Reuters News Service – Woking in England is a town of 90,000 people that has slashed emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from civic buildings by 77 percent and its success is proving a model for giants like nearby London and other cities.

“We see ourselves as a pathfinder for others,” said Mick Company, Woking’s climate change project manager. “We are very proud of our successes. Our long-term strategy is to spread what we are doing here to the world.” Woking’s main Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant provides heating, lighting and cooling to the main carpark, the town hall, a local hotel, a conference centre and an amusement arcade. It will soon power an art gallery and museum as well.

The plant burns gas to generate electricity, captures the exhaust heat — most of which is lost from conventional power stations — and uses it to supply hot water. It has a maximum capacity to generate 1,300 kilowatts of electricity, 1,600 KW of heat and 1,200 KW of cooling. Woking is even testing self-powered street lights, comprising two arms with energy-generating solar panels and a cylindrical wind turbine as a head.

For London’s deputy mayor Nicky Gavron, Woking offers a glimpse of a possible revolution. “We are aiming for a low-carbon London,” said Gavron, who has hired Allan Jones, one of the designers of Woking’s energy scheme, to work his magic in the capital, home to 8 million. “We are looking at making a big dent in the next five years. This is not just a small Woking model. This is a huge scale-up,” she told Reuters. “Every London borough is bigger than Woking.”

GREEN POWER

The World Meteorological Organisation said that greenhouse gases, like CO2, had reached their highest ever levels in the atmosphere. Such gases, released from burning fossil fuels, are widely blamed for rising temperatures. “Cities are centre stage. They are the most vulnerable to climate change but at the same time they make significant contributions to the problem,” Gavron said. The United Nations estimates that by 2030, around 4.9 billion people, or 60 percent of the world’s population, will live in cities. (Note: In Australia the figure is over 85% already)

Woking’s green plan was driven initially by the need to save money, but the town found it was also cutting CO2 emissions. As well as the CHP plant, a large hydrogen fuel cell — the first of its kind in Britain — provides heat and power to the local leisure centre, small-scale CHP units provide heat and light elsewhere and roof-top photovoltaic cells, or solar panels, power sheltered accommodation for pensioners. Fuel bills in the buildings supplied are lower than in the past, and Woking even sells power back to the national grid.

Gavron’s team want to take this basic model and adapt it to London, where they hope to cut CO2 emissions by 60 percent by 2050. One third of carbon emissions come from buildings. They plan neighbourhood CHP plants and microgeneration systems such as solar, photovoltaic and small wind turbines. Starting with new developments and civic buildings from police stations to town halls, Gavron’s Climate Change Agency is also enlisting business in the battle to deliver clean power.

London has signed up EDF Energy, subsidiary of Electricite de France to help develop community energy schemes. “There is plenty for us there to lead by example. We can’t preach to others if we don’t get our own house in order,” Gavron said. “After all, 70 percent of London’s CO2 emissions are from buildings, and 44 percent of the total is from homes.” “We want to catalyse the market,” she said.

Gavron accepts costs are an obstacle — whether developing the energy infrastructure or installing domestic wind turbines. She believes rising demand will bring down prices for the latter and a 25-year investment period should neutralise the former. London is not alone in its search for greener pastures. Last year, officials from cities around the world met in London to discuss conserving energy. A core group from around 20 cities are now working to push the agenda forward, looking at building standards, energy efficiency, sustainability and security of power supply.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has volunteered his city to host a follow-up meeting. “We are working very closely with Toronto,” Gavron said. “We are using the Canadian energy efficiency model … and working on a pilot for London.”

Would this be a good energy building block for the transition towns strategy? The catchment of the Southern Highlands is not too far from that of Woking…

andrew General

At last month’s committee meeting it was resolved that there should be a debate within Canwin to determine a policy regarding nuclear energy. What we now need is for ALL Canwin members to submit their opinions on this subject so that we can frame a/some suitable policy statement(s) for consideration by the general membership of Canwin. This is YOUR climate action network – please make sure that YOU have YOUR say. If people don’t contribute to the debate then they may end up with something that they don’t like as Canwin policy. So GET INVOLVED!!!

Thankyou to all those people who have emailed me so far. The response has been very encouraging, but we need feedback from as many as possible. Please ask/prod/chivvy all those who you know in the group to make sure they have submitted something on this issue. The deadline for submissions is 31st July, 2008. All submissions will then be collated and reviewed with a view to summarising the majority and/or minority position(s) ahead of a vote at our quarterly meeting in August 2008.

Members will have the opportunity to put their views at the meeting in what I hope will be a frank and open discussion of the issues surrounding nuclear energy. It is my hope that everyone will come to the debate with an open mind – willing to listen to ALL viewpoints – even if they may not agree.

We will be looking for a consensus position, however should that not prove possible we will seek a democratic majority vote on the nuclear issue, subject to this being agreed and accepted as a method of determining policy positions by the group.

Please email me at aforbes@hinet.net.au to lodge your submission prior to the 31st July, 2008.

Thanks,

Andrew

andrew General

I am writing because I wanted to give advance notice to all committee members that I intend to bring up the issue of the Garnaut emissions trading submission. I believe it concerns three very important issues for this group – the first is accountability – or perhaps more properly democratic accountability. The second is consensus versus majority decision making. The third is inclusive versus exclusive discussion.

