Hypocrisy and Spaceship Earth solutions

Hypocrisy riddles my writing.

"Spaceship Earth" - rebuilding it in
flight demands courageous leadership.

Frequently I lament public behaviour that furiously depletes earth’s finite resources and worsens the damage to our atmosphere and yet I stand with those my criticisms target.

That’s hypocrisy or in more colloquial terms, is the pot calling the kettle black.

My only defence, and it is rather weak, is that at least I am aware of the damage, why it is happening and what societal responses are necessary to mitigate the trouble, or at least how we should prepare ourselves for what is ahead.

A friend discussed the dilemma just recently and he too feels like something of a hypocrite in that he frequently espouses the challenges of climate change, but in the broader scheme of events is doing little, or at least in his view.

Personally, my life and that of my family, is embedded in the consumer society and although the courage to step aside from it is absent, that alone does not appear to be the solution.

Individual actions are wonderful and deserve applause, but without society as a whole shifting and realigning its priorities, we simply end up with a bunch of individuals living in way that might be sustainable, but absolutely inadequate in context to counter the behaviour of most.

The honourable work and intentions of that absolute minority is simply not enough to support society’s “free-riders” – that’s me, you and a whole bunch of people we know.

There is no immediate or easy solution to climate change – something unimaginable to generations of people who have grown up in an era in which technology could solve anything – as a two-degree increase over pre-industrial temperatures is certain  and three, four and five degrees is almost certain this century.

And so what does a hypocrite do?

Admit to the problem, find like-minded souls, set about creating a community conversation about the unfolding difficulties; ready, as best you can, local communities for what is ahead; and hopefully have some impact on Local, State and Federal politicians in the expectation that they may have vision and understanding of the coming challenges; and, subsequently, the courage to introduce legislative changes that will significantly alter society’s behaviour before nature steps in, forcing despotic changes, without appeal.

The idea of retreating from society to survive has its appeal, but ultimately it is strangely defeatist and it is worth remembering that climate change plays no favourites and while withdrawal to a well-stocked bolt-hole might allow momentary preservation, it will not, in a truly altruistic sense, do much for the overall salvation of society.

Rebuilding an airliner in flight would be an impossible undertaking; spaceship earth is in flight and with all systems failing, we now need courageous and innovative leadership to take us through this delicate refurbishment.

Unintended consequences a parent doesn't want to face

Life is really just a series of consequences.

Chase and Tyler who died in
 2010 of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Some are hoped for and so are the outcome of directed and planned effort, but the other side of the leger is made up of unintended consequences; some often pleasing and others quite the reverse.

An unintended consequence that derailed the life of Mooroopna’s Vanessa Robinson in 2010 when her sons, Chase, 8, and Tyler, 6, died of carbon monoxide poisoning further unfolded recently at Shepparton’s School of Rural Health.

The ramifications of that tragedy continue to ricochet through Vanessa’s life, but rather than succumb to the sorrow such moment can bring, Vanessa has set about helping others understand how such consequences can be avoided.

Just last month Vanessa launched the website for the Chase and Tyler Foundation - www.chaseandtyler.org.au.

Vanessa’s welcome on the website says:

“In 2010, my children Chase and Tyler Robinson died from carbon monoxide poisoning from an un-serviced gas heater in our rental property. They were only eight and six years old.
“In 2011, The Chase & Tyler Foundation was established to reduce the number of deaths and injuries in Australia caused by carbon monoxide.
“Through the efforts of the foundation to educate communities about this health hazard, Chase and Tyler’s legacy of saving Australian lives will live on.”

Ever eager to ensure that others don’t suffer a fate similar to her own, Vanessa, who works at GV Health and now lives in Shepparton, has exercised her contacts and recently had an expert in recognizing and treating carbon monoxide poisoning, Associate Professor Peter Morley, talk with about 100 people at Shepparton’s School of Rural Health.

Prof Morley, an intensive care specialist at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, took medical students from the Shepparton School and staff from GV Health through the intricacies and difficulties of recognizing a patient with carbon monoxide poisoning and then the equally complex subsequent problem of treating them.

