The false dichotomy of environmentalism…

Peter at Not PC has made the claim (or rather, repeated George Reisman’s claim) that environmentalists are just recycled communists and fascists with a greenwash. Specifically:

The “extremists” among you openly call for the death of 1 to 6.4 billion human beings. The “moderates” among you openly call for the forced reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 90 percent within a few decades, which would serve to reduce energy use almost to the same extent.

We are presented with the argument that it’s either survival through unrestrained capitalism, or the death of our species and our civilisation through ‘environmentalism’. Either we survive, or we knock ourselves of for the good of the planet.

This argument is a cop-out, because it presents the issues that we face today as a blatant false dichotomy.

There are a very small few individuals who believe that the world would be better off with a smaller population of humans, but it is disingenuous to represent those views as part of the broader environmentalist movement and then demand that the rest of us distance ourselves from them. The vast majority of us [environmentalists] do not advocate a culling of human populations and we most certainly do not condone those views. To tar us all with the same brush, and then claim that the onus is on us to prove that we are not genocidal maniacs is reprehensible.

The second claim, that the reduction of our environmental impact will inherently lead to the destruction of all that is good and holy in human civilisation is blatantly false. The exact opposite is true. If we continue on our current path of consumption and waste, the human civilisation that we obviously hold so dear is unsustainable. Our consumption of resources is well beyond what is available to us in the long term. All that environmentalism demands is restraint, and a true evaluation of our needs and wants as individuals.

Capitalism has acted, particularly in the latter half of last century, to change our role in society and democracy from citizen to consumer. We are living in the age of the Thing. We confuse our want of things for needs, the result of billions of dollars worth of advertising, PR and an unholy alliance between our businesses and our political systems.

There is of course no problem in consuming things, but when we consume beyond what we really need to profligate excess, and simply discard what we no long feel we want, there will be consequences. Climate Change is but one consequence to our culture of consumption; a long term effect that in my view will have less of dire effect on the ability of our species to survive than our destruction of habitats across the globe, aquatic and terrestrial. The survival of our species is inherently dependent on the survival of our ecosystems. On a basic level we require oxygen from the oceans and our forests, but more subtley, the ability of life to withstand perturbations, catastrophes and disasters is dependent on how diverse and robust our ecosystems are. We are not helping ourselves by ripping it up, filling it with shit or introducing invasive species.

To claim that reducing our consumption (and as a consequence our carbon dioxide emissions) will drastically reduce the quality of life of Americans (and by association the western world) is utterly false when we consider that the quality of life of the consumer is padded with excess and waste. Our quality of life will not be harmed if we walked or cycled or bused to work or school 2 or 3 days a week. Our quality of life will not be harmed if we did not eat meat 2 or 3 days a week. Our quality of life will not be harmed if we chose not to use plastic bags to carry our shopping. Our quality of life will not be harmed if we chose to switch to renewable energy sources. Our quality of life will not be harmed if we chose to use a more fuel efficient vehicle rather than the obscene and frankly selfish vehicles that some of us think we ‘need’. Our quality of life is likely to be increased – we would save money, we would live healthier lives and would begin to appreciate our resources.

Consider this small fact:

If all American households used their clothes dryers for only half of the year, enough energy would be saved to turn off an entire nuclear power plant. Carbon emissions would be reduced by 3.3%, simply by hanging washing on a line for only half of the year. Currently 60 million Americans who belong to home owner’s associations are not allowed to use washing lines because they are unsightly and unsafe, despite over $90 million worth of damage occuring annually from drying machine fires.

Granted, It will take a lot more than just using the clothes line to decrease the impact of mass consumption, but it is possible to do it without decreasing our quality of life. All it requires is a change of mindset and a breaking of habits, thinking about where our products are coming from, how they got to us and whether or not we want them or need them. It will require turning our backs on being selfish and questioning whether or not the way that we are acting is harmful to other people (through slave labour and exploitation) or to our planet. It will require a change in our business models – a shift from short term profiteering to long term viability. In the long run, the ability of our civilisation to survive is dependent on our need to wake up from the opiate of things and realise where that path is taking us. I don’t hold out much hope. It is easier to accept the soma of convenience, excess and consumption than accept the hard truths about the consequences. Waste in the landfills; heads in the sands.

I find Reisman’s final quote the most ironic, steeped as it is in hypocrisy:

Accept moral responsibility for the ideas you propound and stop standing in the service of mass destruction and death.

Consider which economic system has caused the most mass destruction and death

Plant of the Week

As I was writing yesterday’s post, I happened across a few photos of a plant that I had been very eager to see while on my trip. It’s an iconic outback plant, and you really have to see it for yourself to experience it. It’s a truly remarkable sight:

.

Sturt’s Desert Pea – Swainsona formosa

.

