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statistics could be considered as outdated - only put in the plan for show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