The best way for you to reduce the traffic in your area is to move to an area with less traffic, either on a quieter road in the city or further out fom the city. Those who don't mind it can choose to stay. People moving away will reduce the traffic for those who remain. This is a problem which can be solved with free, personal choices and without government intervention. This might seem a drastic measure, involving hardship, but it is no harder or more drastic than the social and economic effects, and the means, of reducing taffic along main roads.

Generally I think that if people who do not like the "sustainability" of the city moved further from it, it would relieve problems for those who stay and introduce more people, business and "vibrancy" to suburbs further from the city. Instead these people stay in the city and revile the suburbs. "Be what you want to see", folks..

This brings to mind the "community" activists who a couple of years ago campaigned in Fortitude Valley (an "entertainment precinct") against apartment dwellers who opposed loud music emanating from nightclubs. They wore T-shirts captionned "F*K OFF BACK TO THE SUBURBS". Not very inclusive or "equitable" of them. Ironically a feature of "sustainable development" is moving people from the suburbs to "high-density living" in the city area, so "back to the suburbs" is not where these activists really wanted apartment residents to go. They don't want the suburbs to exist at all. I wondered why owners of clubs where loud music was played could not considerately enclose the area where the music is played. Yes, these activists were the kind who do support "sustainable development". SD is not consistent with itself or genuinely about the things it preaches. It is about the government getting it's way while you button your lip - in this case, a "vibrant" entertainment precinct. Most entertainment is centred around SD also now. Part of SD is a government-manufactured and promoted culture which conforms to it.

Regarding noise, the level of noise does not increase greatly with the number of vehicles. I live on a main road near the Ciy, so I am talking from daily experience. One vehicel passing is quite obtrusive on it's own. A number of vehicles passing is just a more continuous intrusion. Your hearing and brain tend to adjust to changes in noise level. Also, because of the way sound and our ears work, the perceived level of noise does not increase proportionally to the number of sound sources in proximity or the physical intensity of the sound they produce. For example, the human voice at normal conversation level is about 60 dB. Two people talking together does not increase that to 120 dB, which is the threshold of pain for our ears. If it did, imagine the trouble you would be in in a room with twenty other people, all talking.

I recall a local "community acivist" who was campaigning against a proposed bridge in South Brisbane who was reported by a local "newspaper" as saying that the bridge would increase the traffic through the suburb by four times, and that that would increase the traffic by ten times. I don't need to tell you where he got that figure from.

"Government is not eloquence, is not reason. It is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington, first president of the United States.

The transport industry - not personal vehicles - consumes 85% of our oil and therefore presumably produces asimiar poportion of our total emissions. Because of the expense of batteries (and recharging them), that industry is not likeley to switch to electric road vehicles. The trains are electric, but not powered by batteries - that electricity is generated using fossil fuels. (That figure I quoted is from a guest on the SBS "Insight" programme.) Battery-powered EVs have a limitted range and take hours to recharge.

What Cr Quirk may have meant by "the market" taking care of car pollution is that the government will place restrictions and penalties on car use and discriminate against it with future changes to road infrastructure and other facilities related to car use (e.g. car parks). That is not the market, however, that is the government coercing the market. Be assured that "sustainable deveopment" is genuine government policy. They would not promote so heavily something that they do not want or is  unpopular with voters and so threatens their position. Why would they even have to pretend that they want it? They are promoting it because they do want it, to make it popular with voters.

"Government is not eloquence, is not reason. It is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington, first president of the United States.

Solar electricity - I'd also like to see a leaflet drop about the solar panels rebate scheme for residential homes - again, that's not BCC, but could you pass it on?  So many people don't know it's only a few hundred to get a 1 KW system put on their rooves (if they are owner-occupiers).

I'd like BCC to match that - except have a rebate available for rental houses.  Renters are quite powerless.

Also, I'd like to see a revision done to the act that looks after Body Corporate.  Water tanks being allowed to be installed have to be passed by a majority vote, so if a careless majority don't want them, the concerned few can't get them (that is, paying for all of it themselves, not even having body corporate pay!).  Would be great if that could be looked at...someone? 

Also!    Would be great if BCC parks could have displays of edible seasonal veges/herbs and a few fruit trees in each (provided was suitable for local wildlife).  Things that are hardy and show the basic principles of water conscious gardening.  There could be a standard sign in each and a water tank beside it with a watering can attached inviting anyone to water the herbs/veges if they look droopy    Let's get people involved with their landscape.

Water - would be great if there could be demonstrations in different parks of different ways/technologies to collect water.  Like dew collecting nets and stuff like that.  There's some standard stuff for collecting water from the air and preventing evaporation that is used in other countries that SEQ'ers know nothing about.

Info - Would also be great to have some standard educational stuff about our region in all parks, like at the bbq stations where people gather every weekend.  Little "did you know" signs about sustainability.

Backyard corridors - would be great if all large DAs included that designs have to have yards that serve a function as a wildlife corridor too, so home owners are impelled to maintain a certain amount of trees/bushes by their back fence.  This can easily be checked via satellite and fines allocated with rates notices (hee hee - a bit nasty I know).  This could enable home owners to become more aware about local wildlife and serve as tourist attraction with helicopter tours.

These corridors could link across roads with those aerial bridges (a bit dodge I know as the animals are sitting targets at the entry and exit points but hey...um, can't think of anything better right now) and funnel into local parks.

The neighbourhood could encourage the trees/plants these animals/insects like and learn about their local ecosystems etc etc.  There could be annual days where certain bio-regions are encouraged to learn about the reason why the council is handing out certain plants/trees for that area (rather than just the generic street trees like ivory-curl etc from Brisbane to Ipswich that are just mass grown and convenient for maintenance and growth, each bio-region could have a mix of bushes/plants/trees for specific animals and insects).

Surveys - info could be collected at these points in parks from those engaged.  Tough touch screens with cheap recyclable non-toxic replaceable parts could put people through a simple survey that could include images and variations of surveys to help curb bias at a location.

Water - should be collected at every park.

Green roofs - should be installed on all (feasible) council buildings.

That's about it for now   

Towards a sustainable future! Be what you want to see.

Councillor Quirk at the "Sustainable Future" forum this year said "the market" would take care of the increasing pollution that the extra cars on the road would produce in the near to long-term future...  Lucky he is not in charge of this! 

We need to get electric cars happening in Brisbane, and encourage them.  Any taxes that BCC takes from cars/driving should be removed for electric cars for the first however many years after purchase, to make a benefit-cost analysis show that these VLE cars are more economically beneficial to the individual and to the citizens/biodiversity health in the short and long term.

Opening electric "fuel stations" (1 - 5 "sockets" per station in various places around Brisbane) like London is doing, would be a fantastic way to launch the initiative.  These could be directly connected to solar or wind turbines (which are connected to the grid) - the energy they produce stored in car batteries!

Free parking or discounted parking on weekends would be another great incentive, and would enable the big car parks to become partners and advertise the initiative. 

Transport uses 60 - 70% (depending on where you get your figures from) of Australia's oil.  Reduce that and you reduce 20 - 30% of our GHG emissions at the same time.  How great is that?

Towards a sustainable future! Be what you want to see.

Both noise pollution and air pollution need to be addressed for global sustainability, but also to facilitate each of us acting in our own small ways to reduce our energy use.