2020 VISION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY
MELBOURNE SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY INSTITUTE
The Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (MSSI) at the University of Melbourne, Australia, brings together researchers from different disciplines to help create a more sustainable society. It acts as an information portal for research at the University of Melbourne, and as a collaborative platform where researchers and communities can work together to affect positive change. This book can be freely accessed from MSSI’s website: www.sustainable.unimelb.edu.au.
Cite as: Pearson, C.J. (editor) (2012). 2020: Vision for a Sustainable Society. Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne Published by Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute in 2012 Ground Floor Alice Hoy Building (Blg 162) Monash Road The University of Melbourne, Parkville Victoria 3010, Australia Text and copyright © Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior permission of the publisher. A Cataloguing-in-Publication entry is available from the catalogue of the National Library of Australia at www.nla.gov.au 2020: Vision for a Sustainable Society, ISBN: 978-0-7340-4773-1 (pbk) Produced with Affirm Press www.affirmpress.com.au Cover and text design by Anne-Marie Reeves www.annemariereeves.com Illustrations on pages 228–231 by Michael Weldon www.michaelweldon.com Cover image © Brad Calkins | Dreamstime.com Proudly printed in Australia by BPA Print Group
Foreword
T
he last two centuries have seen extraordinary improvements in the quality of human lives. Most people on earth today enjoy access to the necessities of life that was once available only to the elites. Most people enjoy longevity, health, education, information and opportunities to experience the variety of life on earth that was denied even to the rulers of yesteryear. The proportion of humanity living in absolute poverty remains daunting, but continues to fall decade by decade. The early 21st century has delivered an acceleration of the growth in living standards in the most populous developing countries and an historic lift in the trend of economic growth in the regions that had lagged behind, notably in Africa. These beneficent developments are accompanied by another reality. The improvements are not sustainable unless we make qualitative changes in the content of economic growth. The continuation of the current relationship between growth in the material standard of living and pressures on the natural environment will undermine economic growth, political
stability and the foundations of human achievement. The good news is that humanity has already discovered and begun to apply the knowledge that can reconcile continued improvements in the standard of living with reduction of pressures on the natural environment. The bad news is that the changes that are necessary to make high and rising standards of living sustainable are hard to achieve within our current political cultures and systems. Hard, but not impossible. That is a central message from this book, drawn out in Craig Pearson’s concluding chapter. This book introduces the reader to the many dimesions of sustainability, through wellqualified authors. Climate change is only one mechanism through which current patterns of economic growth threaten the natural systems on which our prosperity depend. It is simply the most urgent of the existential threats. Climate change is a special challenge for Australians. We are the most vulnerable of the
v
developed countries to climate change. And we are the developed country with the highest level of greenhouse gas emissions per person. There are roles for private ethical decisions as well as public policy choices in dealing with the climate change challenge. This book is released at the time of ‘Rio+20’, a conference in Brazil to review the relatively poor progress we have made towards sustainability in the past 20 years, and soon after the introduction of Australia’s first comprehensive policy response to the global challenge of climate change. Australia’s emissions trading scheme with an initially fixed price for emissions permits comes into effect on 1 July 2012. The new policy discourages activities that generate greenhouse gases by putting a price on emissions. The revenue raised by carbon pricing will be returned to households and businesses in ways that retain incentives to reduce emissions. Part of the revenue will be used to encourage production and use of goods and services that embody low emissions. The policy has been launched in controversy. Interests that stand to gain from the discrediting of the policy argue that it is unnecessary either because the case for global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the associated climate change has not been proven, or that the new policy places a disproportionate burden on Australians. The health of our civilisation requires us to bring scientific knowledge to account in public policy. Everyone who shares the knowledge that is the common heritage of humanity has
vi
