greensynergy

Tuesday 29th September

Bernard Keane describes a very interesting take on the rather curious industry view of the Fed Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This is is the kind self-serving view that is regularly voiced by various climate change deniers in industry (and politics). It sadly demonstrates that their critique of the CPRS is not based on a constructive approach to dealing with climate change – it shows a very cynical view, which reduces any goodwill towards their position in the debate. Their cynicism means that anything said by the ACA cannot be trusted in future. They have effectively sidelined themselves from the CPRS debate by their cynical efforts to manipulate public opinion.

Their view also shows up the “zero sum game” mentality in the economic debate about a future CPRS: a view usually associated with the Left and their perception that the size of the cake never increases. In industry and business,  the ZSG mentality is disingenuous and shows how dumb they can be in their understanding of how economies actually work. Any change is seen as a cost imposition, rather than as a new opportunity for profit and better environmental outcomes. I wish these otherwise intelligent people would just grow up!

From Crikey.com

Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

The Australian Coal Association’s campaign against the Government’s emission trading scheme has been undermined from the outset by the Association’s own website, which features material that directly contradicts the claims in its campaign, and by the CFMEU, which has attacked the campaign as “blatantly dishonest.”

The campaign was unveiled yesterday with considerable fanfare due to the involvement of Neil Lawrence, who was responsible for the successful “Kevin ‘07” Labor advertising campaign before the last election.

The ACA claims in its campaign that the CPRS will “cost the industry more than $14b over 10 years”, cause 16 coal mines to close prematurely and cost 9000 jobs. The figures are drawn from an Association-commissioned report by ACIL Tasman which compared a CPRS-based reference with “business as usual”, involving significant industry growth. The 16 mine closures forecast are all of mines that would have closed anyway within a few years under “business as usual”. The 9000 figure relied on an employment multiplier of 3 i.e. only 3000 coal mining jobs were actually forecast to be lost.

But two links below the campaign video on the ACA website, the Association linked to an article “Boom forecast for coal output”. The article includes industry estimates that 13 new coalmines would be opened and $23 billion invested in the sector between now and 2015. ABARE figures that the industry saw $10.4b in new investment in the month of April 2009 alone were also quoted. Conversely, the article quoted the Minerals Council of Australia rejecting ABARE speculation that a Japanese carbon levy might reduce demand for Australian coal. Apparently moves to reduce greenhouse emissions in Japan won’t affect Australian coal but similar moves here will be a disaster.

The import of the article is clear: the effects of the CPRS even when modelled by industry-hired consultants will be swamped by industry growth fuelled by Asian demand.

Crikey emailed the ACA early this morning inviting comment on the disparity between the campaign and the material linked to by the Association. No response had been received by deadline, but the link to the “Boom forecast for coal output” article was moved off the front page during the morning. Google Cache shows the original page before the change.

It’s yet another example of the extraordinary disparity between the optimism and endless growth spruiked by industry leaders when talking to investors and the financial media, and the apocalyptic forecasts that accompany their demands for compensation under the CPRS.

The key mining union, the CFMEU, has also savaged the industry campaign.

“Industry research predicts mining jobs will increase by 120 per cent on 2006-07 levels in Queensland by 2030 under the Federal Government’s plan for tackling climate change,” CFMEU mining president Tony Maher said.

“Australian coal mining companies are extremely profitable and will continue to be well into the future under the Federal Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This scare mongering is purely a cynical bid by mining giants to squeeze more money in compensation out of Australian taxpayers.”

Dead right. And the Association’s own website shows why.

Tuesday 29th September

Just thinking about some issues to do with improvements to the energy efficiency parts of the Building Code of Australia in terms of the recent ABC TV series “The World’s Greenest Homes”. The one common thread running through the program was the sheer size of the houses – very much demonstrative of thinking that going green meant you can build as big as you like. It seems that this misses the point completely: a reductionist approach to technology without thinking through the process as compared to a whole systems perspective, that is, really thinking through your impacts.

However, it was clear that most of the Australian houses shown were much smaller than the North American examples. It was clear that the American green houses were excessive in just about every way. If this is a model for housing the world sustainably, then we are on a seriously wrong path!

