imho Things which would be handy in a context where we are trying to adapt to a dramatically smaller power consumption, local production, exploration of new technologies, reskilling, making diffferent tools.
- TAFE facilities with actual equipment for new skills doing applied research and experimentation. (Loss of workshop equipment and courses) - Open constructive dialogue on what things people are trying eg through the ABC (Cuts to ABC, discourse restricted to personalities, divisive, win lose framing. Focus on lies make people despair of effectiveness of democracy and possibly want a mechanism for removing a politician which could be used to make it hard for anyone to do anything constructive?) - Financial shift to new technologies (breaking RET, carbon tax) - Science no proactive commitment to climate adaptation mitigation science, cuts to CSIRO, cuts to Universities. - Good water supply so that local agriculture can feed the community. (If fracking with toxins and radioactive elements poisons the ground water for all livestock and communities what is left? Mining is the only thing possible? That would impact China's agriculture here. Not sure what the mix of goals is there. - Feeding ourselves Sale of agriculture assets to China which will want to export food to China which would not reduce our carbon footprint and reduce local food for local communities? Price pressure on local farmers from supermarkets.) - Farming without hi carbon inputs and which does not reduce biodiversity (China will use what methods? Changes to GMO free areas in WA, Steve Marsh v GMO) - Tasmanias forests (Changes to community's ability to act in defence of natural assets) - Pty Ltd and banking Limited liability in a context where coal at the barrier reef and fracking and end of fish shutting down people sending money to family limiting capacity for people to help each other - War Is the reason there is such interest in war on islam due to there being alternative ideas about responsibility in banking in islam? Perhaps our local army could be doing constructive adaptive engineering projects? (Army in Iraq spending $600k per shot of USA ammunition, spending billions on USA planes and submarines) - Wesfarmers and other retailers of all the things we buy are running the big miles with importing goods. Could they reconfigure to do low energy local production? Does it mean changes in scale and distribution? They could be a part of a change in skills and technology and local production but it would mean a shift in a model which has monolithic momentum using lots of carbon? - Ability to make law which helps us reconfigure. (China FTA and USA TPP block govt from acting if it impacts profits) - Aboriginal communities in WA (Which cities towns communities do we think *are* sustainable?) - Insurance Does PLI represent a monetary barrier or tax on community capacity, volunteer capacity? Can we do better? Legal, educational, communication, technology natural assets we need to adapt to climate issues are being deconstructed. Our multicultural commitment to each other and culture, infrastructure for being informed skilled and collaborative is being deconstructed. The government represents money not AU It would appear through the above actions that the money is not being invested in taking the nation forward constructively and in many cases is proactively breaking and removing the country's community's tools for change. Money is restricted to extraction and militarising. Fracking is happening in other places so I have to assume that the pattern is not special to AU but it is the AU stuff I can see. We need a plan B? How does that happen? _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
