The Victorian Labor Government’s decision to deepen the Port Phillip Bay shipping channels through dredging doesn’t make sense.

In an article on theage online, key factors are noted:

• “The project will see 23 million cubic metres of sand, silt and rock ripped from Port Phillip Bay and dumped in two spoil grounds in the middle of the bay. At least 2 million cubic metres of it will be heavily contaminated silt from the Yarra River mouth.”
• “The heads will take a minimum of five years, and could take up to 30 years, to recover from damage caused by to the dredging.”
• The Federal environment minister is not expected to release the full details of his decision until 18 January, but the project is already scheduled to go ahead in just 3 weeks time.
• “Dredging opponents the Blue Wedges Coalition … say Mr Garrett relied on a smaller 2002 application to deepen the channel in his decision, rather than the far larger 2007 project approved by the Victorian State Government.”
• “Opponents of the project believe it will be an environmental disaster that will cause toxic algal blooms that could poison swimmers and contaminate seafood, and destroy unique marine life.”

Pretty damning facts against the government’s proposed project. But, I have saved the best until last:

Port of Melbourne Corporation chief executive Stephen Bradford has said current trade volumes were too small to warrant larger vessels.

A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts container numbers will be the same whether or not the project goes ahead. Either way, trade is expected to jump from 2.1 million containers in 2010 to 7.1 million by 2035.

Just what damage will the Brumby Government be doing with $1 billion of our money?

Edit: check out this damning opinion piece also appearing in The Age on 12 January 2008.

I am doing a holiday cleanup of my workspace at the moment - and that includes email accounts and settings. I’m trimming the stuff that I don’t read much. I confess to subscribing to a LOT of lists, but then losing interest after some time.

And that’s how I happened across a graphics.com newsletter subscription — one I haven’t looked at in a long time (18 months).

However, given the content I’d be happy to stay a member, but move the messages over to my private Google mail account — which I use for mailing list things. My primary work inbox is no longer used for any lists. I prefer to separate out the list messages so I can view them at a time of my choosing, without a bunch of filters in my primary inbox.

Graphics.com had only two options at the bottom of the message: to either cancel/unsubscribe, or go to the members area. As I only wanted to change my address, not cancel, I tried the members area. But I was presented with a nickname/password login. Nickname? Password? I can’t remember my nickname — I haven’t been reading the messages or to the site in 18 months. The only way to retrieve the password is with the nickname — which I probably created 4 or 5 years ago when I first subscribed.

My only option: to cancel. One click, done.

The EASIEST option presented was the one for me to cancel! No easy option to change address… clearly that process needs more thought to keep rather than lose customers off your list.

Would you rather your clients disappear easily in one click, or work out a way to easily have them self-manage their email address on your list?