Archive

Archive for September, 2007

Lateline – 27/9/07

September 28th, 2007

Hi Everyone,

Not sure who saw last nights ‘Lateline’ interview ‘Energy and environment consultant Terry Tamminen talks to Tony Jones from Los Angeles’

But i heard the following and was shocked and appauled, frustrated and angry all at the same time:

Terry said:

‘You know it’s interesting that a couple of years ago when President Bush started talking about hydrogen vehicles the American petroleum institute came out and said, “Well, wait a minute Mr President it would cost $140 billion to build a fuelling infrastructure in the United States that would have access to everyone for hydrogen vehicles – $140 billion is about what we spent invading Iraq in one and a half years.”‘

For the whole transcript go to:

Lateline

Ecofem
(Amanda)

Ecofem General

Putting some spine back into the NSW Greenhouse Plan

September 12th, 2007

This is a copy of a letter to the editor I have sent to a number of papers which addresses the likely future new coal fired power station.

The NSW “The Greenhouse Plan” released by the Premier the Hon. Morris Iemma MP in November 2005 was a key policy underpinning the re-election of the NSW Labor Government. It contained a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2025, and by 60 per cent by 2050.
The Owen report is being used to soften us up to accept another coal fired power station in NSW which directly contradicts the Premier’s plan.
It’s just more “business as usual”.
Well Mr. Premier, here’s a plan to stiffen your resolve. Give NSW 600MW of new wind energy. Give us another 600MW of solar thermal energy which is most productive when the air conditioners are turned on. Direct the same ruthless determination your planning minister exercises in support of the coal industry which is killing us to a bright and clean renewable sector. Cut 600MW of demand by using smart meters to make us pay extra to power the luxuries but not harm the essentials. Get another 600MW out of our geothermal deposits in the Hunter region and South Australia.
Now, there’s a plan Mr Premier and its one that meets your commitments to the people of NSW. You know the sale of the retail licenses for $10 billion is a once off windfall – what happens next time when the cupboard is bare?

Rob Parker

parker Energy, General

Walk against warming

September 9th, 2007

There is a proposal to hold another walk against warming two weeks prior to the federal election (whenever that is held). See the latest Canwin bulletin for further details. It is envisaged that, now that the group has public liability insurance, we can hold the walk that was always intended last November, and which ended up as a public meeting in the CWA hall in Bowral.

We obviously need to balance the need to bring the attention of Southern Highlands residents to the issue of climate change against the potential risks to participants in any walk that we sponsor. Noone who was present at the Warm the Heart event at the Empire cinema two weeks ago could have missed the fact that most people interviewed for the vox pop video had either very little idea about climate change at all, or some rather confused notions.

Geoff Byrne has had a meeting with relevant council staff about the logistics of organising and controlling such an event. His findings were as follows:-

“If the “walk” is classified as a “Special Event” we would need a Traffic Management Plan accompanied by a “Risk Assessment” and quite a bit of other stuff, all completed by and supervised by an Accredited Traffic Controller supervising accredited staff. (The RTA guide on the subject runs to 42 double sided A4 sheets.) The cost to Council for the Anzac Day March using the cheapest consultants and staff is $12,000.
If we run an event where everyone walks on the footpath, crosses the roads strictly in accordance with the law, and do not impede traffic, we would not be holding a “Special Event” and would not need to seek permission from anyone – other than to use the parks perhaps. It seems we don’t have much option but to walk, in an orderly fashion, on the footpath.”

We obviously cannnot afford to hold a “special event” and incur costs of the order that Geoff was quoted. Therefore, we need to decide on a suitable route which minimises traffic risk and also how to manage the walk in an orderly fashion so that those participating create the desired visual impact without putting themselves, or others, at risk.

Geoff Byrne has proposed a walking route as follows:-

“Assuming we gather in Lions Park at the southern end of Bong Bong Street and finish in Corbett Gardens, the best route would appear to be;

Cross Bowral Street as traffic permits,
Walk up the western footpath along Bong Bong Street,
Cross Baynette Street as traffic permits,
Continue up the western footpath of Bong Bong Street,
Cross with the traffic lights to the eastern footpath, i.e. diagonally but use both directions,
Walk along the eastern footpath to Corbett Plaza, through the Plaza and to
Corbett Gardens.

Two hundred people walking in a “conga line” or something similar obviously has the potential to cause some disruption to pedestrian traffic – particularly if more than one abreast and carrying placards etc. We would need to be sufficiently disciplined to minimize any angst, and not engage in or respond to any provocative or disruptive behavior.”

There has been another proposal that we don’t walk, but simply stand in the street, out of the way of other pedestrians, and hold placards or signs up for a set amount of time and then move off to Corbett Gardens. The problem here is that we still have to get the people into position, and that effectively means walking in a group to get to any position along Bong Bong street that we stand in.