Taking each in turn –

1. I should say right from the outset that I am not on a witch hunt for Rob Parker, or anyone else who selflessly worked to produce a detailed response for the Garnaut submission. However, Rob had no right to sign us up for nuclear power, knowing how contentious an issue it is for this group. I reiterate – until we have discussed the nuclear issue in more detail and reached a position we cannot give in principal support to the nuclear industry, whether as a primary energy source, or as a fallback position. I again call for our submission to be recalled and re-submitted without reference to nuclear power.

2. We must decide the basis on which we will vote and accept a position of policy within the group. My contention is that we should go with a majority set at, say, 75% of a quorum of members. We are a disparate group with a common aim and we are not going to get far or remain a cohesive group for long if we attempt to reach a consensus position on matters that are by their very nature, controversial.

3. We must open all our debates, whether committee or general, to the full membership of Canwin. I think that this process of restricted email lists (such as I am engaged in now!!) is excluding people from debates that they have every right to be a part of, and is affecting Canwin as a group detrimentally. We can do this easily via discussion lists and several other means if necessary. This means that noone HAS to receive the information, but those who do wish to CAN. I find the current situation is elitist and undemocratic in the extreme. It excludes the majority of our members from “observing” committee (and other) debates, and prevents them from participating as and when they choose to do so.

I look forward to seeing you all on Sunday.

Regards,

andrew General

We had a great success raising funds for Canwin last Saturday at the Walk against Warming event by selling halogen globes. These globes are 20W instead of the normal 50W and are priced at $10 for a pack of four globes. Please support Canwin and buy a pack or two if you (like me) have few halogen fittings in your house!

andrew General

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

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

I’m throwing in local manufacturing as a topic for discussion in the ‘B’ list. 47 years ago manufacturing was almost 30% of GDP in Australia. That figure has fallen to 13% over the last four and a half decades – almost 9% below equivalent levels for other OECD countries. This sharp drop in our manufacturing base was blamed on poor local demand (ie our population base was too small to support any reasonable manufacturing operation, or so the argument went) and our higher wage structure compared to our asian neighbours (we were prepared to pay our workers a living wage).

Much of our manufacturing has been moved offshore, because, according to the highly paid CEO’s of most of our public companies (why isn’t anybody concerned about the high wage structure of our public company executives??), the costs of manufacturing in asian countries such as China are so much lower. This (supposedly) makes our manufactured goods cheaper.

The reality is that, if you examine the resulting effects on the Australian economy, we end up with a chronic current account deficit (that’s an overdraft to you and me). Why does that matter? It matters because, every time the economy strengthens we increase spending on manufactured goods, and because those goods now have to come from overseas we have to sell our dollar to buy the overseas currency to pay for them. That puts downward pressure on the Australian dollar and (by default) upward pressure on interest rates. This is part of the reason why interest rates in Australia are chronically higher than in many other OECD countries.

So what has all this got to do with climate change? Well, for a start, higher interest rates means it is harder to raise capital for investment in new technologies and research and development – so vital for the development of new industries like renewables. The reluctance to base manufacturing in Australia means that whenever we want to buy consumer goods they have to have travelled from China or other asian countries, and therefore have significantly increased carbon footprints. Our ability to produce low cost community based manufactured products or equipment is impaired because we have lost the necessary expertise.

The only way that overseas manufacturing makes sense is if:

1. You don’t count the environmental cost of transporting the goods
2. You want to boost your profit margin by manufacturing goods in countries where workers have no rights and work in conditions and for pay levels that we would find immoral (how is it that we still manage to justify it to ourselves when we buy these goods?)3. You are a CEO or shareholder and want increased profits and dividends regardless of the cost to the environment and our children’s futures

We have also not considered the effect on local communities of manufacturing jobs disappearing from our shores. Manufacturing provided manual, technical and administrative jobs for young people in a broad spread of urban and rural communities. With their disappearance went many of the rural and regional jobs, with a consequence that many were forced to the cities in search of service industry jobs (the new government and business focus). This has lead to more commuter oriented lifestyles with even higher emissions.

However, now our call centres are being relocated to India – if our future is not in manufacturing and not in service industries then where will our children work for a living?

Local manufacturing means local jobs, closer communities, less commuting and lower emissions. A win – win situation.

andrew General

After the last committee meeting on Sunday – a record four hours duration – some of us came away feeling very drained. The central issue of the meeting was Canwin’s inability to voice its support the climate protection bill because we have not (as a group) debated and agreed our joint position on several important issues raised within the bill.

The meeting also raised two other very important issues – are we a group that will only make decisions by consensus? – and will we avoid all conflict (between group members) to the extent that action on any important issues becomes impossible for fear of offending or isolating one section of our diverse community of members.

Integrity is obviously a hard thing to sacrifice on the altar of the ‘greater good’. And who decides what ‘good’ is anyway? Perhaps if the issues here weren’t so politically sensitive, and this wasn’t an election year, we might have more time for endless debate and discussion. But it is an election year and the realists amongst us know that this is the only time that politicians will listen to the man in the street. If we really care about getting a useful message out into our community, then we need to ACT – firstly to make our own message clear (that means debating the ‘B’ list now) – secondly to DO what we all claimed to want when we first came together as Canwin.

Sandra Menteith has sent everyone the ‘B’ list topics. Please choose those dearest to your hearts and lets have a robust and honest debate – and then move forward and ACT!

andrew General