The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A sustainable Australia needs sustainable science > Comments

A sustainable Australia needs sustainable science : Comments

By Jim Scott, published 13/2/2007

As well-meaning scientists try to come up with solutions to an environmentally sustainable Australia too often they forget the farmer.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Wonderful sentiment Jim. There are many people like you and I who wish for nothing better than sustainable practices to be introduced to farming to not only provide for our children's future, but our grandchildren's and all the generations who are to follow, but sadly I doubt any of us will make any headway whilst 1% of the World's rich continually strive to own everything and enslave everyone on Earth. We've wittnessed most of the old Australian companies either move off shore or (usually) bought out by overseas interests while our successive Governments stood by patting each other on the backs and attempting to sell the feel good rhetoric of Australia's need to participate in the Global economy. And yes, it's been able to bring about an abundance of cheap consumer products for the gullible to play with while our farmers struggle through drought and hard times. Many will leave the land, encouraged by big businnes and Government. Those same small farms will be snapped up by overseas interests who will plunder the land for all it's worth in good times and having an abundance of funds to ride out the bad. When our Australian soil has been destroyed so that it's useless to overseas big business, they'll drop us like a hot spud and move on to their next target which will already be well groomed into accepting that big business means big rewards for that country's inhabitants. Their fate will follow ours.
Whilst I appreciate your article and the message it conveys, I'm afraid we're doomed as a Nation until the general population begins to realise that capitalistic growth cannot go on unabated forever and that one day, probably very soon, the economy will come crashing down around their ears as their overburden of credit debt comes home to roost.
Posted by Aime, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 11:48:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“It is timely to consider whether the nation’s research efforts are being optimally directed at issues such as efficient and sustainable water use, arresting land degradation, coping with climate variability and climate change, sustainable agricultural production, balancing energy consumption and production and permitting economic and social development.”

Absolutely it is time Jim. In fact, it has been time for a long time! It is now critically time to get our collective national arse into gear.

There are currently a bunch of very high-profile issues that are powerful indicators that we are not living unsustainably nor anywhere near it. And yet, just about nobody is talking about the sustainability. We just don’t have the mindset to put all of this stuff together. Each problem – water, climate change, peak oil, etc, is being looked in virtual isolation.

And what is even crazier is the continued worship of the continuous growth paradigm. Again, it is not in the mindset of most people to even consider stabilizing the ever-increasing pressure being placed on our resource base and environment by ever-more people, or I should say, by blithering idiots who facilitate and promote this continued expansionism.

I was hoping that Kevin Rudd could see the urgency of addressing our big-picture sustainability issues. But alas, he is just going twiddle his thumbs and allow continuous expansionism to go completely unaddressed.

Now that Tim Flannery is Australian of the Year and has an even higher profile than he has had for some years, we might just have a glimmer of a chance. But even though he has said that Australia can sustainably support somewhere between six and twelve million people, he seems reluctant to really address the total picture, at least with anything like the urgency that it needs.

It begs the question; what on earth has to happen before the whole community gets it through their thick skulls that sustainability is the all-important parameter?

Do we really have to crash and burn first, and then develop a sustainable society out of the ashes??
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 12:58:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the main, farmers live on their land that they farm. Foremost on their mind is the knowledge from long experience that any given acre will yield x amount of y crop and that with some judicious tweaking that acre may sustain a yield equal to z. Going beyond that, the farmer is aware that he is putting his land in jeopardy and his families livelihood and future well being at risk. Farmers are very concerned with the use of chemical (and organic) fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Water resources and any chemical leeching into that ground water that may occur from any use or misuse.
Industrial farm methods by their nature do not reflect such concerns. Massive amounts of chemical used to squeeze 10 more pounds of yield per acre or running 10 more of animal stock for that same acre are not the general conservative thinking found in farmers.
Science has been helpful. To that same extent, science has been unhelpful for concentrating it's efforts on maximizing yield per acre and not on the sustainability, and health of farmland in general.
What is really needed is a method of reclaiming land micro-biologically. Like finding a way to regenerate polluted or chemically saturated land mass with the use of microbes specific to a given area or pollutant and then once free of pollutant regenerate a natural microbial activity. We have forgotten the advantage gained by leaving some land "fallow" for a growing season.
With continuous farming and chemical use land can become sterile. It becomes no longer soil but, dirt. Dirt blows in the wind.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 1:33:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Do we really have to crash and burn first, and then develop a sustainable society out of the ashes??"