Carbon monoxide is odourless and tasteless making its detection difficult in the extreme and there was some discussion at the recent lecture about the effectiveness of alarms for devices that produce carbon monoxide, particularly gas heaters.

There was some discussion about the importance of regular servicing of gas-fired heaters and one audience member said a recent service of her heater provided great peace of mind.

There appeared broad agreement among the audience about the need for regular checking and although there appeared to be agreement about mandated servicing and checking for rented properties, there was decided discomfort about making that society-wide.

 

Whatever happens, Vanessa wants others learn from the unintended consequences that left an indelible stain on her life and learn about it and take steps to ensure that the silent killer that is carbon monoxide doesn’t visit their lives.

First we 'Recognise' and then we vote

Well, that’s Reconciliation Week done and dusted for another year.

The symbol for
 the "Recognise"
campaign.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Maybe the actual week is over, but its intent, its reason and the idea that drives it goes on.

The matters discussed in Reconciliation Week are simply about human decency and they continue irrespective of what the week is called.

The treatment of Australia’s indigenous people got off to a rather bad start from the moment the first fleet arrived in January 1788.

The country’s indigenous people watched bemusedly as the rag-tag bunch of English men and women struggled to find a foothold in their new home, unaware that those new arrivals were about to be subject them to a genocide that constitutionally continues today.

Although Aboriginals had lived happily, sustainably and successfully on this country for thousands of years, the English arrived, acted as if it was empty and set about to recreate their homeland, and that included getting rid of whatever stood in their way, among them a few troublesome locals.

Those “troublesome locals” were slaughtered, harassed, herded, stolen, disposed and finally being considered a dying race, were not recognised in any sense in the 1901 Australian constitution.

About 50 people listened recently in Shepparton as constitutional lawyer and University of New South Wales law professor George Williams explained the dispossession and discrimination that is now a constitutional part of Australia’s indigenous citizens’ lives.

Professor Williams’ visit coincided with national Reconciliation Week and the launch of the pamphlet “Recognise”, a nation-wide initiative to make all people fully aware of the detrimental wording in the current constitution has on many people; particularly the many indigenous people who are a critical and vital part of the social mosaic of Australian communities.

Listening to Prof Williams was rather uncomfortable, for as a “white fella” who linage is linked to those “first fleeters”, I fall in with those naïve, insensitive, brutal and single-minded people who treated rather badly the original inhabitants of what we now call “Australia”.

I can do little to make right the transgressions of those early European colonizers for what  is done is done, but the constitutional genocide goes on and it is through that more than 100 year old document we could make some adjustments, as minor and as seemingly insignificant to us they may seem.

What happened in the lead-up to the writing of Australia’s constitution was, seen through today’s eyes, clearly wrong, but it had legitimacy then, but now is not then and the responsibility to change, update and recognise our original inhabitants will fall upon as all within about 18 months when the matter goes to a referendum.

Between now and then, it’s our responsibility to learn about the need for change and recognise it is simply about human decency.

The fragile candle of the future flickers in Shepparton

The fragile candle of our future flickers in Shepparton on Thursday night.

The passionate and articulate,
 Arundhati Roy.

A trio of speakers, marshalled on the night by Professor Kate Auty, will talk about opportunities arising from our changing climate, but deep within that conversation will be an urgency on which our understandable future hinges.

Thursday night’s “Slap Tomorrow – A Wake-Up Call” is about our communities understanding, accessing and utilizing opportunities that surface as we adapt to our changing climate.

Beyond that, Thursday night, in an almost unrecognized sense, is about this community re-imagining how it lives; it’s about our institutions; it’s about our governance; it’s about how we treat each other; it’s about regaining a sense of who we are, understanding why we are here and what is our purpose; it’s about an appreciation of our intergenerational responsibilities; and it’s about, importantly, securing the resources on which humanity is dependent –clean air, drinking water, food production, stable climate and a rich biodiversity for natural ecosystem function and the benefits of nature in providing human psychological health and the sustenance of countless other species critical to our lives.

It is not a debate about whether or not climate change is happening for the evidence is conclusive; humans have interfered with earth’s atmosphere to the extent that the Holocene, an epoch in the world’s history that has allowed humans to thrive, is collapsing.

