“If the Queensland Government was really interested in helping the environment it would be advocating higher petrol taxes, not higher car registrations.”

If the Qld Govt was really interested in helping the environment, the most important thing it would be trying to do is working towards the stabilisation of population and hence the demand for all sorts of goods and resources and the production of CO2 and other wastes.

It would be implementing disincentives for people moving into Qld, especially into resource-and infrastructure-stressed areas, and it would be lobbying the feds for a massive reduction in immigration.

“Governments’ distorting the purchasing decisions of individuals is rarely a good idea. It is not their job to wag their finger at the choices we make.”

I disagree. It certainly is the role of government to “distort” purchasing decisions that work in the favour of our health and societal wellbeing.

V8s should incur large extra costs, unless an owner can show just cause for having one where a much more economic vehicle would suffice.

It would be nonsensical to only implement higher fuel taxes and not attempt to get people to purchase smaller more frugal vehicles as well. Both need to happen.

Ok, so there is a good trend towards the purchase of smaller cars, due to rising fuel prices. So why shouldn’t the government help it along a bit?

I don’t think Gaurav Sodhi should be concerned about this. What he should be concerned about is the continuously rapidly increasing number of car-buyers and fossil fuel consumers, which is still being encouraged and facilitated by the crazy Qld government, while they are at the same time making some (rather piddling) efforts to get us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions!

I am all for getting V8's and other gas guzzler's off the road as they are wasteful, often noisy and generally not needed to get you from A to B. However Gaurav Sodhi does have a point in regards to engine size. Rather than pinging people on engine configuration the sting should be on the car's consumption. An offical consumption figure (already produced for all car's) could be linked to the registration fee.

As for a petrol tax, its already got enough. Introducing more would be akin to political suicide.

Since most population growth in Queensland is from interstate migration, the CO2 production is just being offset from southern states to Queensland. Might save some of your water though ;)

Sounds like Ludwig doesn't like all those "Mexicans" moving into his beloved state. A personal bugbear?

I for one would personally disagree strongly with adding more to the cost of fuel in order to curb driving habits unless there was some consideration to city verses country pricing.
People in rural areas have practically nil alternatives to personal transport for daily commuting to jobs in nearby cities. Being a scattered population often means there is nobody in their immediate area with whom they could share a ride.
My car is 17 years old. I keep it because I can actually service it myself. It has no stupid computers and no fuel injection, the latter I'm told, requires periodic servicing to retain their pollution efficiency. Although I haven't any link to a research article I read a few years ago, that same article stated that an old Morris Minor built in 1948 and with an engine in good condition, was easily able to out perform a modern vehicle with a comparatively small engine in relation to pollution at the exhaust pipe. I'm guessing that this is because todays smaller engines are designed to extract as much usable energy as possible, but pump through much more fuel in the process when pushed hard. This is proved by the fact that although we have faster and more powerful small cars, the fuel efficiency has improved little since the old Morris Minor was produced over 50 years ago.
Nope, tax bigger engines for all it's worth. Trades people and farmers won't be affected since if they're in a legitimate business, they can claim it back on tax. It might also keep some of our "rev-head" teenagers alive a lot longer.

“I am all for getting V8's and other gas guzzler's off the road as they are wasteful…”

Good Alzo. So then, how come you are against financial incentives to help this along?

“Rather than pinging people on engine configuration the sting should be on the car's consumption.”

But you are against any increase in fuel tax!

It doesn’t seem to compute.

“Sounds like Ludwig doesn't like all those ‘Mexicans’ moving into his beloved state. A personal bugbear?”

I think you know perfectly well what my concerns (and those of many others as often expressed on this forum) are with continuous population growth in Queensland, Australia and the world

I am against an increase in fuel tax as I am not against personal transportation. I am not worried about the perceived CO2 problem. I am against cars that use more fuel than they need to for ascetic reasons. Sure make all cars more efficient, as long as we can still have transportation. Don't take us back to the horse and buggy, remember animals produce methane and lots of it.

As for the continous population growth in Queensland. What if Australia's population was stable and/or declining but Queensland's population was still increasing due to redistribution. Is this a problem? Shouldn't people be free to choose where they want to live? Do you support regional population caps/quotas? Who decides how many and who to let into "your" region?

Alzo,

On the front page of today's Australian there was a news item that the Bracks government in Victoria is building a big desalination plant and that, as a result of it, consumers' water bills are going to double. The plant wouldn't be needed if politicians had not been enthusiastically boosting the population through mass migration and now through the baby bonus as well. We now have a 1.4% population growth rate, giving us a population doubling time of 49.5 years. Bracks is all in favour of this and has been trying to get as much of the growth for Melbourne as possible. Ordinary people, who, far from benefiting from the growth, have had their quality of life reduced by more crowding and higher housing costs, disproportionately get to pay for it, because utilities take a larger slice of their income than is true for the rich.

Interstate migration is really no different. If the fact that you have moved to a particular area of Queensland is creating diseconomies of scale for the existing residents like Ludwig, then they have every right to object and to see that the extra costs are levied on you on a user pays basis.