Most likely Ludwig, that will be the end scenario. Our current Governments, both in power and in opposition have gotten themselves too far into bed with big business, particularly American big business to do anything but continue with population expansion and the perceived growth that flows from it. It's why some peak oil proponents live to pray for a sudden beginning of the end of cheap oil within the next few years. They realise that only a major catastrophe such as peak oil can possibly ever hope to stop the mad grab for power and wealth by a handful of the World's rich and mega rich before they destroy forever this wonderful planet on which we find ourselves.

Yet people are beginning to stir. Poor nations who have had their countries plundered by wealth ceation powerhouses such as the WTO and IMF and beginning to see the folly of trusting their Governments who have sold their people down the drain while their "leaders" live a life of wealth and luxury gained by greed and corruption. Our current Government is little different. I doubt that a change of Government will make the slightest difference. First, we as a nation will have to suffer greatly before our citizens wake up to the folly of greed and debt that currently prevails. Sometimes, like the phoenix, we must be burned terribly before we can rise from the ashes. Let's hope those same ashes are not too deep to rise from.
Posted by Aime, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 1:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But Ludwig, as Marx pointed out - capitalism requires growth to drive it forward. The very foundations of our system mean that profits will continuously fall as competition drives the market, with the only antidote being growth.

Sure, Marx was wrong on plenty of counts, but on that one he was absolutely right.

It's all well and good to point to the problems associated with growth but you fail to address the problems that will inevitably arrive when it is halted.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you. But if this mad race forward is to stop, then it might be a good idea to figure out how to work the brake.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 4:24:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A commonsense approach by Professor Scott which is unfortunately not very common, in particular the failure to take an holistic approach to policy and to take account of the medium to long-term impacts.
Posted by Faustino, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 4:33:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, old Karl wasn’t right on the growth thing TurnRightThenLeft.

Firstly, we simply have to consider sustainability to be a whole lot more important than the maintenance of a growth-driven economy. Sure, we have to find a balance that protects our economic style (while striving to modify it) as best we can while genuinely addressing sustainability issues – we can’t just stop expansionism overnight. But we really do have to err (bias the balance) strongly on the side of protecting our future wellbeing.

Secondly, we’ve gotta separate the two diametrically opposed halves of ‘growth’. Yes we want the good half – the technological advances that bring us new energy sources, improvements in efficiency of resource consumption and waste production and better ways of doing all sorts of things.

But noooooo, we don’t want the expansion side of growth any more! Or I should say, we don’t want the expanding-pressure-on-our-resources-and-environment side of it any more.

Marx envisioned growth-based capitalism in the mid 1800s when the very notion of resources running out or becoming prohibitively expensive or intractably affecting environment, health and future wellbeing just wasn’t even thought about. Sure he could see some problems with industrialization, but nothing that he thought couldn’t be easily dealt with without limiting growth.

Of course the world is a very different place now, and that aspect of Marxism is no longer appropriate.

In fact, one of the biggest flaws in the thinking of Marx and many other apparent visionaries is the idea of massive expansionism with no end in sight rather than the notion of reaching a certain magnitude of activities and then stabilizing them well within the ability of the resource base to support it.

Thomas Malthus is one of the very few who very early on saw the danger in this unbridled expansionism, shortly before Marx rose to prominence.

“It's all well and good to point to the problems associated with growth but you fail to address the problems that will inevitably arrive when it is halted.”

I’ll address this next time.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 8:14:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a pity the good Professor failed to mention in his "sustainability" package for factory farming, the cessation of the heinous practices perpetrated on livestock.

