Letters this week focus on Toondah Harbour: the developer’s misleading artist’s impressions and the gap between Labor policy and actions. There’s also a letter about global warming, questioning the conventional wisdom.
Redlands2030 will publish letters on a wide range of topics that are of interest to the community, including different viewpoints. If you have something to say email your letter to theeditor@redlands2030.net
Visual impact of Toondah towers
The Cui bono story on the Redlands2030 website is well documented. It shows that the results are potentially a catastrophic outcome for future Redlands residents. This is without taking into account the flow-on infrastructure shortfalls – rail parking, other public transport, adjoining local Council roads etc.
An important aspect is the mis-representation in my view of the drawings being used by both Walker Group and Redland City Council. In particular, there appears to be no realistic impressions of the built form of the 3,600 units. I am trying to imagine what 36 towers of 100 units (or 60 towers of 60 units) each would look like in the restricted space available.
RS
Cleveland
Global warming misunderstood
I have studied the evidence of climate change for many years. I have read the IPCC and many other reports. I have concluded that much of the supposed science is misleading because it looks only at recent evidence, rather than that over long-term geological timescales.
An additional problem is vested interests. There is much money to be made from pushing ideas that require new technologies and the overturning of established practices, even if the ideas have little basis in fact. Manipulating public opinion is easy when most of the media and commentators continually broadcast the dogma.
Scientists and others who dispute the dogma are not allowed to be heard and generally receive no funding. Climate change is real, but far removed from any present impact of mankind.
True scientists formulate a hypothesis to explain the studied phenomenon. They then try to disprove the hypothesis, not find more reasons to justify it. There is much evidence to show the present perceived changes in climate are not anomalous in the context of geological timescales.
I have presented some of this evidence in my paper, Global Warming Misunderstood: The Case for Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power, too long to repeat here.
Mankind must work to adapt to climate change, not flail about by tilting at trace gas windmills.
Lindsay Hackett
Macleay Island
Transparency by all
I write asking you publish my letter in the hope others will make like complaints to the local paper.
My concerns are in reference to the front page of the paper 2 January and the article titled “Walker to appeal”. There is on the page a picture that shows not a hint of the multiple 10 story high buildings planned by the developer which will destroy this view. These plans would violate our RAMSAR commitments and ruin our precious Moreton Bay coastline.
As transparency is a virtue paraded proudly by our governments and councils, we are entitled to see pictures of the Toondah development. Pictures or impressions as it will appear upon completion after twenty years with the loss of this beautiful part of the Bay and vital wildlife habitat
Where in the picture are the mass of buildings leading to crowding, traffic chaos to affect we residents of Redlands City? Surely after all these years of changing demands by the developer, there must exist an architect’s picture showing the reality of what he is claiming to be his complete picture. We have not seen anything like it as yet.
The prospects of both the marina and development are so dishonestly described. Community consultation about Toondah has not been honest in any respect.
It seems to us that ‘commercial in confidence’ is a corruption that should not be quoted when public lands and future displacements are intended.
PG
Ormiston
ALP policy and promises
The Federal ALP has provided advice about what Labor promises for the environment if they win the next election. It is indeed heartening and is to be applauded.
However, it is unfortunate, that the State ALP Government, despite its own publicly stated policy to protect Ramsar sites and wetlands has to date failed miserably. Note the commitments in State policy, notably the paragraphs:
- 5.48 Labor will protect Ramsar-listed and other wetlands across Queensland by ensuring that nearby development does not cause adverse impacts to wetlands ecological and hydrological values.
- 5.83 Labor will ensure coastal development is managed sustainably, for current and future generations, by considering the social and environmental impacts in addition to the economic benefits.
- 5.87 Labor will protect coastal and marine zones by prohibiting large-scale reclamation within marine parks and wetlands. Reclamation outside marine parks and wetlands must meet strict environmental standards.
The State ALP Government remains deafeningly silent in condemning the latest proposal from the Walker Group for the development of Toondah Harbour in Moreton Bay. Yet their policy position is clear. What happened? Where is the explanation? Why the silence? Have they turned there backs of their policy platform?
It is this proposal that experts from the Federal Department of the Environment found will cause “… permanent and irreversible damage to the ecological character of a Ramsar wetland” as was reported in the ABC Podcast – Background Briefing, The Bird and the Businessman).
I am concerned that the State ALP has made promises, promises and more promises but is showing no ethical or moral commitment to their clear and unequivocal commitments.
BJ
Cleveland
Letters published by Redlands2030 – 16 January 2019
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
12 Comments
I wonder how many Redlands residents have actually been to the proposed Toondah harbour site.
