Hands up all those people who ever believed that the celebrity talkfest “captured the imagination of the country”.

Most of us would have known what Lyn Allison is now telling us after the event. Most of us knew that the very idea of Rudd’s 2020 Summit was dead in the water as soon as he announced it.

All we can do is say “told you so” and wait for the next hare brained scheme.

It certainly sounds like the 2020 handlers had a good grasp of the government policies they wanted certified by the "best and brightest" at the talk fest.
From this article it would appear that any time there was a contentious topic introduced it was thrown in the "to hard" bin never to be resurrected. The leaders of business know that the best ideas are born of contention. By developing a thorough understanding of the perspectives of the champions of the various ideas a best fit solution can be developed that will take the company (or government) into the best future direction. Eliminating good and innovative ideas only because they do not fit the direction deemed appropriate by the political appointees is a attitude doomed to repeating the past.

I understand that a discussion on nuclear power as a clean energy source never saw the light of day while unknown and unproven technologies (clean coal? An oxymoron) were deemed the way forward (should they ever happen). But let's not talk the hard stuff like cost/benefit.

Reading this description I am glad that I did not apply to attend (although I very likely would not have been selected in any case)! I would have ended up banging my head against the wall or with my hands around the throat of one of the coal lobby. Sounds like a complete waste of time - in fact when you look at what it does for future decision making (it can now be used as a screen to defect criticism of government policy since they can say an idea was "suggested by our best and brightest at the 2020 Summit) overall it will probably end up being more damaging than constructive.

The Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission reported in 2005 that the "overall additional energy and greenhouse impacts of having a water tank installed are roughly equivalent to driving a car an extra 60 kilometres each year." With fuel prices at $1.50, and heading for +$2, it is not too difficult to imagine every person driving 60km less a year.

VCEC reported:

"The Centre for Design [at RMIT] estimated environmental costs of manufacturing of rainwater tanks, as well as the benefits of reduced stormwater flows and reduced demand for mains water infrastructure. It found that the energy and material impacts of water tank manufacture and operation are higher than for the equivalent mains water supply, and that the overall additional energy and greenhouse impacts of having a water tank installed are roughly equivalent to driving a car an extra 60 kilometres each year.

"The Centre for Design study identified the reduced load on the stormwater system as the most significant environmental benefit of installing a rainwater tank. The rain diverted from stormwater into tanks results in a significantly reduced nutrient load to local rivers and Port Phillip Bay and reduced eutrophication.

"A further public benefit of rainwater tank installation is the reduced demand placed on water storage infrastructure. However, the Centre for Design study found that ‘avoided water storage infrastructure is not insignificant but not nearly large enough to offset the impacts of the water tank construction and operation’.

"Evidence thus suggests that the private and public costs of rainwater tank installation outweigh the benefits, and that both the individual household and society would be better off relying on mains water under the current water pricing structure."

Sources: ESC 2005; Hallman et al. 2003; Yarra Valley Water 2005.
VCEC, Housing Regulation in Victoria, Building Better Outcomes, Final Report, box 5.5, October 2005

http://www.vcec.vic.gov.au/CA256EAF001C7B21/WebObj/VCEChousingfinalreport/$File/VCEC housing final report.pdf

But water prices are doubling to pay for desalination plants, making rainwater lower cost than mains water. Every car owner who avoids one 60 km trip each year, will neutralise their energy demand from using rainwater, and have cheaper water.

Greg Cameron

Senator Wong announced that the federal government is delivering on its election promise of subsidising rainwater tanks. If rainwater tanks are not cost effective, why subsidise them?

State and federal governments subsidise rainwater tanks to assist households to conserve water, and in the belief that, "In Australia, water is vested in governments that allow other parties to access and use water for a variety of purposes". This is the claim made by all governments in clause 2 of the National Water Initiative 2004 (NWI). Nonsense.

Urban water users in three states do have property rights to water. Water that falls on a person's roof is vested in that person – and not the state government - as now acknowledged by the governments of NSW, Victoria and Queensland. (The governments of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania rely on a legal technicality that a building fixed to land is land and therefore the roof of that building is land. Water that falls on land is surface water and rights to surface water vest in government, therefore water that falls on a person's roof is vested in government. Clearly, residents of SA, WA and Tassie are rabbits, because they live underground.)

Rainwater tank subsidies are not required in order for privately-owned rainwater to cost less than government-owned mains water. What is required is an investment of around $50 million in rainwater tank manufacturing plant that will be capable of supplying three million houses on the eastern seaboard with four rainwater tanks each (one per downpipe) and capable of delivering at least 70 KL of rainwater each year, which is around one-half of annual indoor water use.

With mass production of tanks and fittings, rainwater will cost $1.20/KL in Sydney and $1.40/KL in Melbourne and Brisbane. All houses could be supplied within 10 years. When governments acknowledge that clause 2 of the NWI does not apply to rainwater tanks, it will be an opportunity for them to explain their disinterest in a rainwater tank program that is available to 100% of households, without payment of subsidies costing several hundred million dollars.

Greg Cameron

ONE:

What do you mean, you hoped for better? You know the game; you're a politician. You got to go...wozzamatterwitu?

It was nonsense. Complete nonsense. It could not possibly succeed,-whatever 'it' was.

The criticism I've seen so far has generally been to politically point score. OLO members (in general), have supported this 'summit' or denigrated it according to their political beliefs.

For the record I admire ANY political leader who has the guts (or arrogance?) to set something like this up, when it could not possibly succeed.

1)SELECTION:- 8,000 appx applications were made, to attend. Only 1,000 succeeded.
WHO decided who should go? On what did they base their decisions....?
7,000 applicants who wanted to involve themselves in the process (NO- I was not one of them),-were rejected. Were their contributions any less valid? Who decided that?

7 out of 8 people were not able to speak,-so the vast majority were silenced in their potential input.

(Yes...I do realize that 8,000 could not attend, but that is not my point. Rejection of many, and what ideas they may have had IS my point).

2)INPUT/TIME:- How were these sessions conducted? If the input of ideas were to flow freely, then they would have all been there until Christmas! So time limit restrictions were imposed. BUT;- that by its very nature would have severely restricted the flow of ideas. Were those who strongly imposed their ideas and input, doing so to the detriment of others who were unable to put THEIR ideas up? How did the convener choose who should speak up, because of the time restraints? How does he/she decide whose ideas should be expanded upon? To the exclusion of who? Who has the right to decide this? What motivates that decision?

Cont'd..,