Our voracious capitalist and market driven world has polluted not only most everything in the biosphere, but it has also invaded our minds leaving many of us intellectually crippled and so unable to understand and comprehend the threats to our future.

Helping us break out of that status quo-induced mental prison will be the co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Anna Rose; a Sydney based professor recognised through the world for her innovative ideas about the re-use of materials, Prof Veena Sahajwalla; and environmental communications consultant, Rob Gell.

Thursday night’s conversation is about recognizing and adapting to opportunities emerging from our changing climate, but deeply implicated within those discussions are questions about what happens next?

Writing in her 2009 book “Listening to Grasshoppers: Field Notes on Democracy”, Arundhati Roy, asked what happens now that democracy and the Free Market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximizing profit?”

She argues that what we need now for the survival of this planet, or at least conditions in which humans can thrive, is long-term vision.

Thursday night’s conversations are about that urgently need long-term vision; they will be about our intergenerational responsibilities; and they will be about escaping from what Roy describes escaping from our “greatest folly”, our near-sightedness.

Roy wrote: “Our amazing intelligence seems to have outstripped our instinct for survival.
“We plunder the earth hoping that accumulated material surplus will make up for the profound, unfathomable things we have lost,” she said.

Thursday night begins a journey, though rather late, when we can ponder the questions Roy asks.

A Federal Budget loaded with irrelevant numbers

Last week’s Federal Budget was irrelevant.

The idea of a budget is not irrelevant, but a list of financial strictures that pander to life as we know and understand it, is wholly inappropriate.

Life in Australia ranges in extremes from damn difficult to obscenely prosperous, but beyond our daily difficulties, most people live relatively happy and expansive lives.

Those who profit from what exists stand with the advocates of more and lament any budgetary changes that limit their opportunities to further boost their bank balances.

Contrarily, those on the other side of the scale and whom, for various reasons, have seen much of the country’s wealth bypass them, equally lament changes, with their protests being almost unheard.

Australia is unquestionably the lucky country; well, for the moment.

Australia, as does the rest of the world, faces a collision of events that any budget built around existing economic dynamics is fundamentally flawed.

The world is changing, no surprises there, but it is changing in a way that is publically unacknowledged by the world’s financial gurus, among them those who are calling the shots with regard Australia’s future, be it economic or otherwise.

There is a rude immediacy about how the world operates with liberal democracy holding us hostage to the next election and more colloquially, to the next episode of television’s “The Block”.

Rather than piece together a budget, good or bad depending on personal situations, ideology or political adherences, that responds to populist needs that further fuels business as usual, we should be endorsing courageous decisions that prepare us, for the shocks ahead.

The workings of the world, and by implication Australia and so the Goulburn Valley, depends almost entirely on oil or some derivative of it and with more than half the world’s easily accessible oil already gone, it is going to become increasingly expensive as it becomes more difficult to extract.

To counter that, the government needs to enthusiastically invest in the public infrastructure and discourage private profiteering that arises from exploitation of the public domain.

The issue that will trump all concerns our changing climate and although there should have been a budgetary response three decades ago, it is still not too late, although any effective response will now need to be innovative, bold, courageous and be an immediate break with the “business as usual” paradigm.

Australian society will need to be seriously decentralized; public transit systems massively refurbished and upgraded, while there is an equal divestment in the private infrastructure (roads); community infrastructure and resilience needs to be bolstered; food security needs to be localized; and while work is psychologically important, it needs to be re-imagined and restructured allowing people to work fewer hours, live closer to their work and spend more time strengthening communities.

The dilemmas brought on by impartiality

Impartiality frequently frustrates many decent things.

Singer's book, "One
World: The Ethics
 of Globalization".

Equally, it is also often the keystone in allowing less than favourable things to happen to individuals, the broader community and, in a wider and crucial sense, to the wellbeing of the planet.

Partiality among humans is immensely powerful among families and friends, but erodes as relationships between people become increasingly distant and then collapses completely to become impartial, even disinterested, once people become “the other”.