It seems to me that any house to be seriously labelled “green”, we should also look at footprint efficiencies in use of space. We need a debate about how big a house or dwelling can be and still be “green”.

With the BCA looking at a 6 star standard, this will be really important. As very small footprint dwellings are heavily penalised under the star rating system, it will be the case that smaller, lightweight, low embodied energy buildings with a higher surface to volume ratio will have difficulty meeting 6 stars, when huge, heavy buildings over 400m2 may readily achieve it.

Note that such large buildings have a much greater embodied energy. There are, as yet, no penalties in the BCA for such profligate energy use.

Further, the rating system does not project the total expected energy usage for thermal comfort: a 150m2 house capable of comfortably accommodating a family of 4, using 80MJ/m2 per annum, uses significantly less energy than, say a 250m2 house for the same size family with a better star rating at 60MJ/m2 per annum.

So, when talking of the “greenness” of a house, we should take into account the embodied energy and the total floor area of the building, in addition to the total energy per m2 per annum.

Friday 25th September

Received confirmation yesterday for Greensynergy to carry out a Level 2  energy audit for the Bellingen Golf Club at Bellingen, NSW. This is the first project in the Bellingen Sustainable Business Network sustainability audit scheme (hopefully the first of many!). Greensynergy is working with the Bellingen Chamber of Commerce to promote a low-cost scheme of energy, water and waste audits for as many businesses in Bellingen as possible. This will be how the myriad small businesses at Bellingen can contribute to the Bellingen’s performance as part of the global Transition Towns initiative to combat climate change.

The focus at Bello GC is the energy usage for refrigeration and catering functions, with some lighting and building fabric efficiency issues to consider.

Monday 21^st September

A colleague from Sydney alerted me to this new domestic fuel cell technology Blue Gen from Ceramic Fuel Cells P/L. Ceramic Fuel Cells claim they are capable of generating electricity from reticulated natural gas and providing energy for hot water and waste heat for home heating.

Go to www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/BlueGen_Launch_Information_(Web)_May-2009.pdf

The opportunities for carbon reduction from distributed generators like this will be fantastic when available (these fuel cells are not on market yet, only in development stage). As for the domestic application – they are definitely good for cold climates where heat recovery systems attached for heating. At an $8000 + price tag, there would need to be incentives to people to install these, as their more efficient use of energy has a major social and economic dividend in terms of more efficient use of energy from generation at end point use and distribution of excess to the local grid. (This is also the unsung aspect of solar grid feed systems – greatly reduced system losses, now about to be recognised by a 4:1 tariff advantage). As they are only geared for natural gas, they will be of use where that service is available. Scaled-up versions will be good for commercial/industrial CBD sites.

Gas-powered fuel cells are a very efficient, lower carbon way of generating electricity for domestic use from fossil fuel sources: as such they are a fantastic transitional technology.  But I think the real killer application for these at domestic/commercial level will be to charge plug-in hybrid cars or to link in with fuel-cell powered cars. The long view should see these evolve as part of solar power systems, to remove gas from the mix.

Possibly the evolution of the solar powered fuel cell car may supersede in-home systems, by pushing the fuel cell processor out into the car boot, where it becomes available to to a smart grid wherever plugged in! These fuel cells may be very much part of the energy mix in the next few years.

Wednesday 16th Sept.

On this evenings 7.30 report, there was a story about the impact of the sudden killing of the remote area renewable energy scheme. It focussed on the Bushlight program at my old place of employment, the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs.

The Bushlight program is probably the best scheme in the country offering technical assistance to remote indigenous communities across Central Australia, The Cape, the Top End, the Kimberleys and Pilbara. Its impact has been so positive and so well set up and run. And CAT is an Indigenous organisation, employing and supporting indigenous people. When squillions are being spent on failed housing programs, it is hard to justify dumping on the best example of its kind. They should take the $40million off the housing consultants + govt depts that is being wasted and give it to Bushlight.

The question is, why would Kevin Rudd/Penny Wong/Jenny Macklin/Peter Garret support the killing off of such a successful indigenous program? Are they that disconnected from reality? Don’t they realize that the application of solar energy in remote Australia is significant in creating cost efficiencies and helping to bring the cost of PVs down?