a responsibility to explain the realities to others wherever and whenever they can. The argument that the new policy places a disproportionate burden on Australians can be answered by seeking honestly to understand what others are doing. The critics of Australian policy argue that the world’s two largest national emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States, are doing little or nothing to reduce emissions, so that it is either pointless or unnecessary for us to do so. China has advanced a long way towards achieving its target of reducing emissions as a proportion of economic output by 40 to 45 per cent between 2005 and 2020. It has done this by forcing the closure of emissions-intensive plants and processes that have exceptionally high levels of emissions per unit of output, by imposing high emissions standards on new plants and processes, by charging emissionsintensive activities higher electricity prices, by subsidising the introduction of low-emissions activities, and by new and higher taxes on fossil fuels. China has introduced trials of an emissions trading system in five major cities and two provinces. This adds up to a cost on business and the community that exceeds any burden placed on Australians by the new policies – bearing in mind that the revenue from Australian carbon pricing is returned to households and businesses. The US Government has advised the international community of its domestic policy target to reduce 2005 emissions by 17 per cent by 2020. President Barack Obama said
to the Australian Parliament that all countries should take seriously the targets that they had reported to the international community, and made it clear that the United States did so. United States efforts to reduce emissions are diffuse but far-reaching. They now include controls on emissions from electricity generators, announced in March 2012, effectively excluding any new coal-based power generation after the end of this year unless it embodies carbon capture and storage. From the beginning of next year they will include an emissions trading system in the most populous and economically largest state, California. The United States is making reasonable progress towards reaching its emissions reduction goals, with some actions imposing high costs on domestic households and businesses. Australia has now taken steps through which we can do our fair share in the international effort, at reasonable cost. It would be much harder and more costly to do our fair share without the policies that are soon to take effect. What Australians do over the next few years will have a significant influence on humanity’s prospects for handing on the benefits of modern civilisation to future generations. This book will help Australians to understand their part in the global effort for sustainability. Ross Garnaut University of Melbourne 15 April 2012
vii
Contents Foreword by Ross Garnaut Table of Contents
v viii
Author Biographies
x
Drivers
1
1 Population Rebecca Kippen and Peter McDonald
2
2 Equity Helen Sykes
10
3 Consumption Craig Pearson
17
4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change David Karoly
27
5 Energy Peter Seligman
37
People
47
6
Ethics Craig Prebble
48
7
Culture Audrey Yue and Rimi Khan
57
8
Awareness and Behaviour Angela Paladino
64
9
Local Matters Matter Kate Auty
70
10 Public Wisdom Tim van Gelder
79
11 Mental Health Grant Blashki
86
12 Disease Peter Doherty
94
13 Corporate Sustainability Liza Maimone
104
14 Governance John Brumby
114
viii
Natural Resources
123
15 Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Rodney Keenan
124
16 Water Hector Malano and Brian Davidson
132
17 Food Sunday McKay and Rebecca Ford
141
18 Zero Carbon Land-Use Chris Taylor and Adrian Whitehead
150
Cities
161
19 Changing Cities Peter Newman and Carolyn Ingvarson
162
20 Affordable Living Thomas Kvan and Justyna Karakiewicz
170
21 Built Environment Pru Sanderson
177
22 Infrastructure Colin Duffield
184
23 Transport Monique Conheady
192
24 Adaptive Design Ray Green
200
25 Handling Disasters Alan March
210
Outcomes
221
26 Twenty Actions Craig Pearson
222
Further Reading
234
Index
241
ix
21 Built Environment Pru Sanderson
S
ustainable cities are typically resilient places with a long-term perspective. They are resilient not only in their ability to withstand sudden shocks, but also in their ability to endure over time through reinvention and adaptation. They are places where generations of occupants are in command of their domain, where society adapts to waves of change, economies have a broad platform and neighbourhoods provide a choice of lifestyle. They cope with, and even thrive on, growth. Above all else, it is the configuration of cities – the shape and nature of the environment into which buildings are placed – that make them more or less sustainable. Building densities strike the balance between high-quality private domains and neighbourhood amenity; have transport choice and good connectivity; and localised and varied places of employment and social connection.
Melbourne – Looking to the Future? Increasingly, Australian cities are being controlled by short-termism, whereby visionary blueprints have given way to more immediate financial and political gain. Melbourne is no exception.
Melbourne is an admired and seemingly successful city but the challenge now facing its residents, and those of all Australian cities, is how to equip the city for an environmentally uncertain future and a population growth reminiscent of that experienced in the 19th century and post-World War II. In each of these eras, Melbourne responded with farsighted plans. The 19th century blueprint for Melbourne was brave and confident; it not only accommodated growth, but it also catered for quantum change. Similarly, the planning undertaken by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW) in the mid-20th century recognised the need for expansive change and designed accordingly. So how can Melbourne rise to this latest round of challenges? What are the barriers and how can they be overcome? Identifying these challenges seems to be the very first hurdle, because it seems some issues are proving too hard to tackle or even too sensitive to talk about. Ironically, some of these issues are a result of the city’s current prosperity and growth. Whatever their cause, these are the elephants in the room and it is time we talked about them.
