Peter Verwer |
Tuesday, 1 April 2008 10:00 AM |
Add Comment
The PCCBEC condemns the Property Council for the following transgressions.
The Property Council has questioned many unchallengeable doctrines of the planning system. Its Top 10 Myths and Fallacies of Urban Growth in Australia is a blatant attempt to create debate in areas of discussion that have been finalised to our satisfaction.
For instance, the Property Council says there is evidence that outer metropolitan development is better for our planet than urban consolidation.
In point of fact, we can only agree with our colleague at the Planning Institute of Australia who said, “There is plenty of real research that has been done on the unsustainability of urban sprawl.” We stress the word’s ‘real research’. We also note the Property Council’s failure to utilise approved words such as ‘sprawl’.
Clearly, we already have all the research we need and can see no reason for more.
We cannot overlook the Property Council’s outrageous abuse of data from the Australian Conservation Foundation’s recently published Social Atlas [Conservation Atlas].
The findings from the Social Atlas show that the eco footprint of families (and therefore homes) in outer metropolitan areas is far lower than for families in city centres and inner suburbs. It is true that this finding holds for every city in Australia and takes into account the almost universal use of cars in these fringe and sprawl zones.
However, the Property Council totally ignores the main reason for the superior environmental performance of the sprawlburbs: that’s where the poor people live. Of course, they consume less.
The Property Council’s claim that “the planet is blind to the socio economic status of individuals and families” is transparently designed to challenge an accepted truth – sprawl is bad because it is sprawl.
We feel no need to respond to the Property Council’s call for public debate. Nor will we be blindsided by calls for a comparison of different research methodologies. We already possess the findings we need.
Consequently, we order the Property Council to purchase one million tonnes of carbon offsets as punishment.
Secondly, the Property Council opposes the mandatory disclosure of a building’s environmental performance on a regular basis.
We have already modified our position on this issue as our preference is daily disclosure by notice in the foyers of all buildings.
In typically hysterical fashion the Property Council says this reasonable measure equates to a BAS (business activity statement) for carbon. It says that an hour and dollar spent on reporting paperwork is an hour and dollar lost to meaningful greenhouse gas reduction programs.
They claim that there is no evidence that mandatory disclosure has ever saved a single tonne of carbon and that even the Danish Government recently scrapped their disclosure regime as an unqualified waste of time. (Note: The PCCBEC will investigate why our Danish colleagues have indulged in such aberrant behaviour).
As usual, the Property Council misses the point: mandatory disclosure sounds good.
In fact, it doesn’t go far enough.
We can only agree with the RAIA’s brains trust – Archicentre – when they say it should be illegal to sell homes that have not been refurbished and certified to a higher standard, irrespective of the financial capacity of the owner.
These are critical times for the planet and so environmental issues must outweigh equity.
The Property Council and its running dog chief executive has accused several professional bodies of hypocrisy on this count.
It says that if owners must declare their eco footprint then so must professional firms. It says that we are Janus-faced (not an approved word) and that we demand an ethical performance standard of others that we refuse to apply to ourselves. It says that we tell others what they must do without applying the same principles to ourselves. It says we are “musturbators”.
This is cruel and hurtful.
The Property Council does not understand that we are too small to make a difference! Besides, it would tie us up in needless red tape.
We order the Property Council to purchase a further million tonnes of offsets for this transgression and a further 10 million tonnes for being so horrid.
PCCBEC commentariat.
Peter Verwer |
Tuesday, 1 April 2008 10:00 AM |
Add Comment