Well done to Tig Armstrong and his team at Bushlight and CAT. Hope Kev et. al. see sense.

I’ve just looked through the ABCB’s document outlining their energy efficiency regulations for 2010 and beyond. Its mostly all good, with some lost opportunities. I have a few comments and observations for what its worth – you be the judge. I’m not sure I’ll bother to send to ABCB and ABSA yet – small consulting firms in the regions don’t get much consideration for their points of view. I think this blog might be more effective. Anyway, here are my thoughts:

Vol 1 Class 3+5-9

• The new conditioned space definition won’t clear up existing ambiguity. This is the single biggest cause for argument, and a means for many, many buildings to avoid fabric insulation and glazing assessments.
• The BCA should clearly state what is meant by conditioned space in terms of expected comfort conditions for different climates, regardless of whether aircon will be installed or not. As it stands, a passively designed building without aircon, relying on natural ventilation could, according to the way the BCA is enforced, be exempt from insulation and glazing regs! I know this is not the intent, but I’ve had many such debates with clients looking for the path of minimum compliance.
• Good to see that windows will be caulked in frames.
• Good to see aircon system specs are tightened up a bit.
• I would like to see lighting density levels for more typical spaces – often have to guess and interpolate an appropriate figure.
• The new insulation information has not been identified: but it needs to be re-drawn. There are major conflicts between R-values for air spaces in the tables in the BCA and the R-values for air spaces in the AccuRate database as used in Classes 1,2 + 4 buildings. There should be consistency across all building types.
• The air gap R-value tables in the BCA are very poorly written, and can be interpreted any number of ways. Don’t’ aggregate the information: show exactly the arrangement of foils and air gaps.
• The lists of material R-values is very basic – I always seem to be reaching for various manuals and texts to look for the missing thermal conductivities.
• The glazing tables should be re-written. Many of the tables in warm climates wipe out the U value in the calculation. They effectively say that Low E glass or double-glazing has no role in a warm climate. How wrong is that? What about conductive heat gains from warm air masses against fully shaded glass?
• Good to see that maintenance manuals are required in J8 – now it will be much more difficult to fudge J8.
• Do something about differential issues between base buildings and fitouts. Some base building shells are avoiding section J assessments; and the later fitouts have minimal assessments done because it is assumed an assessment was done on base buildings.
• Many shop fitouts are clearly not being assessed according to section J? How so?
• There are no systems for Councils and Certifiers to apply energy efficiency properly; rarely is work inspected; rarely are buildings assessed in a comparative way. It is hard to get clients to do things properly when they point to buildings up the road that appear to have avoided the regulations entirely!
• The BCA must be clearer about substantiation: Councils and Certifiers are now accepting one-page letters certifying compliance with zero substantiation: Tighten this up!

