With regard to the usual dismal election circus and spectacle, a quote from Ted Trainer (UNSW) might help set things in perspective:

“What governments, economists and people in general seem incapable of grasping is, there is no possibility of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to safe levels unless we face up to a massive reduction in the volume of producing and consuming going on; i.e. cut GDP to a small fraction of what it is now. This society, obsessed with high levels of economic output, high ‘living standards’ and keeping GDP rising for ever, is totally incomapatible with sustainability. It’s far beyond sustainable levels of resource use and environmental impact.”

 So what’s the solution?

According to Trainer: ” The huge and alarming global problems we face cannot be solved within a society committed to affluent living standards, economic growth, market forces, the profit motive, and individualistic, competitive acquisitiveness. How long will it take for this to be understood? The problems can only be solved if we shift to a simpler way of living frugally in small, highly self-sufficient local economies with no growth, in more participatory and cooperative ways. (For the detail see socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/) Our ‘leaders’ will never take us in this direction. If we are going to make the changes needed, ordinary people will have to start building alternative communities within existing towns and suburbs. When petrol gets very scarce this will jolt us out of our complacency; people will see they must quickly build local economic self-sufficiency. Cap and Share campaigns [radical form of carbon trading] can be valuable in raising awareness about the global situation, but don’t imagine such proposals can avoid the need for massive, radical system changes.”

 This is a position you won’t even find the Greens sharing at all (they tend to believe in the quick technical fix of renewable energy without questioning the growth and market and profit and consumerism paradigm). I imagine not many in Canwin share it either. Pity. But, as Ted says, maybe petrol prices will focus minds most sharply on re-localising the economy. But then again, maybe not. Who knows.

peter General

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:

Ecofem General

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

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

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

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

CANWin’s first street stall was held in Mittagong on Saturday the 25th August.
We are holding these every couple of weeks in different towns in the Shire to provide basic information to the public on climate change and they also serve to recruit new members.
Mittagong is a difficult venue particularly because the new shopping development has greatly reduced the number of people in the main street. Despite this, our first day was quite successful with 8 people registering with Sandra for our newsletter and two new confirmed financial members.
Nina D’Arcy has done a great job organising Council approvals and our roster. The first stall was attended by Sandra Menteith, Jeremy Hynes and Rob Parker. Jeremy showed great skills in meeting with people and has a very engaging manner.
Our selection of handouts has been greatly boosted by our own research group who have contributed ten different papers on subjects such a Greenpower, solar hot water and carbon trading.
Whether you are rostered on or not, members are encouraged to come along on Saturday mornings because these events are fun and are just a good outing. We generally grab a coffee and have a good yarn.
Our next stall will be at Moss Vale on the 8th September somewhere between IGA Tuckerbag and the newsagent and it will be run by Bob Thomas, Sheila Ring and backed up by Amanda Lambess.

From Rob Parker

parker Events, 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

Bob has suggested that we start posting blogs so as to stimulate Canwin discussions on various apparently more controversial issues upon which we cannot, as yet, find consensus (the ‘b list’). Bob suggests we do this by posting suggested Federal policy points, as modelled in the points passed by majority at the last GM (the ‘a list’). Good idea. So I’d like to start with the nuclear fuel cycle. Here’s my suggested formula:

Phase out uranium mining and prohibit the establishment of the rest of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia.

Clarification: It is a convenient myth to think one can just talk about nuclear power plants. These in fact cannot be separated from the whole nuclear fuel cycle: from uranium mining, via uranium enrichment, nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel reprocessing to nuclear waste disposal, nuclear transports between all these facilities and eventual plant de-commissioning. This whole nuclear fuel cycle creates a whole complex series of various forms of routine contamination and extreme danger. Here are just some of them.

• Uranium mining creates huge mountains of millions of tonnes of radioactive tailings which wind and water then spread into the environment for thousands of years.
• All nuclear facilities emit radioactive isotopes even under routine conditions. Routine radioactive emissions from uranium enrichment plants and fuel reprocessing plants are much higher than those from nuclear power plants.
• Even when routine emissions are considered ’small’, radioactive isotopes (e.g. cesium 137, strontium 90) must inevitably bio-accumulate up the food chains and contaminate food , breast milk etc., further adding to our toxic loads and those of our children, born and unborn, creating more terrible suffering of various kinds
• All nuclear facilities may undergo catastrophic accidents (e.g. Chelyabinsk, Sellafield, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl), releasing volumes of radioactivity into the environment that may dwarf the radioactivity released in Hiroshima
• The Russian Academy of Sciences estimated the deaths from Chernobyl at 200,000
• All of these facilities are an inherent security risk in that they provide all terrorists or wartime enemies with dream targets with which to get maximum destruction with minimum means
• The ‘peaceful’ nuclear fuel cycle is inherently linked to the spread of nuclear weapons of mass destruction and the undermining of nuclear non-proliferation
• The nuclear waste issue has not been solved, and in fact cannot be since no toxic materials can ever be artificially kept from the environment for thousands of years without the possibility of any leaking
• The whole nuclear cycle could not work without massive inputs of fossil fuel to keep it going and thus contributes to climate chaos
• The nuclear fuel cycle contradicts every single one of the five basic precepts of ecological sustainability formally accepted by all levels of Australian government in 1993 (ecological integrity, intra-generational equity, inter-generational equity, internalisation of external costs , the precautionary principle)
• It is thus purely and simply unethical from beginning to end.

Add to this list the generally accepted fact that nuclear power cannot exist without massive taxpayer subsidies and not enough can be built quickly enough to make any substantial difference to reducing greenhouse gases within the timeframne needed (the next ten years), and the whole case for nuclear power crumbles into a heap.

To support nuclear power - even as a so-called ‘last resort’ – would be to unethically add wholesale radioactive contamination to an already ecologically devastated and over-heated world. No climate change group can support it without losing all ethical credibility.

Peter

peter General