Cows' bellies slit open, ovaries ripped out, pigs tails chopped off, testicles lopped and teeth sawn down. Mulesing, conscious pigs dropped squealing into boiling water, battery hens. The list goes on and not a vet in sight, or a drop of anaesthetic anywhere.

Then you have the barbaric practice of poisoning feral animals (a result of human stuff-ups) with 1080 where an animal can take up to four days to die in agony.

What about our livestock in the middle east which have their eyes speared and their leg tendons slashed?

How on earth does the professor expect everyone to engage in rational debate about the plight of the farmer?

As usual it's all about "me, me" and other living species on this planet are irrelevant.
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 8:17:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem as I see it, is that Marx was accurate when he said profit margins inevitably decrease in a competition based free market economy - as I said, Marx was wrong about plenty of matters, but not that.

When I say profit margins, I don't mean the end result delivered to the capitalist - rather, the profit margin on the individual product.

The end profit however, is only inflated due to a smaller concentration of owners - this can be seen in the reduced number of self employed people.

In fact, the only reason why the end result for the owners is a higher profit margin is the consistently increasing growth.

It's obvious to me that we need a sustainable economic system - however the one we have will need tweaking. As I see it, this is the crucial issue, as all other remedies will flow from these alterations.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 9:13:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“It's all well and good to point to the problems associated with growth but you fail to address the problems that will inevitably arrive when it is halted.”

TurnRightThenLeft, whenever anyone mentions the downside of stabilizing population and the concomitant pressures on resources and environment, the retort must be; ‘what problems do you think will occur if we don’t wean ourselves off expansionism, and quickly.’

For just about every negative thing that would accompany a slowing of population growth, we can point to a parallel improvement. For example, high growth pressure leads to skyrocketing real estate prices in some areas, which is good for some people. Much-reduced growth pressure would lead to falling or stabilized prices, with falling or stable rents and rates, which is good for many.

“…it might be a good idea to figure out how to work the brake.”

We should be way past discussion of the importance of sustainability and be concentrating on just how we do it. So how do we do it? Hammer the message home. This is where key people such as Tim Flannery are vitally important, along with Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute, Professor Ian Lowe of Griffith University and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Bob Brown, Peter Garrett and many others, need to really get their backsides into top gear, show a united front and constantly talk about the bottom line – sustainability.

We need to get this stuff right into the core of national politics.

I think there is huge (largely latent) concern in the general community about this. With a boosted high-profile media output, it could be harnessed. I implored Kevin Rudd and Beazley before him to get stuck into the core of environmentalism and unleash that enormous latent concern that most people have and turn it into political backing.

Surely the national community is on the cusp of a major realization. Once the mindset of the people has a place to focus and a party to support, change towards sustainability and sensibility will flow forward very easily. We just have to break through that barrier.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 1:02:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To sustain is to maintain the status quo. This is too little too late as the functionalility of the 'soils' used for industrialised farming is close to zero. We need to regenerate and restore to former levels of functionality which many early white explorers described 'the soils resembled the texture of moist chocolate cakes and the horses sank up to their knees on plains of waving grasses'.

Language is the primary tool to create a cultural shift, and, in my research on this issue, there are distinct differences between the vocabularies of 'stubble-burning' farmers (industrialised) compared to pasture croppers, who are ecologically literate.

The stark difference between the two groups is their regard for the soil. One group uses the soil as in inert substance to support the root structures of the plants, feeding them with synthetic nutrients whilst in the other group, these farmers develop and enhance soil health providing the basis for strong, healthy crops and actually building topsoil. See www.soilfoodweb.com.au

An example of the differences between these groups is the attitude exhibited towards those unfortunate plants known as weeds. Industrialised farmers believe competetion with the mono-culture crop for moisture, nutrients and light must be exterminated / dominated / eradicated (descriptions of herbicides).

Conversely, pasture croppers sowing cereal crops into dormant native pastures have learned to co-exist with these other plants, using timed grazing to minimise undesirable effects while maintaining the perenniality and integrity of the biodiversity all year 'round. This contravenes the belief that fallow is beneficial as soil biota and fungi rely on living plants for their life.