Vol 1 Class 2 + 4 part/Vol 2 Class 1

• The requirements for Class 1 single dwellings are being raised from 5 to 6 stars; The requirements for Class 2/4 are being raised by more than 2, as the requirements range from 3.5 to 4 stars. This is worth doing, but will be very hard to achieve in moderate climates without some review.
• Even the ABCB’s own research identified that it is hard to push a block of units to average 5 stars in any climate; it also identified an anomaly in Climate Zone 2 for Brisbane and recommended that Star Rating bands for such zones be reviewed
• I agree: it is even worse in the southern part of Climate Zone 2, such as here in Coffs Harbour: I have been calling for this for the last couple of years, but my requests have fallen on deaf ears. In Coffs Harbour, I have found it impossible to pass some blocks of units, with any strategy using AccuRATE. I re-modelled them in NatHERS for an easy pass (This option is gone now).
• In mild climates our total energy allowance is very narrow ( compared to cold climate with allowances of 300mJ/m2 per year), but we have to design for both summer and winter, with quite different strategies (unlike cold climates, where mild summers are well handled by winter design).
• It is quite easy to achieve 6 stars in a cold climate, but very difficult in a climate like Coffs – the software identifies that high-mass multi-residential buildings can build-up excessive heat, and cannot cool down (I have modelled such units with permanent holes in the wall and still cannot get a pass, even with sea breezes so strong you can’t stand up!)
• Also, in mild climates, a lightweight Class 1 building with full energy efficient specification cannot readily reach 5 stars, and often won’t reach it without the addition of internal mass – there is no strategy that will push a lightweight building to 6 stars in such a climate. Its as if a lightweight building has a “set point” in any given climate, beyond which it cannot be pushed, as the summer strategy reduces winter performance and the winter strategy reduces summer performance. This is a sleeper issue for the building industry, and when they discover this, all hell will break loose!
• I think 6 stars with a 5 star average will be very hard to achieve in multi-residential developments; and in lightweight in single residential construction without a total review of the Star-Rating Bands.
• There is also an anti-small floor area bias that will prevent small units of lightweight construction achieve 5 stars in any warm climate. I recently did a modelling exercise on a small freestanding unit of lightweight construction with high levels of energy efficiency that did not reach 5 stars in any warm climate in Australia. (Yet, the same building achieves 5 stars comfortably in cold climates) In some places it didn’t hit 4 stars. A 6-star rating for such buildings is totally out of reach with any lightweight specification. This will be hugely significant for affordable housing programs.
• I think that the COAG view that all residential dwellings be 6 stars is misinformed, and doesn’t understand the limitations of the software, and that there could be errors in the Climate Data and Star Rating Bands.

Basix in NSW

• A pass in Basix will be even more difficult to achieve under the new Code, although it is not yet clear how the revised star ratings will be “transmogrified” into the Basix environment.
• Basix is hugely problematic for thermal issues. Most single dwellings go through the DIY tool, which is essentially the BCA Deemed-To-Satisfy.
• However, a building that passes DIY often is under 4 stars when modelled with AccuRATE, and does not pass the Basix caps for the thermal simulation compliance pathway. So DIY is up to a 1.5 star free kick to the project home industry. I hope that this disappears in the BCA 2010 NSW provisions – there is nothing yet to indicate this.
• Get rid of Basix DIY if it cannot be made commensurate with AccuRATE results.
• The project home building industry, will find it very difficult if DIY disappears, and we go to full thermal simulation at 6 stars – for them, it will be a jump from 3.5 stars to 6 stars. Again, this is a sleeper issue for that part of the industry
• The Basix Summer and Winter caps make it very difficult to pass in warm climates with a definable winter – because summer and winter strategies conflict with each other in such climates; the conflict is more significant under Basix with its separate caps than for the national star-rating-based standard. This is even more pronounced in multi-residential developments where the whole development must pass both summer and winter average caps.
• There is a possibility that the separate Basix caps for specific climate zones have been generated on false assumptions. They should be reviewed along with the national Star-Rating Bands.

Final Thoughts (for now)

Going to a 6 star standard is worth doing. But all the anomalies, free kicks, software errors and Star-Rating bands should be reviewed and fixed before it comes into force. Also, there has to be some clear thinking as to how energy for lighting and hot water are incorporated into the energy rating software, and how Basix is altered to be consistent, as it has water and energy included, but as separate measures, not as part of the thermal software. Also, we’ll have a situation where a cold climate building using hundreds of MJ/m²/annum will achieve 6 stars when a warm climate building using a fraction of the MJ/m²/annum will fail. This is patently absurd.

If these don’t get fixed, the building industry will revolt against an otherwise worthy raising of sustainability standards. And we’ve fought too long to get the regulations to where they are today. This is not my last word on the subject! There will be more things that come to mind, and I’ll write about these in due course.

We are getting closer to understanding the new landscape for renewable energy credits for solar systems. Regulations passed last week identifying how the Federal system works:

Go to www.climatechange.gov.au/renewabletarget/index.html for the downloadables.

Note that a new term “Solar Credits” has been coined. These are RECS (Renewable Energy Credits) on steroids. RECS still exist at whatever the going rate is. A Solar Credit is equivalent to a 5 RECs over the next 3 years, then phasing out by 2016. Then it is 1:1. The Solar Credits are only available on the first 1.5kw; I assume 1:1 RECS apply on systems over that – the info is not clear on this. Its also a “one-bite-of-the-cherry” situation – so, no point going for a 1kw system, and looking for an upgrade later – you won’t get the Solar Credits on the 0.5kw balance, but RECS still apply.

