th February 2010

Friday 18 September 2009 7:30pm
Wingecarribee Shire Council Civic Centre Theatrette, Elizabeth St, Moss Vale

Consider the budget figures. For every dollar for research into renewables, two dollars will be spent on the corporate ‘clean coal’ farce. For every dollar spent on tackling climate change, $28 will be spent on fossil fuel subsidies and $44 on military spending. Funding of the Department of the Environment has been cut by $50 million. Road transport and coal export infrastructure has been again favoured over rail and non-road transport. (Source: Jill Redwood, Potoroo Review, Winter 2008, p. 14).

In their more adult moments, most people probably intuit that Government is the handmaiden of Big Business. Our taxes are being used to fund coal expansion and thus our own destruction. Renowned US climate scientist James Hanson has proposed putting the CEOs of the big oil companies on trial for crimes against humanity, given their years of denial and successful outright sabotage of any tackling of climate change. Perhaps a good case could also be made for their political representatives in government to join them there? A million dead Iraqi men, women and children for imperial oil region control (and the right to continue increasing global warming) is surely another crime against humanity. Unfortunately however, such a court does not (yet) exist.

 

For your enjoyment is a short video made from the inspiring 2007 Walk Against Warming.

Below are two sites that have successfully created a wide appeal and are suitable for general consumption.

http://manpollo.org/ – a site that aggregates (or “mashes up” to use the correct term) a series of youtube videos using a risk management matrix for climate change. Created by a (science?) teacher using rational argument. Strong and simple, states that doing nothing to address climate change is unacceptable using the RM matrix. The creator has used Youtube to request “peer review” to validate assumptions and refine argument. There are seven hours (!) of video and they are chunked up nicely. I have watched the first nine minutes. The first video is well worth watching for opening the discussion about climate change action vs inaction. Aimed at inquiring minds (secondary students and up).

http://storyofstuff.com/ – clever animation showing the hidden cost of “stuff”. The cost to the environment and the third world. Very well packaged, weakness for analytical minds is that many “facts” are thrown to support the argument and they are not well cited. One “fact” is that computer manufacturers make a new chip every year that requires the entire computer to be thrown out rather than replaced. Having worked in ICT for 20 years I haven’t seen that chip! It is perhaps a comment on the rapid evolution of the tool rather than some planned obsolescence conspiracy on the part of the ICT PC manfacturers. Errors like this will diminish the value of the video, although the intent and thrust of the video is sincere. Aimed at impressionable rather than inquiring minds.

Are there more – have you seen short, sharp, punchy, succinct presentations? The internet is a great vehicle for moving information/knowledge/wisdom rapidly to a wide audience. These “useful” items are still small boats in a sea of self-indulgence and triviality, but they are there.

Andy

“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…

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

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,

1. That Canwin’s main focus for the next six months be on a local elections-oriented PEOPLE’S PLAN FOR TRANSITION SHIRE WINGECARRIBEE.

2. That Canwin develop a DRAFT PEOPLE’S PLAN (DPP) with specific proposals for a transition to a low carbon shire within c. two weeks based on the general philosophy of Transition Towns/The Simpler Way.

3. That the key phrases used in the DPP be: Climate Change, Peak Oil/POP (Price of Petrol), Energy Security, Food Security, Unsustainability of Sprawl, Higher Quality of Life.

 4. That the key specific issue addressed at the beginning of the DPP be the highly charged local one of NO PUBLIC LAND SELL OFF/NO LEISURE CENTRE  as being unsustainable in terms of Climate Change, Peak Oil/POP and Financial Responsibility.

5.  That living standard and ‘battler’ issues like the price of petrol, price of food, heating/cooling costs, lack of public transport, local swimming pools, outlying village shop prices be made central to the DPP.

6. That the main sections of the DPP be headed: Energy Security, Food Security, Water Security, Transport, Shelter, Community Cohesion & Cooperation.

7. That the DPP be both emphatic and open to feedback/modification by residents (e.g. at Canwin street stalls) and council election candidates.

8. That the DPP be finalised by June/July and then passed as the People’s Plan for Transition Shire Wingecarribee at a general public meeting at Council’s Moss Vale Theatrette.

9. That council election candidates be asked to support and, when elected, mandated to help implement the People’s Transition Plan in close cooperation with the community’s own initiatives and to report back to the public on an ongoing basis.

 Peter Lach-Newinsky