177
2020
Elephant #1: The Dangers of Being Number 1 Melbourne is the most liveable city in the world: we have the number one liveability ranking from the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) 2011 Liveability Ranking to prove it. But why would such an accolade be an issue? It is because it sends a message that everything is going right, and allows us to be complacent and blinded by conceit. True, it is far better to have our problems than those of Harare, the beleaguered number 140 at the bottom of the EIU list. But when we slow down to see what the ranking really mean, it reveals a very specific intent. The EIU rankings are based on factors that result from city planning and investment such as quality of road networks, and factors outside our control, such as climate. Being a hybrid of fortune and management, the list is a litmus test that rates the current performance of each city. The list is a moment-in-time scoring designed to inform human resource managers. It doesn’t try, in any way, to judge how well a city is planning for its future, nor does it describe the relative merits of different parts of a city. For example, if Melbourne’s west was a separate city, how would it score? So what has this number one ranking done for Melbourne? We believe we have the perfect city! Pride and confidence have grown, but so too have smugness, complacency and conceit. Why on earth would we want to entertain thoughts of a paradigm shift? Surely short-term incrementalism can continue. To deal with the elephant we should
178
recognise that focusing only on the EIU ranking is counterproductive. Instead it would be ideal to complement the ranking with a rating that judges how well the city is planning for its medium- and long-term future and how effectively this is being delivered.
Elephant #2: Branding Melbourne’s pride is not a recent phenomenon. Rose-coloured generalisations use words such as ‘urbane’, ‘sophisticated’, ‘leafy’, ‘suburban’ and ‘a city of villages’. Such descriptors of a city, no matter how blinkered, are nonetheless very positive. They describe what people believe to be the essence of the city, reflecting community pride and a sense of place and belonging. The downside of this communal branding is that any attempts to discuss, let alone execute, substantial change are seen as a threat to the qualities people value. The ‘don’t-mess-withour-city’ factor comes into play. Movements such as Save Our Suburbs have sent a clear message not only about people protecting the amenity of their private domains, but also about the deep-seated concern of comfortable communities that the very essence of Melbourne may be under threat. There are two ways to deal with this issue. One is to tell Melburnians that brand Melbourne is an illusion offered by only some parts of the city (and not necessarily sought by all). However, this is unlikely to succeed as it could alienate, aggravate or even demoralise. The other option is to get Melburnians to talk about the positives of their lifestyles and outline the ways their lifestyles could be improved.
Built Environment
City Road.
Elephant #3: Fear of Population At the time of the Melbourne Olympics in 1956, the city’s population was about 1.5 million. It reached 2 million in the 1960s and by the early 21st century had doubled to 4 million. Public attention was captured when, after nine years of being the city with the fastest growth rate in the country, it was forecast that Melbourne was on a trajectory to overtake its northern neighbour as the country’s largest city. After the stagnant years of the early 1990s, such growth has been a welcome indicator of a healthy economy, aided by relatively competitive housing prices. However, not all Melburnians see rapid growth as positive. Many think the city is large enough. Increasingly congested public transport and freeways have rung alarm bells: the city’s infrastructure is under pressure. Melbourne’s very success is starting to affect its quality of living.
The conversation about population size has become very sensitive. At a national level it is linked to immigration policy and at a metropolitan level it is hardly a vote winner to start talking about a vastly larger Melbourne. With such a public aversion to the topic, it is not surprising that incremental planning is the norm. Planning strategy under the previous state government was called Melbourne @ 5 million – a trajectory that took the city to only about the year 2030 – not the stuff of long-term vision. The current government uses soft language and describes the forthcoming Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Strategy as ‘Melbourne moves beyond a city of 4 million people’. It is widely recognised that Melbourne will go past this mark. Variables such as economic prosperity, immigration policy and the ageing population all affect forecasts; however, seven million by about 2060 is commonly recognised
179
2020
as realistic. Why therefore are we not planning for an eventual doubling of Melbourne’s population? It may take until the end of the century, but that is not long in city-planning terms. The timeframe is irrelevant; the fact it is highly likely to happen is the point. To quote Tom Peters: ‘Incrementalism is the enemy of innovation.’ While such a radical conversation has proven unpalatable for elected politicians, it has started in the private sector through initiatives such as the Committee for Melbourne’s ‘Shaping Melbourne’ report that posits a city of 8 million and explores the measures required to equip the current city for such growth. The conversation now needs to extend into the broader public, with a collective imagining of our future that is de-linked from immigration policy. This imagining needs to leap into the future, say to 2100. Doing so will help avoid the pitfalls of shorter-term interests.