The Swainsona genus is an iconic and ubiquitous Australian taxon, comprising >40 species spread throughout the dry arid zone, and along the wetter margins of the east and west coast. Swainsona is in the Fabaceae or pea family, which is one of the most widespread and diverse in Australia – particularly because of the Acacia genus (the wattles) of which there are approximately 800 species in Australia.Sturt’s Desert Pea, like much in the Outback, is named after the (in)famous 19th Century Explorer, Charles Sturt, who led an expedition into the centre of Australia in search of the ‘Great Inland Sea’. Needless to say, it didn’t end too well. It is an ephemeral plant, which means that it’s growth and reproduction occurs in response, or is timed to occur, after the seasonal rains that provide temporary relief to this harsh environment. It grows at an amazing rate, and is a sight to behold as it spreads across ephemeral creek beds, usually close to the ground in a way reminiscent of the The Red Weed

The flowers themselves are just exquisite, and so different to other members of the Swainsona genus. They are about 8-9cm long, arranged usually in a group of six in a circular arrangement. The blood red petals are long and pointed, and in the centre of the flower is a deep black spot that lends an even more surreal quality to the plants. The specific name formosa is a derivative of the latin formosus for beautiful. The pictures below show just how beautiful these flowers are, taken in Dead Horse Gully in Sturt National Park, just 5 minutes from Tibooburra.

S. formosa growing across an ephemeral creek bed
at Dead Horse Gully, Sturt National Park.
[Click Image to Enlarge]

.

Close up
[Click Image to Enlarge]

Outback Australia NSW

In August and September last year I spent two weeks in the outback, around the area of Broken Hill, Fowlers Gap, and right up in the north-western corner at Sturt National Park, collecting plants for my Masters. I travelled with Tony and Viv Whitaker, who provided the most amazing field support. Tony, as I mentioned in my last post, is a herpetologist who travels all over the world doing field work for varied individuals and organisations. It was an absolute pleasure to travel with Tony and Viv, who were invariably optimistic and motivated in the face of the law of diminishing return.We flew into Sydney and then straight to Broken Hill, where we spent one night before heading onto the road up to Fowler’s Gap, a research station of the University of New South Wales. We stayed in a little single room cottage running solely of solar and wind power, of which there are plenty in the outback.

.

.

The Ochre Cottage

.

.

The Barrier Ranges around Broken Hill

 .

.

The landscapes are just phenomenal; they really have to be seen to be believed. Gibber plains – the eroded remnants of billion year old mountain ranges represented today by the low lying Barrier Ranges – stretch on for hundreds of kilometres. The roads are criss-crossed dry creek beds that flood during the rains in winter, but remain dry for 90% of the year, bordered by Red River Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) which dominates the land along with Belah (Casuarina pauper), Mulga (Acacia aneura), Dead Finish (A. tetragonophylla) and millions of saltbushes, daisies and peas.

.

.  

A common sight

  .

  .

A not so common sight – Swainsona fissimontana after rain

  .

  .

Probably the hardest thing to grasp about the area is that every square metre, except for those in the National Parks, is farming land. Where you see the ground covered in nothing more than rock and sand, you will see fences. It is incredibly unproductive and extremely damaging on an already vulnerable environment. Communities essentially collapse there because the slow growing vegetation simply can’t withstand the herbivore pressure from cows, sheep, goats and kangaroos. Of course with the vegetation gone, the invertebrate and invertebrate communities also suffer. Not to mention the pressure on the Murray-Darling water system that farming here places. But of course, no one would dream of suggesting that farming ought not to be undertaken in the deep deep Outback because, well ‘it’s a way of life’. One that probably won’t last too much longer.

.

 .  

Grazed Land at Fowler’s Gap

.   

 .  

Non-Grazed Land at Fowler’s Gap – The Mulga Reserve

.

  . 

The land to the left of the fence is grazing land.
The land to the right has been fenced off for 30 years (the Emu Pen).

 .

.

After Fowler’s Gap, we stayed in Sturt National Park, a protected area in the topmost corner of New South Wales. We stayed at the Mount Wood Historic Homestead, administered by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Services and run by the amazing head ranger, Ingrid. Ingrid was a German PhD student studying kangaroos at Fowlers Gap who fell in love with the Outback and its kangaroos, and now nurses orphaned joeys back to health – with the help of pillowcases as surrogate pouches. She has an incredible amount of energy and passion for her job, which was inspiring. We should all hope to love our jobs with that much passion. The lack of grazing in SNP has allowed for a fantastic regeneration of the vegetation – where in Fowler’s Gap the land was barren and rocky, the plains of SNP are covered with beautiful herbs and shrubs.

   .

   .

Ingrid and her ’son’  

   .

   .

You can see why she fell in love with them…

  .

  .

The outback is a harsh but beautiful place. It can kill you easily if you’re not careful or prepared. But if you look closely enough you can see a world of colour and life, animals and plants that are so beautifully adapted to their environment, unique in their evolutionary histories. I hope that more Australians get the chance to experience it, and learn to treasure it.

  .

  .

Me

View my slideshow here