Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for November 2005

Phoenix Environmentalism

By

Brad Allenby, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Arizona State University, suggests in an essay at Earthvision website that ideologically driven environmentalism is failing, that there is a need for a new environmentalism which he terms ‘phoenix environmentalism’. Allenby writes that:

“Phoenix environmentalism rejects Edenic teleologies and static utopianism and accepts complex adaptive systems as preferable models of our current reality. This is a difficult step, for it cuts strongly against powerful existing emotions. It means accepting that humans will continue to impact evolutionary biodiversity, while creating designed biodiversity in companies and laboratories; that the world’s ecosystems will change profoundly as a result of human activity; that more technology, not less, will characterize the world.”

Read the full essay:

As readers will recall from their training in the classics (or Harry Potter), the phoenix is a bird that burns in old age, to be reborn from its ashes. Regarding environmentalism, a recent poll sponsored by Duke University speaks to the burning and old age: only 10% of those polled identified the environment as one of their top concerns, compared to 34% listing the economy and jobs. This would not be remarkable if we were in a recession, but it is quite significant given that the economy has been growing for a couple of years. Moreover, 79% claimed they favored stronger environmental standards, but only 22% said that environmental issues have played a major role in their recent voting. Judging by the almost total lack of environmental discussion in the last presidential election, even that 22% number is a gross overstatement of voter interest.

These numbers are in a sense simply validation of a trend that has been apparent for at least ten years. Classic, ideological environmentalism, born of the 1960’s, is not just in trouble; as the Nietzschean “The Death of Environmentalism” notes, it is deceased as a viable mainstream public policy discourse. With notable exceptions, the environmental community has not adjusted to this reality, instead huddling in an ever shrinking self-selected band of true believers waiting for the rest of the world to recover its senses and return to the alter. This can be seen in the unchanging negativity of the rhetoric of most environmental organizations; in the tendency to cling to the Kyoto Treaty as if it were the only talisman capable of granting safe passage to the future; in continued efforts to halt rather than appropriately shape powerful technological waves such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Thus, it is not surprising that to some the poll data represented “a clear disconnect” (the quote is from William Reilly, former U.S. EPA head). But in reality it does not. For most Americans, environmental issues have always been only one good among many, and in general as the most obvious environmental problems have been addressed, they have switched their priorities to other good they also value, such as jobs. For classic environmentalists, on the other hand, the environment is a transcendent value, and thus cannot be balanced away in such a risk/benefit calculus. The disconnect, therefore, is an artifact, and an indicator, of an environmentalism whose age has passed.

But there is a phoenix at work here, and an important one. It has several characteristics. For one, it is more systemic than the environmentalism it grows from, and displaces; whether reified as “environmental justice” or “sustainable development,” it integrates social, cultural, and economic factors as well as just environmental ones. For another, it rejects environmentalism as a dominant discourse in favor of understanding, and creating tools and methods for introducing, environmental dimensions into other human activities, especially management and design of institutions, products, and services. It also tends towards pragmatism, taking the position that it is better to accomplish what can be done within the world as it is, rather than insisting on an Edenic world that can never be.

But perhaps most fundamentally, phoenix environmentalism rejects Edenic teleologies and static utopianism and accepts complex adaptive systems as preferable models of our current reality. This is a difficult step, for it cuts strongly against powerful existing emotions. It means accepting that humans will continue to impact evolutionary biodiversity, while creating designed biodiversity in companies and laboratories; that the world’s ecosystems will change profoundly as a result of human activity; that more technology, not less, will characterize the world. It means accepting accelerating change in all human systems, which, in an age that scientists have already entitled “”the Anthropocene,” or the Age of Man, includes most “natural” systems as well. Indeed, the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, material flows of all kinds, the biosphere, oceanic and atmospheric systems — these are increasingly shaped by human design and human culture, and to deny this is simply to blink reality. In such a period of rapid technological, cultural, and economic evolution, ossified mental models based on unthinking attachment to past patterns will inevitably fail.

The solution is not to deny ethical responsibility for outcomes, or to retreat to irrelevancy, no matter how romantic. Rather, the challenge is to develop a phoenix environmentalism that enables us to ride turbulent waves of change while guiding them as best as possible to be ethical, rational, and responsible.

It reminds me of the piece by Steward Brand titled Environmental Heresis, click here.

………

Thanks to detribe for sending me the Earthvision link.

The Radical Right

By

I have previously posted that the left think the right are evil and the right think the left are dumb, click here. In the same post I suggested that people who really believe as much should get out and about a bit more.

Well last night I was out at the Brisbane Institute hearing Dr David McKnight from the University of Technology in Sydney promoting his new book “Beyond Right and Left: New politics and the Culture Wars”. As the title suggests, the event was promoted as being about moving beyond the traditional concepts of left and right in politics.