The way its described in the video you’d think it was wildlife paradise with exotic birds wandering along the stunning foreshore. The truth is, the foreshore is a dog off leash area. No birds dare venture anywhere near the shoreline which is in fact a stinking muddy cesspool. Anyone who dares venture more than ankle deep in the water will sink to their knees in the foul mud – it really is foul! Any developement will surely be an improvement. I have just watched the video and rather than be put off, I am excited by the possibilities. The video makes out that Santuary Cove and Hope Island are disasters – whereas these are on fact stunning areas t0 visit. We should be delighted that a top developer – one who is unlikely to go under mid construction – has been chosen to bring a true paradise to our doorsteps and revitalise Cleveland. No one can argue that Cleveland needs a breath of life -it has been slowly dying in the past 17 years that I have resided here. Manly is one of my favourite places to visit, primarily because of the beautiful yacht mole. Imagine having our own yacht mole right here! Why is everyone so negative!!
Geoff Edwards (post 17 Jan 19), please understand that science is not determined by consensus. Science is the endeavour to understand a physical phenomenon by asking why is it so, then postulating a hypothesis to explain why, then conducting measurements and experiments that will either support or fail the hypothesis. Any evidence that fails the hypothesis requires the hypothesis to be changed. The hypothesis can be claimed to be proven only when a large body of data and evidence can be found to support it and none contradicts it, and that this can be replicated by other scientists.
My paper contains recent evidence that temperature changes precede carbon dioxide changes. This alone breaks the popularly accepted “greenhouse” hypothesis.
You have not substantiated your claim that “Tens of thousands of scientists …trying…to disprove…models behind climate predictions…”. As I state in my paper, the IPCC models have been shown to be significantly inaccurate. And, you seem to be ignoring the 31,487 American scientists who signed the petition stating, in part, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other green house gases (GHG) is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
In the last sentence of your second paragraph, you seem to be implying that I doubt that the climate is changing. Of course it is changing, as it always has, is, and always will. The argument is about the degree for which mankind is responsible, if at all. I have presented evidence to show that mankind has no significant impact.
Regardless of costs, and again you make a statement without giving a reference, intermittent solar thermal cannot provide the stability or capacity of nuclear power. And, Australia has many areas that are suitable for the storage of nuclear waste, including high level waste. The Government knows these areas, as does the international, nuclear, community. Australia does not have a high and a low level nuclear waste storage facility only because the Australian people have been misinformed by people with different agendas.
I suggest you reread my paper with an open mind. There really are “None so blind as those who will not see”.
Wrong, Lindsay, there is such a thing as scientific consensus. In order to advance knowledge, most scientists build on previous bodies of accepted work without “reinventing the wheel”.
It is invalid to claim that all mainstream climate scientists must be wrong because their consensus does not align with your own evidence. This forum is not the place to debate your evidence so I won’t do so. If you feel you possess original insights that have not been accommodated by the mainstream, by all means submit it to a journal for critical review. If you can’t find a journal willing to accept such a paper, then it is reasonable to conclude that the experienced scientists who oversee that process judge it to be either flawed science or simply opinion.
I guess R2030 has to be open to all points of view including that of a human induced climate change sceptic. But the views of Mr Hackett have at least brought a coherent counter view/ perspective to the table. Thank you Mr Edwards. I like the even if …so what approach.
My own thought is where was the carbon before being sequestered in the coal we now “enjoy”….and at that time what was our planet like. Hotter? wetter? habitable?
Thanks, Jason B. In those geological times, the planet was no doubt uninhabitable. It is a remarkable confluence of parameters that enables human life to exist. And even during those times when human mammals might have been able to survive, there weren’t buildings and other infrastructure waiting to be damaged.
GE
Reading the letters to Redlands 2030 I can see that many of you are concerned about the misleading artist’s impressions of what the developer has actually proposed. I think you’re dead right. I have not seen a single artist’s impression that shows even one quarter of the 3,600 proposed units, blocking the views from the mainland over the Bay. Allow me to summarise in one sentence. It would be an absolute disgrace to allow any developer to build out into the protected wetlands of Moreton Bay. Elected councillors and politicians, who have been promoting such an environmentally destructive commercial development, need to be dumped at the next election. The odd resident, who thinks it just means a few coffee shops and a boardwalk, needs to re-evaluate the commercial reality of what the developer has proposed. On the flip side it is unlikely that the developer would be able to sell so many units at a profit. However, that should not prevent residents from expressing their anger at the ballot box.
It appalls me that the last small pieces of land on Cleveland Point are to be sold off, privately. This land should be used for park land and public use. Also, updating the Toondah Harbor ferry facility should be strictly controlled. The proposed Walker development and any further attempts by any company or individual to develop that area has to be stopped forever and the Bird sanctuary remain a treasure for now and into the future. Maybe boardwalks etc to enable enjoyment of the birds would be a good thing.
