Do we need a meeting perhaps?
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.