McKnight outlined the two reasons for writing the book:

1. The fall of the Berlin Wall signified the end of an era and crystalised a broader crisis of ideas for the left. At the same time Prime Minister Howard has made mateship and egalitarianism his values undermining a 150 year Labor tradition. In summary the foundational ideas are crumbling for Labor. Furthermore, with the rise of environmentalism, Labor has not been able to “capture ideas on environmentalism and try and squeeze them into a left bottle … it won’t work”.

2. The rise of the new right and its radical agenda with an emphasis on markets and individualism is driving radical social change and “transforming values”. McKnight suggests that there is nothing ‘conservative’ about John Howard’s agenda and that if the left are to counter they could perhaps embrace conservatism and recognise they have more in common with groups like Family First and the churches. He suggests Labor seek to build alliances with such groups drawing on shared traditional values.

McKnight then went on to suggest that the new alliance would be a progressive one.

When it was time for questions I asked: why would you label a new approach based on conservative ideas ‘progressive’? I suggested that it might be more appropriate to label John Howard and his so-called radical agenda ‘progressive’?

McKnight responded with the comment that the good guys are always the progressives, while the bad guys are always the conservatives.

So McKnight hasn’t progressed beyond the left-right divide and the notion that the right are fundamentally evil? The more I get out and about, the more it seems that the left really are dumb.

Patrick Michaels on Antarctica Getting Taller

By

Patrick Michaels, author of Meltdown, is yet another global warming skeptic. How can Ian Lowe, President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, in his new book, A Big Fix, claim there are only five global warming skeptics in the whole world! 😉

Michael Duffy interviewed Michaels on ABC Radio National last night on climate change issues, click here for the transcript. The interview will be replayed tonight at about 9pm.

I was interested in Michaels comments on sealevel change and also snow and ice at the Arctic and Antarctic:

Michael Duffy: Patrick, let’s turn now to some of the alleged effects of global warming: are the ice caps melting?

Patrick Michaels: The North Pole ice, at the end of summer, is definitely on its way down. Remember though, when the sun goes down on the first day of fall at the North Pole it starts to refreeze very, very quickly. It’s really kind of misleading to say the polar ice caps are melting. What you really need to say is that there’s a big degradation of ice at the brief end of Polish summer… this is the North Pole. Having said that, remember that there is a raft of scientific literature that shows that from about 4,000 years before present, on back to at least 8000 and some of them go back to about 11,000 years before present, the northern Arctic was warmer than it is today by a couple of degrees.

Antarctica is a different story. For all the news stories you hear about the warming of Antarctica, every story that says Antarctica is warming is wrong. There is a small area in Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula, that little land that juts out towards South America that shows warming. But if you average across Antarctica

95 Percent Organic

By

The Rich

Prince Charles and Camilla visited an organic farm near San Francisco over the weekend, and reader of this blog David Tribe made a few comments about organics on ABC Television Landline over the weekend.

I rather like this extract from the Landline commentary:

PRUE ADAMS: In Australia, there is no doubt organics is catching on among consumers and farmers. Still, it accounts for less than 1 percent of our agricultural output. Proponents point to little government support as one reason for its relatively slow growth.

BERNWARD GEIER: I must say – allow me to be critical for a moment although I’m a guest in your country – compared to other governments, Australia not only can do much more, it has to do much more, otherwise you will be left behind, because other governments have much more understood how important it is to support organic farmers, up to getting votes for doing the right thing because that’s what consumers want.

PRUE ADAMS: The organic sector is still rather a small niche in Australia and that’s where Dr David Tribe says it should stay.

DAVID TRIBE: I think in many areas, in many localities, it’s a great way of producing good quality food for rich people.

Prince Charles is rich enough to not only eat it, but also grow it.

Organic Tolerance

Interestingly under standards set by the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA), organic products are allowed 5 percent non-organic material and there are allowances throughout the standards for the use of non-organic inputs where it can be established that organic alternatives are not available.

GM Tolerance

But the organic growers want zero tolerance for genetically modified crops:

“Contamination of organic grain production is a very real possibility in Australia with this latest announcement. While the loss of premiums due to GM contamination might be arguable with conventional grains, it is a major reality with organic grains where premiums can be up to 100 precent above conventional prices.

BFA & ACO believe as a minimum that State Governments should:

1. Indemnify growers against loss of premium, cost of testing, liability for contamination costs down the supply chain

2. Introduce legislation to make seed companies strictly liable for any future sale or planting of contaminated seed

3. Seek to recover the cost of the contamination identified in Australia this year from the Seed Company(s) concerned

4. Reject any calls for pro GM industry groups to legalise contamination of up to 0.9 percent.”

In summary, organic can be only 95 percent pure, but a 0.9 percent contamination with GM is unacceptable?

Strict Liability

The Network of Concerned Farmers and organic growers have advocated the introduction of a ‘strict liability’ regime for GM crops. Mark Barber has just authored a significant report for Acil Tasman titled Managing genetically modified crops in Australia.

Barber makes the following comments concerning ‘strict liability’:

The Australian Government has chosen not to implement a strict liability regime for possible damage caused by GM organisms, and nor have the United States, New Zealand, Canadian or United Kingdom Governments.