And Divergence, don't forget the price of electricity is also expected to rise at the end of the year. Citizens of Melbourne and surrounding areas will be hit by a double whammy, but it's not only Melbourne and Queensland residents who are suffering thanks to all Government's "growth equals wealth" political agendas.
I travel to Ballarat to work on a daily basis and can't believe the damage that's being done to this once beautiful city by a council hell bent on increasing the population. Bracks too, has helped in ruining his old home town. Thanks largely to Melbournites, who have sold their inner suburban homes and moved to Ballarat where they can buy "two for the price of one," at peak hours the city has become as clogged as many Melbourne streets. The council's only answer is to place more roundabouts in the path of motorists causing even more pollution as cars are forced to constantly slow down and speed up. There's not a single free flowing road in Ballarat. The council's traffic management policy is appalling!
Into the bargain, local regional shires are pushing up rates as a means of dealing with the push to populate rural areas close to larger cities.
Eventually, people on low incomes will be forced to sell their homes and move to less populated areas, but that's a duel edged sword too. People get penalised by Centrestink for moving to low employment opportunity areas.
Looks like the wealthy who push for higher population and immigration will eventually destroy all we hold dear in this country.

"If the Queensland Government was really interested in helping the environment it would be advocating higher petrol taxes, not higher car registrations."
Actually, I believe that the way car registration and compulsory insurance is applied is the problem.
The current system is a 6 or 12 month fixed fee that does not reflect car useage, only engine size ect.
The best way to go would be to change this registration and compulsory insurance from a fixed fee system that we have now and have it changed to a fair and equitable user-pays system.
There are many benefits to having a good user-pays system, motorists will have more choices and more incentive to drive less, ie,they can save money by driving less (this applies doubly to second vehicles), car pooling, demanding and getting adequate public transport services , rather than the current system which encourages motorists to get value-for-money by driving their cars more.

Alzo

“I am not worried about the perceived CO2 problem.”

Does this mean you don’t think climate change is real, or that it is not due to the burning of fossil fuels, or that it is pointless for us to be worrying about it in Australia while China is so rapidly increasing its CO2 output?

“I am against cars that use more fuel than they need to for ascetic reasons.”

So you are against young petrol-heads having suped-up v8s when they should have small v4s or motorbikes. Surely then you would be in favour of disincentives, if not hard and fast laws, to dissuade this profligate immature-minded testosterone-controlled use of energy.

“What if Australia's population was stable and/or declining but Queensland's population was still increasing due to redistribution. Is this a problem?”

Redistribution within a stable population framework would be far less of a problem. But it should still be carefully managed so that large numbers don’t move into places with resource and infrastructure stress, or where they would greatly change the character of a place to the detriment of existing residents or where there are significant environmental concerns.

“Shouldn't people be free to choose where they want to live?”

Not entirely. They never have been. All sorts of things reduce this freedom; you can’t live anywhere without the permission of the owner of the land or without paying rent or purchasing a property. You can’t live where it is prohibitively expensive, where you can’t travel to work or access the goods and services that you need. And so on.

“Do you support regional population caps/quotas?”

Absolutely. To not support this would be to condone never-ending growth in population. In most regions we don’t need to worry about caps. But where populations are high and still rapidly growing, a limit to population size surely MUST be a fundamental part of strategic planning processes.

“Who decides how many and who to let into ‘your’ region?”

Governments at all levels, with full and open consultation with scientific and economic experts and the general community.

The case for climate change is overstated. CO2's contribution to climate change is vastly overstated. Other factors will be revealed to be behind the recent warming, both natural and man-made. Global warming is really only Northern Hemispheric warming. Black carbon/soot on snow is already revealing itself to be a major player in this regionalised warming.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/06/19/a-new-paper-that-highlights-the-first-order-radiative-forcing-of-black-carbon-deposition/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070606113327.htm

"So you are against young petrol-heads having suped-up v8s"
Not at all, as long as they are as economical as a 4 cylinder and not overly noisy. However this generally isn't the case. If they can invent a super efficient, quiet v8 why should it cost more to register.

"You can’t live where it is prohibitively expensive"
No I agree, so why not let the market decide rather than the government (those not to be trusted). Sydney is now experiencing a reduction in population growth as fewer people can afford housing there anymore.

"Who decides:
Governments at all levels, with full and open consultation with scientific and economic experts and the general community."
They're the ones that got SE Qld into the mess it is currently in. The deliberate de-regionalisation of Australia has concentrated populations into very large urban areas that don't have the required infrastructure to support their rapidly expanding populations

Alzo

Like you I suspect that we shouldn’t be worrying too much about CO2 emissions / climate change in Australia, but for different reasons; mainly the completely overwhelming rate of increase in China – to the tune of two new coal-fired power stations every week, each with emissions equivalent to about 2 million cars.

But we most definitely should be worrying about peak oil. That is; rising fuel prices and the effects that will have on all aspects of our lives, not just transport. One of the main concerns here is very much the main concern for climate change; fuel efficiency, both in distances travelled and in the types of vehicles we use.

“Not at all, as long as they are as economical as a 4 cylinder..”