Elephant #4: Fear of Densification Urban sprawl is, above all else, the most unsustainable aspect of our cities. The urban equivalents of agricultural monocultures, our suburbs provide disturbingly little choice beyond detached dwellings for families. In order to markedly improve the environmental performance of our cities, a significant increase in densities is required. This will allow commuting distances to be reduced and improve the viability of district engineering systems, public services and transport systems. While plans for outer Melbourne attempt to encourage densification and mixed use
180
centres, the reality is that there is considerable resistance both from the market and industry to depart from industry norms in our outer areas. While average housing blocks are now closer to an eighth of an acre (400–500m2), the densities that result are doing little to slow the growth of urban sprawl. New areas of Melbourne average only 12 dwellings per hectare. There is inertia in how we deliver housing and a fear of density and what it will do to our cities. This fear had been brought on by some very clumsy, greedy attempts to densify the inner areas of Melbourne. The apartment towers lining the south bank of the Yarra River are a case in point. They shade and overlook each other and provide extremely poor amenities at ground level. The polarisation of our housing stock between detached houses and high-rise apartments is a disturbing trend. Melbourne needs a substantial increase to its average density. This will be best delivered by adopting a large range of densities, in both established areas and across the fringes of the city. We need to look at increasing average densities through supplying a range of housing products, from detached dwellings and townhouses to low-, medium- and high-rise apartments. A range of densities should be planned for around transport nodes, retail centres, and centres of employment, public services, and community meeting and gathering. Clusters of modest height (say three to six storeys) are advocated for every small neighbourhood retail hub in Melbourne. Larger centres can accommodate greater height but even here this need not be extreme – five to eight storeys would
Built Environment
Elwood village.
allow a respectful transition between such clusters and the lower density neighbourhoods that may surround. Centres such as Elwood village already provide high amenity and a choice of dwelling type. While successful in urban form, they are being created in an environment of uncertainty. It is regrettable that community uncertainty inhibits these areas as being heralded as the future of Melbourne.
Elephant #5: The Private Domain Rules The 1997 film The Castle epitomised the Australian love of private domain. It became a classic because it struck a chord with the importance Australians place on home, and also rode on the back of the home-ownership aspiration of so many in our society. What was comedy in the late 1990s became reality
television a decade later: TV series such as The Block have become primetime viewing. The quarter-acre block is a reality long gone, but the mindset of many is that a house, on a block with private garden with separation from one’s neighbours, is an Australian right. Investment in housing has grown with time. From 1955 to 2000 the average size of new houses in Australia grew from 155m2 to 221m2, while the average household size shrank from 3.6 to 2.6 people per household. That is, a doubling of space per person from 43m2 to 85m2, as discussed in chapter three. While there is evidence that straitened economic times have reduced the size of new houses, it is too early to know whether this is an enduring trend. So what is wrong with having a love of home? The aspiration of home-ownership means that a large proportion of Australians place undue emphasis on investing in and then protecting
181
2020
their largest asset. Private interests rule. At its worst, individual interests come ahead of community considerations and protection of the collective whole. We are defending the private castle, but what about the village? To propose a diminution in domestic status is striking at the essence of urban Australia: that is, the freedom to create one’s own domestic world. A change towards collective thinking is surely an impossible proposition in the detached housing of suburbia. There may, however, be greater appetite for change in areas where housing types are varied and where the relationship between private domain and the offerings of the public domain are more in balance and interdependent.