Even so, the courts may be asked to consider the application of the principle of strict liability by a plaintiff. Strict liability is a tortious common law principle which imposes liability at law to a third party for the actions of another party, without proof of fault in their own actions. In other words, strict liability is liability regardless of fault, rather than without fault. The doctrine relates predominantly to matters of public and/or social policy importance. Its intention is to provide a safety net for compensation of activities, particularly those considered hazardous and inherently dangerous.

However, a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, after
discussing a range of case law, concluded that the doctrine has “no place in Australian law”.

The Australian courts resistance to strict liability is also partly explained by the difficulty the courts may face in defining what an extra-hazardous activity is.

Defining GM crops as extra-hazardous would mean that the courts are over turning the OGTR [Office of Gene Technology Regulator] approval process.

In the US ‘there is no strict liability for harm caused by an abnormally dangerous activity if the harm would not have resulted but for the abnormally sensitive character of the plaintiff’s activity (Kershen 2002): it is reasonable to assume that this concept would be also be considered by the courts in Australia.

It may be difficult for the organics industry to claim damages under ‘strict liability’ on the basis that GM crops are ‘hazardous and inherently dangerous’ as it would be difficult to establish that these farmers’ tolerance of GM crops was not abnormally sensitive, given that other areas of their activities allow quite generous tolerances of the use of non-organic inputs in comparison.

Is GM Different?

According to Mark Barber:

The Australian Trade Practices Act, 1974 has little concern with the actions of farmers growing GM crops per se or with AP [adventitious presence*] tolerances, other than ensuring that farmers (or any other parties) deal with each other in a truthful and honest manner. The Act does become relevant when a specified claim (whether non-GM, GM-free or organic) by sellers is found to be misleading or deceptive, just as in any other commercial situation.

Marketing claims by sellers have to be able to be substantiated by an assurance or identity preservation system. This is why, for example, NASAA emphasises that organic production relates to a set of production standards, not product standards:
‘Organic products shall not be labelled as GMO free in the context of this Standard. Any reference to genetic engineering on product labels shall be limited to the production and processing methods themselves having not used GMOs.’

In any event, a claim that a product is GM-free, non-GM or organic would only be made when there is a clear economic incentive. However, as noted earlier, most analysis conducted on the impact of GM crops in Australia has concluded that there are few price premiums available in conventional markets for non-GM crops proven to be free of co-mingling with GM product.”

…………

* Inadvertent mixing of one grain with another is often referred to as ‘adventitious presence’.

The Cost of Kyoto or Coarse Language

By

I’ve just received a few useful links.

The first email reads:

“Well, easy to see why Blair has done a U-turn on Kyoto if you read the following:

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=157608

and this, too, is a good summary:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAE28.htm

But what still just astonishes me is that reality is only setting in NOW, in 2005. Sensible, balanced commentators were predicting all these costs at least 5 years ago, but the Kyoto juggernaut just rolled on nevertheless.”

And I have previously posted on the cost to New Zealand here, https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000674.html .

Then I received something from a member of generation Y. The following link, also with future projections, is good fun if you don’t mind advertisements and some coarse language: http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm .

Why Ban the Plastic Bag?

By

In Australia good people now carry green bags to the supermarket and come away with their groceries in the green bags – rather than plastic bags.

I inspected my ‘Go Green’ bags this evening and found they are all made in China from polypropylene.

I googled ‘Go Green’ and discovered that 10c of every Go Green Bag is donated to the go Green Environment Fund which supports initiatives of Clean Up Australia, Landcare and Planet Ark. I wonder how much these charities will make this year out of the initiative?

There is a global campaign against plastic bags that seems to be really gathering momentum. I have learnt from WorldWatch that:

“Plastic bags start as crude oil, natural gas, or other petrochemical derivatives, which are transformed into chains of hydrogen and carbon molecules known as polymers or polymer resin.

The first plastic ‘baggies’ for bread, sandwiches, fruits, and vegetables were introduced in the United States in 1957.

In January 2002, the South African government required manufacturers to make plastic bags more durable and more expensive to discourage their disposal-prompting a 90-percent reduction in use.

Ireland instituted a 15c-per-bag tax in March 2002, which led to a 95-percent reduction in use.

In the early 1990s, the Ladakh Women’s Alliance and other citizens groups led a successful campaign to ban plastic bags in that Indian province, where the first of May is now celebrated as Plastic Ban Day. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom also have plans to ban or tax plastic bags.

Supermarkets around the world are voluntarily encouraging shoppers to forgo plastic bags-or to bring their own bags-by offering a small per-bag refund or charging extra for plastic.”

This is all very interesting information. But I am also keen to understand the extent of the environmental harm caused by plastic bags and the overall environmental benefit in switching to, for example, ‘Go Green’ bags.

Can someone provide me with some links or references?

I am particularly interested in any studies that quantify the impact of plastic bag use on the environment and the benefits of switching away from plastic bans?