The language of regeneration includes words and terms regarded as feminine..... complexity / emotional learning / resilience /holistic / nature-cyclical / symbiotic / compassion and more.

Until these concepts are included into industrialised agriculture around which practices will develop, land will continue to be mined in the quest to produce more of the same (commodification)...... lowering prices and profitability and so the resources are sqeezed even harder to produce more.... and so the cycle goes on...... eco-rat thinking.

bush goddess
Posted by bush goddess, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 3:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I think there is huge (largely latent) concern in the general community about this. With a boosted high-profile media output, it could be harnessed"

Ludwig, we are agreed sustainability is required, but this is where we differ.
I'll agree that there is a level of concern, however I think the moment the average person is asked to choose between that concern and creature comforts, most will go on living in the manner they have become accustomed.
People will only jump on this bandwagon if it doesn't cost them anything - better yet, if there is some kind of gain.

Your point that for every downside there is an upside is more promising.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that we need to devise an economic system that rewards sustainable outcomes. Recycling has to be profitable, not just capable of covering costs. It is for reasons such as this, that carbon trading has more promise than most other ideas mooted.

You seem to be saying, public opinion will drive an economic change which will allow for sustainability.

I say, in order to reach sustainability, you need to change the economy to drive public opinion. Eventually this will occur on its own, though if there's any way to stimulate this beforehand, it will be a much easier process.

This is why the crucial matter is making sustainability profitable.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 15 February 2007 2:56:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am just listening to the tone of voice of Malcolm Turnbull on Lateline. Its a pity that the government has chosen a merchant banker as their Minister for Environment and Water as he clearly hasn't a clue about the problems of managing the Australian landscape sustainably for agriculture, urban landscapes or have any familiarity with options for rehabilitating mining landscapes.

i am also very bitter that K Rudd has muzzled Peter Garrett. K Rudd is a howard clone.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 15 February 2007 9:57:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I absolutely agree, and share your disgust billie.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 16 February 2007 8:23:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“…however I think the moment the average person is asked to choose between that concern and creature comforts…”

TRTL, the key is in the delivery of the message, so that sustainability is not presented as a choice between continued comforts and future protection, but rather; future protection in order to retain those comforts.

This is not hard when we look at the discomforts now being exerted by the water crisis, or the state of the Murray/Darling or salinity in the wheatbelt, etc, which are due to chronic antisustainable practices.

I firmly believe that if the message is presented properly, then the support base for a major political refocus onto sustainability will be there.

“People will only jump on this bandwagon if it doesn't cost them anything…”

I think that the average person is willing to give a little, if the urgency of the situation is driven home to them. But sure, the less they have to give the better, or perhaps the less directly they have to give up some comforts or some part of their income, the better. It’s a hell of a balancing act to get the right amount of support without overstepping the mark and incurring the wrath of the community for trying to make them pay too much, or without being seen to not be doing enough to address a dire situation.

“…in order to reach sustainability, you need to change the economy to drive public opinion…”

We need to work on all fronts at the same time. An improving economic system will inspire public opinion, and vice versa. It is not a matter of public opinion driving the whole show.

“…the crucial matter is making sustainability profitable.”

The crucial matter is to emphasise the urgency of developing a genuine sustainability paradigm and that things won’t be profitable for the country and hence for the vast majority of its citizens for very much longer if we don’t. The message CAN easily be presented in terms of profits, creature comforts and other things that affect people in the short term.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 16 February 2007 8:27:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too often we see these 'city based elites' excluding the farmer as they believe they are smarter, more knowledgable and of greater morality than the Australian farmer. In reality, no Australian works closer to harsh Australian environment than the farmer which should entitle them to a couple chairs atleast on these chat fests.

However, as these elites also encourage farming to move offshore to nations where there are no or very limited controls such as China and South East Asian nation's, the destruction of the world's is not at Australia's feet but at that of Asia. This is why the Kyoto Agreement is a sham.

One only has to see how that Australian producers must reach high standards yet foods imported do not, putting the local farmer's and those along line at risk.
Posted by Spider, Friday, 16 February 2007 8:57:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy