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.

Climate change now a legal grounds for court action

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by hornet, Nov 27, 2007.

  1. It had to happen, of course.

    A multi-milllion dollar development in Wollongong has been quashed in the Land and Environment Court on the grounds that the DA did NOT take into account climate change.

    Lord have mercy :roll:.
  2. Got a link to the story?
    sounds like a doozy :shock:
  3. I'll try and dig it up, smee; it was an item on the WIN TV news on television tonight, so it will probably appear in the Mercury tomorrow.

    This issue has been a big stink in the area for a long while, as here http://www.greenleft.org.au/2002/492/28255 (not that I support the source, nor their interpretation), and I suspect that the protestors, (whose main complaint is the NIMBY syndrome, dressed up in heritage, aboriginal and anti-development rhetoric), having failed to stop the development on these grounds have succeeded by playing the climate change card.
  4. Don't worry. This is the tip of the iceberg (pardon the pun)! This climate change hysteria has spawned a whole new industry and associated support cronies.

    As an off-shoot. I went to a review session today, where many terms of reference to enviornmental documents are being vetted and changed. :roll:

    I have seen the papers and analysis that clearly shows that the hypothesis used on climate change is significantly limited and flawed. But there is no way thats getting airplay.

    Oh well! :roll:
  5. Well my last water bill i got i thought stuff this, not allowed to use any water yet the bill never goes down does it.. :evil:

    So i ring the my water company and ask to speak to someone about my bill.
    She says whats it regarding?? I reply with i am sick of paying for a service that you cant satisfactorily provide me. There was silence and i was asked to hold.. I am still awaiting a call from them for an explanation.

    You know this whole no water issue goes a lot further than not the same rain fall. This situation should have been predicted long ago. It still amazes me that they think the ever growing population of both people and housing can survive on our outdated resources..

    In the end its not my fault we have no water, why should i be crucified for someones incompetence which relates to poor resource info structure..
  6. this is getting just like the Y2K bug :roll:
    FFS, does this mean i am going to have to allow a climate change factor for all my pavement designs??? :roll: :?
  7. all hail environmentalism! We welcome our green lawyer brothers who hail fire from the heating heavens upon the hedonistic heathens.

  8. Just so we all know what your standpoint is.

    Is the problem here that you don't believe that environmental issues should be a factor in any development?
    That you don't think it is relevent for this development?
    That you think courts are not the place this should be heard?
    That you believe the whole environment question is just a load of Sh!t?

    What is the problem with it exactly?
  9. same questions were going through my mind. thanks FL. and what's so fabulous about this multi-million dollar development anyway? lots of shops so people can be good little consumers rather than get a real hobby or interest?
  10. Blue, there's plenty of info on the melbourne water website.

    Check out this link


    ...if you want to have a close look at how the total of melbourne's water storage levels have varied over the last decade.

    I share your pain though... I'm using less water, but because the instrumentality needs the money, they've put the price up. That's a ridiculous privitised situation.
  11. just to be pedantic rob, they're not privatised, unlike the other utilities. The below comes from the Yarra Valley Water website. Melbourne Water owns the dams and distributes via 3 water retailers - City West Water, South East Water and Yarra Valley Water - who are run along private company models but are owned and are answerable to state government.

    "Our Organisation

    Yarra Valley Water is owned by the Victorian Government. The Company operates commercially under a Board of Directors appointed by the shareholder, the State Government, and is subject to the Corporations Act 2001.

    The Board of Directors is responsible for the strategic direction and monitoring of our business on behalf of the shareholder, the State Government.

    Day-to-day responsibility for operations and administration is delegated by the Board to the Managing Director and his Executive Team."
  12. You're right Carri. I meant to say "corporatised", the Kennet buzz word: a government instrumentality employing corporate/business philosophies.

    Fanks for the correction :)
  13. I will have to agree that the easiest way to change peoples water usage habits is to change teh way in which it is billed.
    At present Our water bill is something along the lines of $11 usage and $50 in service charges. So how much we use or save water is almost a non event when it comes to our charges. now obviosly we are prety minor users (Half the average for a garden our size with two people) But the only insentive for us to maintain this profile is our own consionse (which I personaly believe most people are lacking in)
  14. Environmental issues have been a factor in development applications for decades, hence the Land and Environment Court.

    The issue with Sandon Point is that an unproven and unspecified scare tactic has been used to stop the development.

    And, of course, the development was in train long before Climate Change became a religion, and the developers could hardly have been expected to have taken it into account under such circumstances.
  15. O.K. let's remove the emotive statments from this and have a look at it.

    The issue with Sandon Point is that there is a claim which hasn't seen it's day in court so we don't know what teh lagitimacy of it may or may not be.

    The Devlopment was in teh pipeline before the curent information, and views regarding it's potential impact had been tabled.

    You have pre judged the case without it actually being heard.
    Maybe due to changes in the curent understanding of potential environment impact they are endevoring to get the Environmentle Impact Study reviewed. there has been a great deal of research in the field of late that may lead to cause for such a review.
    Maybe they are just tin rettleing hippies who won't have a leg to stand on once they get into the court. But who are you to judge it before it is heard?
  16. Looking at what is said in the Link PP has provided it would appear that the development is not adhearing to the Environmental impact Study exclusions.
    If this is the case there is definatly grounds to challenge it.
    It doesn't sound like anything new is being brought up just that it is not ahearing to the outcome of teh exsting studies.