The NSW Government will introduce its Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Scheme from the beginning of next year. This will pay 4 times the market rate for solar electricity. It is on a net basis, not gross. That means, only on the net amount delivered to the grid during sunshine hours. So with the fridge on during the day, only up to 50% or so of the electricity generated by a 1.5kw system will be exported to the grid, and thus attract the feed in rate – currently 60c per kwh.

Check out: www.dwe.nsw.gov.au/energy/sustain_renew_fit.shtml for details

In yesterday’s Australian, Bjorn Lomborg of Skeptical Environmentalist fame shows that he is clearly in the camp on human contribution to climate change, but is very skeptical about Emissions Trading. He raises good points about the technology needed by 2100 to mitigate climate change, but is skeptical of the business as usual approach to technological evolution in meeting that need. I think his analysis is sobering, but perhaps a better pathway than just assuming the price signal from carbon will drive innovation in non-fossil fuels. While I disagree that there is no storage capacity for wind power (a solar system will soon be commenced in South Australia with night storage), his view is spot on and should influence the debate. He demonstrates that while one can accept the science of climate change, one doesn’t have to accept that carbon trading will bring about the change we need. Too many people on both sides of the debate are conflating these two issues and causing much confusion. Lomborg’s article is below, and can be accessed at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26035132-11949,00.html.

OUR present approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is
flawed politically, because negotiations to reduce CO2 emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts,
the present approach is also flawed technologically.

Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon-cutting goals ahead of global negotiations in Copenhagen this December to replace the Kyoto Protocol. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say we decide to reduce CO2 emissions by three-quarters by 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the
technological problem: to meet this goal, non-carbon-based sources of energy would have to be an astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than the level of total global energy
consumption was in 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists Chris Green and Isabel Galiana of McGill University. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires
nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near
significant enough to make non-carbon-based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
In Copenhagen this December, the focus will be on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting
emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly – and dangerously – misplaced.

Green and Galiana examine the state of non-carbon-based energy today – nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, etc – and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would
get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way toward stabilisation by 2100. We need many, many times more
non-carbon-based energy than is currently produced. Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.

Existing technology is so inefficient that – to take just one example – if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to
generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage: we don’t know what to do when the wind doesn’t blow.
Policymakers should abandon fraught carbon-reduction negotiations, and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level
where it needs to be. Not only would this have a much greater chance of actually addressing climate change, but it would also have a much greater chance of political success.
The biggest emitters of the 21st century, including India and China, are unwilling to sign up to tough, costly emission targets. They would be much more likely to embrace a
cheaper, smarter, and more beneficial path of innovation.

Today’s politicians focus narrowly on how high a carbon tax should be to stop people from using fossil fuels. That is the wrong question. The market alone is an ineffective way to
stimulate research and development into uncertain technology, and a high carbon tax will simply hurt growth if alternatives are not ready. In other words, we will all be worse
off.

Green and Galiana propose limiting carbon pricing initially to a low tax (say, $5 a tonne) to finance energy research and development. Over time, they argue, the tax should be
allowed to rise slowly to encourage the deployment of effective, affordable technology alternatives.

Investing about $100 billion annually in non-carbon-based energy research would mean that we could essentially fix climate change on the century scale. Green and Galiana
calculate the benefits – from reduced warming and greater prosperity – and conservatively conclude that for every dollar spent this approach would avoid about $11 of climate
damage. Compare this with other analyses showing that strong and immediate carbon cuts would be expensive, yet achieve as little as $0.02 of avoided climate damage.
If we continue implementing policies to reduce emissions in the short term without any focus on developing the technology to achieve this, there is only one possible outcome:
virtually no climate impact, but a significant dent in global economic growth, with more people in poverty, and the planet in a worse state than it could be.

In Today’s The Australian comes a better story about indigenous housing in the North Queensland Community of Mapoon. While Tim Costello is the front man, this new thinking has the look of my former colleague from the Centre For Appropriate Technology, Mark Moran, who joined World Vision in 2008 to run their Indigenous program.