Writing in “One World: The Ethics of Globalization” moral philosopher, Peter Singer, said; “Our real desires, our lasting and strongest passions, are not for the good of our species as a whole, but, at best, for the good of those who are close to us”.

Singer wrote that more than a decade ago and although the challenges of climate change were then well known, they had not evolved to be so internationally divisive as they are now, but his observations were prescient.

Within Singer’s writings are the reasons for our disinterest, our impartiality, in how our behaviours are impacting on earth’s atmosphere.

Life, particularly for most in Australia, is pretty good and so with rare exceptions we imagine ourselves as distant from anyone or anything that is worsening climate change and so have little sense of how our behaviour contributes to what has be called the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.

We are, it seems, trapped within the paradigm that Singer discusses where he says that “Our real desires, our lasting and strongest passions, are not for the good of our species as a whole, but, at best, for the good of those who are close to us”.

Addressing the dilemmas and dangers of climate change demands that we explore and understand impartiality, and embrace it with an urgency that will hopefully allow us to act appropriately to mitigate the unfolding damage to our atmosphere.

Impartiality has been one of the great frustrations experienced by international support organizations and they have found that through reducing their appeal for help to a personal level by using an image of a sole person needing help, they made the connection between recipient and potential donor partial.

With the reason for funding now igniting our “real desires, our lasting and strongest passions”, the support sought was frequently forthcoming.

The damage to earth’s atmosphere is happening, by human standards, so slowly and its effects are frequently so remote from our daily affairs that most of us have a decided impartiality about climate change.

Many of us are unable to make the connection between our behaviour and what is happening with our climate and subsequent worsening weather it brings upon us because we are impartial and largely oblivious to anything beyond family, friends and immediate concerns.

Growth idealogues celebrate as Australia's population tops 23 million

Growth ideologues should be smiling now that Australia’s population has topped 23 million.

Prof Tim Flannery posits
 Australia's ideal population
 carrying capacity is
between eight and 12
million.

More people, in corporate talk, equates with more profits.

Behind that shiny corporate facade, is a paradigm that encourages endless expansion; a tumour-like growth of which any talk about control is taboo.

Beyond that, any discussion about limiting population growth is equally distasteful for almost immediately reason and logic is abandoned and emotion hogs the spotlight.

The 2007 Australian of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery, presently a member of the Australian Climate Commission, has calculated that Australia’s long-term carrying capacity was between eight and 12 million.

He points out that Australia’s population had reached those marks in 1950 and 1968 respectively.

Considering Prof Flannery’s observation we have either, in the first instance, more than doubled Australia’s population carrying capacity or nearly doubled the second number.

The idea of a “big” Australia is out of step with what Australian’s actually need; rather than bigger, we need better.

Shepparton is bound for “bigger” with statistics on the City of Greater Shepparton website suggesting that by 2031 a further 16 500 people will live here, producing a population nearing 80 000.

Arguments that bigger is always better and more beautiful are riddled with fallacies; unintended consequences that are assembling on the horizon now, poised to disable humanity.

Questions about the cause of climate change, an undeniable scientific and practical reality, attract varied answers, most of which are in themselves correct, but rarely do they focus on the reality that there is simply too many of us.

Any suggestion that we somehow humanely control our numbers produces an almost immediate and sharp passionate response loaded with accusations of Nazi-like eugenics and a big brother-like forced abandonment of our responsibility to pro-create.

That “responsibility” is many faceted, yes, we do have a responsibility to pro-create, but at replacement level or less, but we also have an intergenerational obligation, a responsibility to those that follow to live with restraint, care for the planet and so leave the earth healthier than it was then when we arrived.

Population growth is exponential and the likelihood of us leaving the earth in better shape than we found it is becoming more remote as each day passes.

Education is the first, the last and beyond birth control, restraint and good sense, the only ally upon which we can call to slow the world’s burgeoning population growth.

Modern life is loaded with endless distractions and the corporate world, aided by myriad problematic institutions, would have us believe all is well.

It is unfair however, to blame upon the world’s corporations and our institutions as the real responsibility rests with us for we have failed to educate ourselves and so do not understand the limits to growth.