My proposed solution is that we walk, but in tightly controlled groups of approx. 10 people. There would be a “group guide” for each group, who would move out at suitably spaced intervals, thereby avoiding any traffic disruption and minimising risks to those walkiing. The groups would be formed at Lions Park and would stay together until they reached Corbett Gardens. We could also have some Canwin volunteers stationed at each road crossing to assist each group to safely negotiate each road crossing. Each group guide would wait for the previous group to move well ahead before commencing their route, and in this way we should be able to get even quite a large number of people safely from point A to point B. The success of such a plan will rest with the people charged with controlling the people who have gathered in Lions Park and being able to instruct them clearly about how they should conduct their walk to Corbett Gardens. A little pre-plannig and a megaphone should enable us to get the message across to even a very large gathering. We would need probably 20-25 Canwin volunteers to act as guides and crossing “marshals”.

We also need to think about what will happen once the group gets to Corbett Gardens. It is obviously an ideal opportunity to “sell” Canwin and its various sub-groups. I suggest that we have some displays from each sub-group with literature explaining the functions of each and people involved manning the displays. We will also need some speakers to “fire up” the crowd and get them enthused about climate change as an issue ahead of the election. The committee suggested that the research group come up with a leaflet containing a matrix showing which political parties support which issues related to climate change. We will not promote any party but simply provide an easy comparison for voters to make their own decisions.

We are looking for feedback. Come on people, get involved!

andrew General

Do we need a meeting perhaps?

September 6th, 2007

Not sure whether more than a very very few reads these blogs. However, might as well give it a go here. Unless I’m mistaken, there would seem to be two issues that need resolving at the moment, and probably before the next scheduled meeting: (1) Canwin’s support or not of the climate change bill, (2) the best democratic way of maintaining discussions (emails, blogs or neither) between meetings.

Ad (1): As far as I can see, I don’t think Andrew’s blog below has got it right on the climate change bill issue. It’s neither a matter of some attempt at consensus-finding failing nor one of semantics and commas in the climate change bill. My understanding is that Rob has now changed his position to recommending that Canwin not support the Bill because the Bill itself has changed in a way he considers somehow ‘unrealistic’.  After no doubt substantial feedback, the Bill has (thankfully in my view of course) dropped the ‘nuclear as a last resort’ option and does not mention a ‘clean coal’ option, both of which Rob favours. Rob also seems to consider the Bill’s position on banning old growth forest logging as somehow unsatisfactory. One could argue that Canwin’s Federal government proposals passed on July 31st also exclude the ‘last resort nuclear’ and ‘clean coal’ options and that we could therefore as an organisation support the Bill, a position I think Sandra has taken.  (As for old growth forests, well one might have thought that self-evident in a group like this but I’m no longer surprised by anything much…). If Rob cannot now support the Bill and does not want Canwin to support it despite our Federal proposals, then I guess we just need another (quick) meeting to cast our votes on the issue.

 Ad (2): Andrew has made a good point about the problem with just sending emails on important issues to a select group of people with emails (not all Canwin members with emails receive these emails, e.g. those of Rob and Sandra on the Bill issue). The blog is used by just a very few keen people to post or comment. Blogging seems better suited to voicing opinions and discussions on issues anyway, it seems. Perhaps that is what it should continue to be while the democratic procedure would be that emails go out to ALL people with email addresses and the rest have to get the same information by snail mail.

peter General

Democracy – Is the climate right?

September 4th, 2007

Canwin as a group needs to decide whether it is an all inclusive group that works only by consensus, or a democratic organisation that runs and makes decisions on the strength of the majority. The debate we are having (or indeed not having) about the climate change bill is an important case in point.

The climate change bill is not – as some would have us believe – an immutable piece of proto-legislation. It is a declaration of intent, however imperfectly formed, which expresses some of the issues that got many of us fired up enough to join this group in the first place.

And now that we are actually being called on to DO SOMETHING – several people are actually running for the hills. It is like something out of a Monty Python sketch. Are we the Judean Peoples Front? or the Peoples Front of Judea? I personally am fed up with the interminable debate over semantics. Who cares if the bill is not perfectly worded? It’s never going to make it into law unchanged anyway. Virtually no legislation ever does.

We have had an opportunity to support a broad climate movement initiative and we have sat on the sidelines wondering if the full stops and the commas are in the right place.

Democracy is never simple, but in my opinion we are not going to get decisions on important issues affecting group policy if we have to attempt to reach consensus. We are in danger of becoming irrelevant if we don’t make these decisions. I haven’t got time to do irrelevant.

andrew General