Mark did the ground-breaking participatory settlement planning work with the Mapoon Community back in 1995-1997. Their foresight has now resulted in the “most attractive and liveable Indigenous community” title as per the article below. While the Mapoon model met with lots of interest, it was never taken up by the bureaucrats that lay out community plans: layouts are largely driven by mainstream servicing technologies, short pipe runs, and all that. So all the new housing results in extended grid patterns, with all the same problems.

By extending the creative thinking, World Vision has come up with a model to reduce the cost of housing by half of the NT program. Again more evidence that the more the delivery of Indigenous housing goes mainstream, the more expensive and less appropriate it becomes.

Read on:

INTERNATIONAL aid agency World Vision Australia has turned to its own backyard, with a ground-breaking scheme to help indigenous people build new homes for half the price the government would pay.

In the process, World Vision boss Tim Costello has thrown down the gauntlet to the federal and Northern Territory governments over their failure to date to deliver homes for remote communities under the $672 million Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program.

Mr Costello, whose most publicised charitable works have been in Third World countries, was asked by the Mapoon community in north Queensland to cut through the maze of red tape around Aboriginal housing.

Mr Costello, a Baptist minister and the brother of the former federal treasurer, outlined his plan to The Australian after spending two days in the former mission community on Cape York peninsula.

World Vision believed it could build homes for between $250,000 and $300,000 in Mapoon, compared with the price tag of up to $700,000 quoted for similar residences in Northern Territory communities.

Mr Costello said the plan involved the land being converted to 99-year leases and finance for the building work extended by Indigenous Business Australia, a government agency that helps Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders get into business or the home market.

Mapoon is possibly Australia’s most attractive and liveable indigenous community, belying its tragic history.

On November 15, 1963, police acting on the instruction of the Queensland government arrived at the church mission settlement and ordered residents at gunpoint to board a barge and leave with only what they could carry.

The police then burnt down every dwelling and the families were shipped to “New Mapoon” on the tip of Cape York.

The action cleared the way for mining giant Comalco to extract valuable bauxite deposits.

In 1974, families began drifting back and rebuilding homes, so that now there is a virtually new township with well-spaced homes built in harmony with the bushland.. Children are healthy, employment opportunities are available, homes are not overcrowded, and crime is rare.

Only one of the original corrugated iron homes survived the arson attack, and its owner, community elder Susie Madua, is among a group of traditional owners who strongly support home ownership.

“This is our land, our home, and we want to stay here and own the houses we live in,” she said.

“I was here when the community was burnt down by the police and my family returned. I have a house I would like to own and hand on to my children and grandchildren when I go.”

Mr Costello said if home ownership for indigenous people was not achievable in Mapoon, it could not be achieved in any community.

Mr Costello said World Vision’s task was to brief the Queensland and federal governments on its work in Mapoon on housing affordability.

“We have been working with the community for five months along with our partners Indigenous Business Australia, the Mapoon community trustees and the Mapoon Council to establish a successfully operating home ownership scheme within two years,” Mr Costello said.

World Vision had concentrated on five case studies of the possible 28 locals who wanted to buy the homes they now rented, and tested their capacity to pay projected sale prices in communities where land is held under deed of grant in trust title.

One aspect of the World Vision scheme is to create a new mechanism for valuing property in remote communities, where land is often held as a communal deed in trust and capital gains do not exist.

Mr Costello said current methods valued existing homes at significantly more than people could afford, and the challenge was to solve this problem.

He said the reasons people gave for wanting to own homes were reflective of broader community aspirations. “They want to own something and they want an asset to pass on to their children,” he said.

The report released by Mr Costello seeks special concessions for Mapoon residents buying their existing homes. Purchases would be made with funding through IBA, which would also fund new homes. Mr Costello said there were about 60 publicly-owned homes in Mapoon and a few privately owned dwellings. Close to one third of households could be assumed to qualify for a home loan with IBA, he said.

Another presentation from Peter, in 2 parts as posted on You Tube by the Fremantle filmmaker, Linda Blagg. Its beautifully done. By the way, Peter has been unwell of late, but I believe he is on the mend and will be taking it a bit easier for the immediate future.