canberra, and Melbourne.
> - Federal funding for public transport in cities.
> They give money for
> roads already - why not rail and cycling? Efficient
> cities are good for
> the whole country - most people live in cities, and
> lower oil demand
> helps the bush.
> - Reform tax system, abolish perverse incentive to
> drive more. Remove
> salary packaging of cars, or at least allow
> packaging of public transport.
> - Refer to Amory Lovins' 'Winning the Oil Endgame',
> http://www.oilendgame.com/. In particular, his
> feebates idea for
> improving car efficiency.
> I'm sure there's more ideas...
danny_hannan at yahoo.com
----- End forwarded message -----
Nick Urbanik RHCE http://nicku.org nicku(at)nicku.org
Proud ex-member of Dept. of Information & Communications Technology in
Hong Kong IVE (Tsing Yi), Home of Visual Paradigm: Jolt Productivity
Award winner, programmed by ICT's own graduates!
GPG: 7FFA CDC7 5A77 0558 DC7A 790A 16DF EC5B BB9D 2C24 ID: BB9D2C24
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the CAMWEST-discuss