Carbon Neutral Adelaide Partnership
EVALUATION:
Energy
Waste and Renewables
Partnerships and communities (future goals)
Transportation
Electricity
Renewable: 1-42% (2004-2015)
SA: 35% Australia's wind capacity, 1/4 solar PV [$6.6b invested since 2003]
$2.6b invested since 2007 - tram network, upgrade Adelaide Metro
All buses powered by lower emission alternative fuels
Cycling in/out city doubled since 2003
Renewable energy target 50% + low-carbon energy $10b - by 2025
Resource recovery is also Aus's highest - 2070kg per person per annum
SA has largest landfill diversion - 77% (In Aus)
Better Practice Guide - Waste Management for Residential and Mixed Use Developments (2014)
supports higher recycling rates in city developments
Efficiency
City Council reduced operational energy by 15% since 2010
Improved efficiency in owned + leased buildings by 24% (since 2001)
16% increase of office floor space + 23% decline of emissions (2007-2013)
reward commitment of businesses and individuals
create (and foster) opportunities for partnerships
raise awareness to enable action
tourism
support low carbon research
funding, grants, fellowships
PROS:
recognised need for improvement
reasonable and achievable future goals
wide range of goals over the community - not just solely focused on one area
stimulates economic growth and national/international appeal
improved health of population and country
CONS:
statistics could be considered as outdated - only put in the plan for show
no compromise or incentives - carbon neutral or nothing (businesses shut down)
(economic standpoint) higher unemployment, less economic growth --> recession
sets example for other countries and states
expensive - community may not want to pay more (taxes, resources, etc.)
statistics from earlier years (eg. 2001) would have longer time to improve than earlier years
environmental degradation - more area needed for recycling + energy plants, bio-fuel production, transportation (lines, roads, storage)
no knowledge on food systems (air miles, local food, processed/unprocessed)
This management strategy, despite it's negative aspects, would still be considered as sustainable as it is preserving Adelaide for the future generations. However, there are still areas that need improvement and fine-tuning so as to ensure that this management strategy is accepted into the society and carried on for the next generations.
SOURCE:
ASSUMPTIONS:
the statistics are correct
the future consequences that are stated are logical
the benefits outweigh the negatives (net benefit)
LONG/SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES
Long Term
Short Term
less carbon emissions - less pollution
healthier population and country
self-sufficient power generation from renewable sources
international credibility
advancements in technology and research due to funding
increased infrastructure and business opportunities
economic growth - spike in employment
STAKEHOLDERS:
Businesses: could win or lose depending on willingness to change to carbon neutral production
- increased awareness due to tourism
All: satiates altruistic needs of humans - feel like they're improving the world by being carbon neutral
Government: large awareness availabilities that would inspire national and international change
- negative would cost a lot of money to switch even just Adelaide to becoming carbon neutral
- a lot of land would be needed to build the infrastructure for becoming carbon neutral and so they could get a backlash of negative media coverage