Talk:Health and environmental impact of transport in Australia

This article

Is not in correct WP:MOS - it needs to be cleaned up to conform to generally accepted MOS format SatuSuro 12:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly the most biased article I have seen on Wikipedia. Its focus is on climate change (see the linked articles) rather than on the topic at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.12.75 (talk)

This article is just garbage. Completely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.138.175 (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Neelix: Why did you add the {{NPOV}} and {{essay-like}} tags to this article? Jarble (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me about this article, Jarble! I added these tags four years ago, so I don't remember my thoughts from back then exactly. My current assessment of the article is that it focuses almost exclusively on the issue of what can be done to reduce the environmental impact of transport in Australia, thereby implicitly biasing the article towards a stance that this impact is negative, substantial, and in need of being remedied without justification. It is quite possible (and likely) that such justification exists, but it is not provided in the article; the opinions of experts on the nature and extent of the environmental impact of transport in Australia is not included in this article (hence the first tag), and no opinions are cited that suggest that enough (or too much) is being done to address the environmental impact (hence the second tag). I hope this helps! Neelix (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environmental impact of transport in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724085454/http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-and-transport-subsidies.pdf to http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/energy-and-transport-subsidies.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Professional Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2024 and 5 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aggieeditor2003 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Aggieeditor2003 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I will be here for the next couple of weeks to do some editing on this article. The goal is to make it concise and unbiased. The major issue that I see here is that it is lacking structure and reads like a personal essay. When reformatting this article, I will be making changes for the general reader to easily comprehend the information presented. Please let me know if there are any comments regarding my edits. Aggieeditor2003 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Aggieeditor2003

Thanks. Great choice of article as it was certainly in bad shape before you started. I have never been to the country but I guess as it is large and rich there is a lot of domestic air transport? If that has significant environmental impact perhaps more should be added about it. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A few sources you might consider citing (mostly about roads I think):

https://oia.pmc.gov.au/published-impact-analyses-and-reports/improving-australias-fuel-and-vehicle-emissions-standards

https://www.edo.org.au/2023/11/01/poor-laws-contributing-to-an-estimated-11000-australian-transport-pollution-deaths-each-year/ Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aggieeditor2003 Do you think the article should include health impacts, and if so should the title be changed to maybe “Health and environmental impact of transport in Australia”? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chidgk1I think that including health impacts would be very beneficial to this article. Aggieeditor2003 (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

OK I renamed it but don’t be upset if someone else objects and renames it back again - getting late here - goodnight Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

March 2008 Newspoll Survey Results

I moved this here as not sure related enough to transport:Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

According to a survey conducted by Australian polling and market research company Newspoll in March 2008: 60% of all respondents from all states said that they would like to see a lot more resources pumped into subsidizing renewable energy, while another 30% said that they would prefer if both fossil fuel energy and renewable energy were given equal funding. 29% feel that the federal government provides more subsidies to fossil fuel energy compared to renewable energy. A further 26% are of the view that there is an equal level of funding, while 36% do not know. 56% of those who wanted to see equal or more funding for renewable energy want the federal government to kick in subsidies immediately, while a further 28% wanted action to be taken within the year.

"The Aluminium Smelting Industry"

I moved this here as not sure related enough to transport and maybe out of date as based on 2008 source:Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Hal Turton, the Group Leader of the Energy Economics Group at Swiss research establishment, the Paul Scherrer Institute, discussed in his report for Canberra-based think tank The Australia Institute titled: "The Aluminium Smelting Industry: Structure, Market Power, Subsidies and Greenhouse Gas Emissions", that the yearly electrical use subsidy for the use of the six aluminum smelters in Australia is at least A$210 million. According to the report, Australia's aluminium smelting industry is a party to one of the most subsidized electricity charges as compared to other similar establishments. The ISF report found that removing electrical subsidies would bring up electricity prices by 3.9%, which would lead to a fall in demand for electricity by 1.4% in the long run. Reducing transport subsidies would increase prices by 32%, which would lead to a fall in demand worth 18%. It suggests that subsidies should be removed gradually so as not to hurt drivers who have no choice but to use petrol (due to the lack of alternatives), and that taxpayer's funds be channeled to subsidize the sustainable energy industry instead.