Elephant #6: Power, Inertia and Lines of Least Resistance The construction industry is a key driver of Melbourne’s economy; with housing starts an important litmus test of the state’s economic performance and optimism. It is an industry that both reflects and affects economic health and its products cut to the core of the Australian dream of affordable home ownership. Like any industry, construction is in business to make profits and its path to profit is typically the line of least resistance. However, this presents little motivation to innovate in urban development. Why deviate into an unexplored, risky path of change? To their great credit, some developers and builders do take a path less trod; however, their investment is often rewarded by having to shoulder market risks, community reactions and planning uncertainties.
182
Taking the line of least resistance has created an industry inertia where housing norms are only incrementally tweaked. The starkest example of this is in the way the fringes of our city are developed. Low density, largely detached dwellings are the norm. With at least three bedrooms, two bathrooms and two or three living spaces, our new housing stock is best suited to the mythical household norm of two-adult, two-child families. Two-parent households now only comprise one third of the housing market. The industry is geared to produce such stock, not to deliberate over the relative merits of urban renewal, densification, type diversification and demographic relevance. It is expensive and risky to develop new products, especially for small builders who have little capacity to invest in them. Foremost, the construction industry is powerful, and one that is listened to by politicians. This leaves politicians in an awkward space: if they want to make changes to urban norms, they also need to keep a large, powerful industry satisfied. Change will happen either where investment certainty is provided or when changes are mandated. Certainty is important in existing neighbourhoods, meaning developers and builders would not have to run the gauntlet with the community on a project-by-project basis and could better afford to experiment and take market risks. Changes to the fringe are harder. The market has learnt to accept housing that often does not really suit its needs, seemingly on the premise
Built Environment
that ‘even though this isn’t ideal for me, it will be a good investment on re-sale’. On the fringe, substantial densification and diversification of housing types need to be mandated.
Elephant #7: Untouchable Change Marked increases in population, and pressures brought about by the economics of climate change and increasing shortages of resources, will bring about major change. As the community has no control over population growth, it is not surprising that there is a fear of where we are heading and what impact this will have on the quality of life in our cities. In shying away from our future, we are presenting the general public with almost no tangible examples of how we may build and shape our city. Melbourne has a few good examples of buildings that demonstrate where we might head. Westwyk housing community in Brunswick, the Melbourne City Council’s CH2 offices and the commercial Pixel building in central Melbourne are good examples. While all excellent in themselves, these developments do not demonstrate to the public the future shape of our city. What could new neighbourhoods that house more people look like? How will we move around? What are the economic drivers and will they provide for personal choice? International examples such as Malmö’s Bo01 and Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm are large-scale examples of sustainable precincts. Each appears almost mainstream, with high-quality housing and public amenity.
To lead change and allay fear, we need precinct-wide examples for the community to visit, live and work in, to be open to study and critique, and for industry to use as a platform for change. Bold, large new neighbourhoods are needed to show the way.
ACTIONS FOR 2020 Of all of the challenges facing Australian cities, exemplified in this chapter by Melbourne, just three actions would set us on a path to a large, yet liveable and sustainable future. Each is a form of communication with the community. The first action would be to tell the community how many people may be living in Melbourne by the end of this century. The intent would be to help people realise that a successful city attracts people and that we cannot put up a ‘house full’ sign. Associated with this would be to demonstrate the environmental, economic and liveability repercussions if we keep growing our city in the current manner. The second is through demonstration and celebration of different configurations of neighbourhoods that have ranges of densities, varied housing typologies and different ways of moving around. Let people visit, walk, touch, live in, talk about and critique them. Where the market is taking the risk into the unknown it should be celebrated and applauded, and where the unknown is an unreasonable ask on the market, demonstration by government is warranted. And the third, and perhaps most important, thing we can do collectively is to talk about those elephants!
183
Further Reading Built Environment Hammarby, Stockholm. http://www.hammarbysjostad.se/inenglish/pdf/HS_miljo_bok_eng_ny.pdf Malmo, Sweden. http://www.malmo.se/English/Sustainable-City-Development/Bo01---Western-Harbour.html\ Committee for Melbourne. http://www.melbourne.org.au/cms-policy/melbourne-beyond-5-million Department of Planning and Community Development. http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/plansandpolicies/ planningformelbourne/a-new-melbourne-metropolitan-planning-strategy COAG Reform Council. http://www.coagreformcouncil.gov.au/agenda/cities.cfm Economist Intelligence Unit. http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=The_Global_Liveability_Report