I share this sentiment – yet I think this only one side of the coin.

To be so confounded, demands a second opinion. So we look to a reliable model.

Nature offers a core system of operation and demonstrates that rapid change is possible using a generative model of growth – that is – it grows from within.

For us to succeed in deep localisation we need to behave like a hive, to collaborate, instigate, share, listen and speak.

The right change is actually happeneing everywhere. We are very quickly becoming an unstoppable force – people just need to know how to do it.

Which is campaigning 101. Education. One person talks to another who talks to another and so on.

Build. Grow. Start the structures… it’s happening all around us.

Just educate and do. The rest is history.

http://canwin.org.au/your-say/discussion-group/walk-against-warming-2007/

Hi Everyone

I agree with Nina and would prefer to have a demonstration rather than a ‘walk’. I think that Corbett Gardens are a top spot (or the mall) and that way we can set up a PA System and have some speakers and maybe a band. We can set up the CANWin stall and have people talking to the public as well as doing surveys??

I like the idea of having it on Saturday and then arranging a group of CANWInners to travel to Sydney on the Sunday to participate in the main walk. Those who have shirts could wear them!!!

I don’t think the benefits of a walk will really be worth it compared to say a demonstration.

Amanda

This is about the management committee managing issues at a practical level.

We agreed at the last meeting that Geoff would make the running with Wingecarribee Council which he has done and we now know Council’s ground rules.

As time is short and the election may be called within the next week I propose that we meet again urgently to finalise this matter.

I have spoken with Geoff and we propose to meet at the Uniting Church Hall tomorrow the 10th September (Monday) at 5pm for max 45 mins to finalise the route of the walk or possibly agree as Nina proposes. If anyone cannot make the meeting or would like to make it 6pm due to work commitments than please advise or call me.

Regards
Rob Parker

From: Andrew Forbes
To: ‘Nina D’Arcy’ ; ‘Geoff Byrne’
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 2:40 AM
Subject: RE: Walk Against Warming

Hi Nina,

I have posted a discussion of this topic on the blog. We need to have these debates available to the full membership (whether they participate or not). I will not participate in any further discussions via restricted email lists.

Regards,

Andrew

From: Nina D’Arcy
Sent: Sunday, 9 September 2007 12:14 AM
To: Geoff Byrne
Subject: Re: Walk Against Warming

Thanks for that Geoff,

I think that walking along the footpath will be risky, particularly as two streets do not have traffic lights and it is really difficult to control that number of people.

What if we didn’t walk, but staged another sort of public protest that would be just as, if not even more effective and then went to Corbett Gardens for speeches etc. What if we stood still and silent holding placards or symbolic items and wearing T-Shirts etc.? If we were able to position people in a single line down both sides of Bong Bong St. against the buildings (so out of the way of pedestrian traffic) and we stood in a dignified display of our convictions for a set amount of time. This would involve significantly more organisation beforehand, but would be worth it in the end.

Nina

On 9/7/07, Geoff Byrne wrote:
Please see the attachment and comment as you see fit. If we want to obtain
permission for any form of traffic control the next meeting of the Traffic
Committee at WSC is 22nd October.

Regards,
Geoff Byrne

I am responding to your recent comments regarding the decline in our local manufacturing base.
It is an emotive piece which I feel does not engage with the actual underlying causes of the loss of local manufacturing.

We lost manufacturing jobs in parallel with a steadily emerging services sector and also because of the massively profitable mining industry. Issues such as executive rates of pay are very much a minor but inflammatory issue in all this. The services sector has been described in The Economist as “things you can not drop on your foot”. The Australian Services Roundtable defined ‘services’ as follows:
Services deliver help, utility or care, an experience, information or other intellectual content. The majority of the value of that activity is intangible rather than residing in any physical product.

With around 80% of Australians now employed in the Services sector it is very rare to find anyone in CANWin who actually makes a tangible commodity for profit.
Australia’s growth in this sector parallels that of other advanced economies where Canada, the Netherlands, France, the U.K. and the USA all had service sectors employing between 75% and 79% of their workforce in 2005. All of these societies have seen the same type of growth rates in this sector since 1950

Over the longer term, the services sector is likely to increase further its share of the economy. This process has been slowed by the resources boom and might be expected to accelerate if or when the resources boom finishes.
In particular, the resources boom has affected the growth of services exports. Firstly, workers and investors are attracted to the mining sector by the higher wages and profits on offer there.
Secondly, the increase in mining exports is associated with an appreciation of the Australian dollar, rendering Australian services (such as a holiday in Australia or my own exported consulting fees) more expensive in world markets.

This phenomenon is more usually discussed in the context of mining hurting the manufacturing sector but it applies to the services sector as well. The effect may be less stark, though, as it is likely to be associated with only a slower growth in services, whereas the manufacturing share of the economy is actually falling.
The appreciation of the Australian dollar is indirectly a result of the industrialisation of China. This is bidding up prices of Australia’s mining exports and leading to resources being diverted to expanding mining production. It is a fairly widely held view that there is a tendency for countries who have a large increase in their resource exports to have an appreciation in their currency and, other things being equal, that will hurt their manufacturing and services sectors.

A shift in labour and capital to the mining sector from the services, construction and manufacturing sectors is an entirely understandable response to the long-lasting increase in returns in the mining sector. It poses challenges for the non-resources sectors.

So what does this mean for climate change? Well, the impact of peak oil will likely see a progressive winding back of the resources sector as the services sector becomes progressively more competitive. The manufacturing sector will probably continue to be most productive in those societies whose labour cost is less than the incremental increases in oil costs. This will inevitably push up the costs of manufactures which should also see their quality and durability improve.
I would think that fossil fuel consumption in sea voyages used to distribute goods would in many cases be less than that consumed by inefficient local industries. If for example we see the costs of solar photovoltaic panels reduce by 50% as appears likely with increasing Chinese factories coming on stream then we will see an increase in our services sector through more tradesmen installing them. What would be the point persisting in Australian manufacture if it constrained their uptake through higher production costs?

The decline in some regional communities has more to do with the shift away from poor farm incomes to the mining and services sector than the export of manufacturing jobs.

In conclusion therefore, the growth of our services sector combined with peak oil will massively constrain fossil fuel outputs particularly if the quality and durability of consumer goods can be improved. With 80% or more of people employed in the services sector our local communities will in fact prosper particularly if the remaining 20% are engaged in the production high quality local food and goods.

I have drawn on the House StanHouse Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration “Inquiry into the state of Australia’s manufactured export and import competing base now and beyond the resources boom” for some of the ideas in this comment