But V8s clearly aren’t as economical. You said in an earlier post; “I am all for getting V8's and other gas guzzler's off the road as they are wasteful…”

“so why not let the market decide rather than the government”

Market forces need control. We need to work with market forces but mitigate the downside. Hence strong government regulation. Obviously, unchecked market forces lead directly to cities/regions becoming overcrowded compared to resource provision and basic services. Obviously governments have let us down by not implementing strong enough regulatory regimes. The answer is to improve government and certainly not to give market forces free reign.

“Sydney is now experiencing a reduction in population growth as fewer people can afford housing there anymore.”

Yes! Well in inner Sydney at least. So market forces have disrupted the lives of thousands of people by making their rents, loan repayments or rate much less affordable, causing them to move, default or work a whole lot harder to make ends meet.

“They're the ones that got SE Qld into the mess it is currently in”

YES, but only with the duplicitous / chronically apathetic attitude of the populace that has let them do it. Governments desperately need reform so that they will take into account the need for population caps instead of future-destroying continuous unending expansionism.

"But we most definitely should be worrying about peak oil."
Why worry...its going to happen regardless. We will just have to switch fuels. Lots of options. I like the look of electric bikes but I'm sure they won't be popular with the fatties.

"But V8s clearly aren’t as economical."
Not yet...but what if a new beaut v8 comes out that is ultra efficient. This is what the author was getting at with the rego restrictions. There should at least be an exception made for vehicles of any engine configuration that can meet or exceed an acceptable fuel economy standard.

"Obviously, unchecked market forces lead directly to cities/regions becoming overcrowded"
As did government/s shutting down all of their regional and rural services. Country people without work naturally drift towards the cities and the coast, where the work is.

"Governments desperately need reform so that they will take into account the need for population caps"
Wouldn't have needed them if the push to urbanise hadn't been so successful.

"duplicitous / chronically apathetic attitude of the populace"
Don't think much of your fellow man, do you? In what way duplicitous?

Market forces (and government policies) cause damage when externalities are ignored in the interests of powerful groups in the community. Essentially this allows them to privatise the profits and socialise the problems. If the developers had to pay and pass on the full costs of the new desalination plant in Melbourne, instead of doubling the water bills of existing residents, Melbourne would be a far less attractive destination.

In terms of motor vehicles I tend to agree with Alzo that standards should be written in terms of performance, rather than specifying a particular technology. Another issue that has been ignored is the weight of the vehicle. The damage done to the roads goes up with the fourth power of the mass, so that a 3 ton truck will do 81 times the damage of a 1 ton truck. (There was a New Scientist article on this some years ago.) This damage is not adequately reflected in registration or other taxes. Goods that could more efficiently be sent by rail or by ship go by truck, and fleet owners save on labour costs by using bigger trucks, since you and I will be paying for the extra damage to the roads.

The tax should go to the car companies/manufacturer for being stupid, not the consumer, remember, not all of us can afford the extra cost of more taxes/price hikes on fuel as it is. Will the companies we work for increase the wage to compensate us? I think not!. 1971, cars got about 28- 32mpg. in fuel consumption. Now we hardly see that mark, yet a ford focus has more power than an 83 vk brock comodore. Why?Not many have fuel efficency of any kind, 30+ yrs on.oh we can go fast but not far. Does everyone need to blast away at the lights? Think about this people..we have mines who pump so much crap its not funny but we have to bare the cost? most of the rubbish being funneled by big industry can be reburnt to purify but we cant have that..it might cost the billion $ company to much..let the idiot mases take it on..Yehah, then we get morons writing crap like this because they're too narrow minded to take a look about for themselves. Its easy mate, to write crap, leaning to side of governments, to weak to stand up to multinatonals..Get rid of coal power..go gas..beattie can still sell his coal to china, let them choke on the crap and workers are still employed. Leave us and our cars alone. Get the wheezy heaps off the road, even if we have to subsidise new purchases for some.Ban 2 strokes. What about jets?Boats?Oops sorry too hard mate aye. easier to thump the low earner isnt it?. GO AWAY WANK!!

Alzo

“Why worry...its going to happen regardless. We will just have to switch fuels. Lots of options.”

No alternatives, nor combination of alternatives comes anywhere near replacing oil at anything like a similar cost. Whatever we do, it is going to cost a whole lot more, and therefore change macro and microeconomics and our basic practices in major ways. Whether we can smoothly transition ourselves into this higher-cost energy paradigm is the big question. It is indeed a major cause for worry. It certainly isn’t just a matter of letting it happen and of simply switching fuels when we are forced to.

“Wouldn't have needed them if the push to urbanise hadn't been so successful.”

So you agree then that regional population caps are a necessary part of proper strategic planning in areas with growth pressure?

“Don't think much of your fellow man, do you?”

Overall, no. We’re a pretty damn dumb species – kidding ourselves that we are really smart while trashing the planet and our future!

“In what way duplicitous?”

Governments can’t get away with god-awful policies if the community objects strongly enough. So we can’t just blame successive governments for overpopulated, under-watered, under-infrastructured, poorly health-facilitied, road-congested southeast Queensland for example, without the general community being duplicitous by way of their lack of protest.