Lots of facts and figures, Lindsay Hackett, in your polemic against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but they lead nowhere. After patronising climate scientists (by contrasting their consensus with “true science”), what policy do you wish our nation to pursue? I’ll make just six points.
First, let’s assume that you are right to claim that “the present perceived changes in climate are not anomalous in the context of geological timescales.” Geologists commonly make this claim. So what? Cities didn’t exist 100,000 years ago, let alone within geological timescales. We didn’t have a human population dependent upon a limited supply of arable land pushing grain production to the limits of the current climate with little scope to migrate. Can you find one prominent Australia vigneron who doubts that the climate is changing?
Second, where does your analysis lead? To propping up old coal-fired power stations? Hardly, given the deaths that you attribute to coal-fired power. Surely measures to reduce emissions are no-regrets actions with a whole range of ancillary benefits – less waste, less pollution. Carbon dioxide produced during industrial processes is an indicator of waste energy, that is, waste.
Third, your estimates of costs for new generation are wrong. Recent contracts for solar thermal in more than one country blow nuclear out of the water.
Fourth, if nuclear waste is as unproblematic as you claim, then why has Australia, with a million square miles of desert, been unable to find a safe repository for its medical waste which is stockpiling in the suburbs of Sydney?
Fifth, your portrayal of climate sceptics as victims of bullying and intimidation won’t cut any ice. The boot is firmly on the other foot. The Murdoch outlets Fox News in the USA and his newspapers in Australia have given a megaphone to climate sceptics and, through clear editorial policy, set out to intimidate and ridicule scientists who have sought to bring climate warnings to public attention.
Unfortunately for people hold views like yours, you have not been able to prevail in the scientific literature. Tens of thousands of scientists all over the world have been trying hard for decades to disprove the theories and models behind climate predictions but they continue to gain confidence and strength. If your material amounts to “true science”, then let it be validated through the standard methods of testing science – through the literature.
Geoff, my paper presents some of the clear evidence that climate change is highly likely to have nothing to do with mankind’s generation of carbon dioxide. The latest evidence shows that temperature changes precede changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This alone exposes the hype of popular and government opinion. The pity is, there really are “none so blind that those who will not see”.
Indeed, the Murdoch press has recently allowed comment from and supported those who rail against the “politically correct” version of climate change. However, scientists are still generally unable to publish or obtain funding to support research to test the hypothesis that man is causing climate change. There is too much at stake for those businesses and people who garner vast sums of money from subsidies towards so called renewable energy. Renewable energy should be developed, but not because of the false premise that CO2 is evil.
Australia has several, safe, locations for the storage of high level wastes, let alone low level medical waste. This is known by the Australian Government and internationally. The only reason Australia does not have a nuclear power industry or nuclear waste facilities that could be used by all nuclear waste generating countries is because the Australian public has and is being kept ignorant, or made fearful, about the realities of nuclear power. We are a laughing stock in the opinion of governments who know the facts. Then we are a laughing stock on several other issues as well, like population growth and immigration.
I suggest you reread my paper with an open mind.
You have to be kidding, Lindsay Hackett, when you write “the Murdoch press has RECENTLY ALLOWED comment” from those who oppose the mainstream view about climate change, emphasis added. “The Australian” newspaper (let alone Fox News) has been running a campaign for two decades to discredit climate scientists and has given a megaphone to a range of commentators opposing the mainstream, many with thoroughly incoherent and non-rational views on the matter. Only last Thursday it published a diatribe from Ian Plimer attempting to disprove the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing some climate change.
A mark of the weakness of the arguments of commentators like Plimer – and it is a trap that you have fallen into – is to sneer at scientists who don’t agree with your view and to accuse them of being blind to your own (selective) evidence. This amounts to an ad hominem attack. Better if you stick to the issue at hand, which is to explain the implications for Australian society of following or not following your perspective.
The Redlands could be a wonderful day out , for people who live in Brisbane. Advertise Toondah Harbour, mount cotten ect.. what could be better than taking the children for a walk in our beautiful environment. Even people living here haven’t enjoyed the wonders of our Redland bay.
Is there any way that a huge group of people/protesters, can get together, same time , same place , preferably where developers are destroying the Redlands, pref before damage done!!? We need television coverage (abc good) and all dodgy dealings need to surface and float belly up , for all to see!!! Please every one, let’s get it together and SAVE toondah harbour, and the dog park!!!! Between all of us we must have contacts ?? Let’s smash the dirty deeds!!!! Save a future for our grand kids and pets!!!