Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National [Aus] National Transport Commission releases carbon emissions paper - doesn't include motorcycles.

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by robsalvv, Jun 8, 2011.

  1. http://www.ntc.gov.au/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsId=344
    "Green car purchases could drastically cut carbon emissions"

    NTC has released a paper about passenger vehicle greenhouse emissions... but the paper includes heavy trucks? WTF?

    No mentions of the environmental, congestion, fuel economy, infrastructure and emission benefits of motorcycles.

    I've already submitted my displeasure to the NTC. Have a look at the submission and do the same:

    Contacts are:
    "NTC" <ntc@ntc.gov.au>
    Elizabeth Cannatelli Communications Officer (03) 9236 5049 / 0418 662 062, ecannatelli@ntc.gov.au
    Jane Murray, Public Affairs & Communications Manager, (03) 9236 5039 / 0400 757 702, jmurray@ntc.gov.au




    I decided to send a response right away, so it's not hard hitting, but here's what I wrote:

    Dear NTC,

    Surely there was an opportunity to highlight the carbon emission benefits of motorcycles in this paper? The paper is about passenger vehicles but trucks get a solid mention.

    Motorcycles are a legitimate road user with a substantial benefits in areas of road space useage, carbon emissions, carbon foot print, economy and benefits for reducing congestion.

    Motorcycles are the fastest growing sector of the vehicle market, which is likely to be sustained into the medium term given high fuel prices and traffic congestion in all major cities.

    With over a million license holders in Australia, it's time to broaden the scope of NTC's purview.

    Sincerely



    ....
     
     Top
  2. Another example of government being shy of risk?

    Perhaps a response should include the point that, while small 'green' cars might be closing in on the running efficiency of some bikes, not buying a (new) car AT ALL would do far more to reduce emissions. Even more if you factor in the extra infrastructure that cars require.
     
     Top
  3. Good work robslav, update us with the response.


    Edit: I sent them this, wrote it quickly but it gets the message across.

    I am writing to you to express concern about this paper. The aims of the study appear to be to show the impact of fuel efficiency for private passenger vehicles but fail to mention powered two wheeled vehicles of scooters and motorcycles.

    Powered two wheeled vehicles can provide fuel efficiency as low as less than 2L/100km, which is so low that it is not even represented on your table 2 of the report. This would meet quickly the goals of reducing the carbon emissions. Additionally due to the low amount of steel and other materials needed for the building of motorcycles and scooters the whole of life carbon emissions is also greatly reduced.

    With 1 million motorcycle license holders in Australia, I question why this important solution to this vital problem has been overlooked.

    Regards
     
     Top
  4. I'd like to know the centrebet odds on a response...
     
     Top
  5. My iPhone tells me I got a response from NTC. I'll post it up as soon as I can.
     
     Top
  6. Just reading over this closer there was one thing that took my notice.

    The paper provides a benchmark for carbon dioxide emissions for new passenger and light commercial
    vehicles. It includes detailed emissions breakdown by make, vehicle segment and buyer type. New-vehicle
    emissions depend on many factors including consumer preference, the emissions performance of high volume
    selling vehicles, vehicle price and fuel price.


    Are we all aware that they are just setting benchmarks for each vehicle type. Do we want to have a benchmark for motorcycles?
     
     Top
  7. The response:

    [FONT=&quot]Dear Rob,[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Thank you for your email. [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]The main purpose of the report was to highlight and benchmark the carbon performance of cars and light commercial vehicles.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]The report focused on the data we received from the Federal Chamber of Automobiles. This data did not include motorcycles. It also did not include other transport data, like emissions from public transport and bicycles, which also have much lower emissions than cars. [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]I hope this provides an explanation to your query.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Kind Regards[/FONT]


    = = = = =

    I've responded, but I'm disappointed that they're laying the blame at the FCAI's feet. Did they think to ask the FCAI for motorcycling data? Motorcycles ARE a legitimate road user group afterall. If their CEO is saying it's high time for consumers to make better vehicle choices with respect to carbon emissions, it's hard to go past most PTW's!



    Vertical, we shouldn't be scared to get involved in the process of the instrumentalities setting benchmarks etc. Half the problem is that we're getting this stuff foisted onto us by well meaning but ignorant pollies and bureaucrats without the most basic comprehension of motorcycling. We need to get involved.

    If they want to set a bench mark let's argue the case - but we're already miles ahead of passenger vehicles in many respects.


    TonyE privately linked me to an environmental paper showing motorcycling's environmental benefit. I think it's on the MRA website. I will have a look and post it up.


    Edit: Mention function seems broken. Can't seem to put a mention for TonyE @TonyE

    Edit edit: There it is.
     
     Top
  8. Not sure if I'd want to know the emissions results for fire-breathing high-valve-overlap 1000cc sportsbikes and sports-tourers, to be honest. ;)


    Edit: Especially not the not-even-supplied-with-a-catalytic-convertor-in-Australia-and-South-Africa Tiger 1050, which is singlehandedly responsible for the melting of Antarctica's iceshelf.
     
     Top
  9. I got the following response

    Thank you for your email - we appreciate your feedback on our Carbon Dioxide Emissions from New Australian Light Vehicles 2010 report.



    We do recognise that motorcycles and scooters are important modes of transport in Australia.



    We compiled the report from data supplied by the Federal Chamber of Automobiles, which unfortunately did not include motorcycles.



    We'll raise your feedback with our policy team internally and liaise with the FCAI to see if this data is available for next year.



    Thanks again for your feedback.





    Kind Regards



    Elizabeth Cannatelli
     
     Top
  10. Haha! Now THAT is a change in tune... still doesn't explain the blindspot that the National Transport Council has obviously displayed!
     
     Top
  11. I just got the same email as you Vertical.

    It doesn't quite respond to my email though - here's what I said:

     
     Top
  12. Got an Email back as well.

     
     Top
  13. Definitely a blind spot. That is why we need to keep reminding them. We have been around since before cars. Maybe they will remember us one day.
     
     Top
  14. Looks like they've settled on a standard response.
     
     Top
  15. I've responded to that standard email.

    I've recognised that the NTC have acknowledged that motorcycles are a legitimate road user group, and have asked for evidence of how motorcycling and it's road infrastructure benefits have been acknowledged by the NTC.


    We'll see.
     
     Top
  16. I've responded on the 'standard' response as well.

     
     Top
  17. Good job Parker. (y)
     
     Top