Tuesday, November 23, 2004
The lifecycle of a Christmas cracker
Posted by Living with Matilda at 5:44 AM - 0 comment(s) - Generate URL

Growth Fetish by Clive Hamilton

"I just don’t know what to get him for Christmas. He is simply impossible to buy for!"

As we head into another festive season of financial blowouts, there are three inevitabilities: Firstly, community groups will warn of the pitfalls of burgeoning household debt; secondly, regardless of the fact that you said you were not going to buy so many presents this year, you do; and thirdly, a month later, most gifts you buy will be safely shut in a dusty drawer somewhere, never to be used or seen again. By the time the January sales have been exhausted we will have been reinvigorated and can begin the annual cycle all over again, only vaguely aware that the market has failed to satisfy our insatiable appetite for all things useless.

The Christmas cracker perhaps epitomises this festive over-indulgence more than anything else. Assembled in Vietnam from various plastic objects, aluminium foil, paper and card, packaged up more elaborately than an Easter Egg, shipped 10,000km, delivered to a distribution depot, redistributed to the retailer, popped - earning one moment’s attention - discarded and then transported again, most commonly, straight to landfill.

Clive Hamilton’s book, "Growth Fetish", challenges this inane and rampant consumerism. It is a direct attack on the politicians who are held in hoc to business and who pursue policies that promote economic growth at all costs. GDP growth is the stick with which politicians are beaten. It is the answer to all things. According to the right, it draws people up and out of poverty (to hell with growing inequalities) and for the left, economic growth leads the battle against exclusion. 4% growth is always better than 3% and whatever holds us back to 3%, should be swept away.

Hamilton is dead right in identifying this culture as a fetish*. George Bush’s (and John Howard’s) reluctance to sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change is in part based on the conviction that limiting CO2 emissions would jeopardise US economic growth. This may be true (though even this is contested), but a sense of proportion is required. Bush’s advisers believe that signing up could wipe 1% off US GDP by 2012. Assuming that over this period the US economy grows at 3% pa, GDP would have risen by 40% in 2012. If the protocol is ratified, by that date, US GDP would be just 39% greater and so, instead of being 40% richer on January 1st, 2012, that level of wealth would not be attained until April of that year. Such a profound attachment to GDP growth is indeed a fetish.

It is promoted by politicians and it is fuelled by advertisers. For business, growth acts as an empirical truth, like the laws of physics, which cannot be questioned by anything as subjective as 'values'.

Not satisfied with your lot? Well, of course you are not; greed is the mother of growth and it is the citizen’s role to be greedy. If consumers were ever satisfied they would be reluctant to consume more than they need and the whole growth logic would be undermined. The capitalist market does not serve to satisfy human desires, it self-serving and endeavours to keep consumers perpetually dissatisfied. This is the giant fraud being perpetrated by capitalism.

Unquestioningly, business organisations are afforded special reverence by their political underlings as business is seen as the key to a growing economy. This homage is apperent in both electoral cycles and through the daily cut and thrust of the global economy. Governments are incessantly judged by the market and global traders will unflinchingly punish recalcitrant states with capital flight and threats of disinvestment, the moment their interests are under threat. Amd, after crashing out of the recent Australian federal election, the ALP went out to consult with business – not the community - to find out just why it did not gain its support.

But even GDP growth can be hidden behind the mendacious rhetoric of politicians; lies, damn lies and statistics. For example, in the year to July 2004, the Queensland economy grew at 4.6%, an impressive rate. Yet, as the population of Queensland grew at 2.4%, this increasing wealth had to be shared out amongst more people. Individually, people experienced a rise in GSP? of just 2.2%. But on top of that, inflation ran at 2.3%. Therefore, all increase in GSP is accounted for by the increase in population and an increase in prices. In fact, on average, individuals became worse off according to this statistic.



Dow Jones: Up, up and away

Clive Hamilton argues that this incessant drive for economic growth has alienated people from their work, their families and even their own identities. People exist in a ‘false consciousness’ – our identities are controlled by brand managers who tell us that what we wear, eat, drink and drive defines who we are. Most certainly it is chronically debilitating for the environment.

It is this impending environmental crisis that gives the greatest impetus to restricting economic growth. All organisms impact on their environment but in most cases these impacts are mitigated by negative feedback and so the species always remains in balance with its surroundings. Through technological and cultural advances - and being efficient in drawing down on the Earth’s capital resources at the expense of future generations - Homo Sapiens has transcended these natural checks.

As a result, the species’ malign impact continues to escalate, appropriating an ever-increasing proportion of the Earth’s resources, to the detriment of the long-term survival of other species. We now appropriate some 40% of the Gross Biotic Product (that is 40% of all photosynthesis) and rising. In addition, energy is continually extracted and waste is continually dumped. Not only is the population is growing but it is consuming at an ever-faster rate per capita. Exponential growth means that we are actually accelerating towards any ‘carrying capacity’ Nature may have prescribed. (We may, of course, have already surpassed it.)

Oddly, Hamilton places great faith in the consumer bringing salvation. He argues that a new ethic must arrest our excessive consumption. Already, he has detected subtle changes in attitude: the French government has mandated a 35-hour maximum working week and there is a growing proportion of workers who have taken a hit on their income for a change of pace. But contrary to this bourgeois bludging, macro-economic evidence purports to ever increasing levels of consumption and longer working hours. This super-consumptive society is now pervading aspiring South and East Asia economies. It seems the ecological satisfied consumer is still an insignificant minority, afforded only to those wealthy enough to shun that lifestyle.

Hamilton contends that people are more inclined to assess their wealth in comparison to others. As a result, we will never own enough stuff, as there is always someone else with more. Breaking this cultural obsession with perpetual dissatisfaction is the first step towards a post-growth society. This is true, but people also seek to secure ever-increasing wealth for other reasons and Hamilton’s zero growth utopia has difficulty in reconciling this. A major motivating factor, not recognised by Hamilton, is security of wealth - in old age and in sickness – and attaining plentiful resources to pass on wealth to the next generation. Science and art also are also reliant on a constant growth of output from a thirst for greater understanding and the more innovative. Creativity and discovery cannot just stop.

As a result, a more complex, ecological systems approach is required to avert ecological meltdown. It is not that consumption is 'bad' – it is the type of consumption that is of importance. All organisms consume a certain proportion of the energy made available to planet Earth, given to it by the sun or geothermal processes. But energy consumption based on extraction of fossil fuels is frittering away the planet’s capital and disrupts climate processes.

The environment has long been a sink for waste, but growing evidence suggests that its ability to process emissions is nearing capacity. So more specifically, human society should pursue policies of zero extraction of fossil fuels, zero waste (zero emissions, zero ore extraction and zero solid waste) and, controversially, zero population growth. It may transpire that an ecologically balanced footprint, with ample opportunity for the wider environment to secure a fair proportion of energy, results in a zero GDP growth rate, but this should not be the primary goal.

Zero extraction would entail the phasing out of all non-renewable energy sources. Zero waste would close the loop. All materiel currently within the system must remain as a recyclate, fertilizer or a further source of energy. All energy must be obtained from the sun (including biofuels), the rotation of the Earth or geothermal sources. Human impact of the environment would once again become balanced and we would no longer be drawing down on the Earth’s capital resources. This is what is truly meant by sustainability. Within this closed loop system the imperative for technological advancement would become stronger, as would the drive to remove all inefficiencies from economic processes. It would also entail a big shift in our assumptions about our place on the planet.

This stable state project cannot be separated from the broader re-distributive goals of the left. Here, again, Hamilton assumes that the benign influence of the modest consumer would create a fairer market where inequalities would wither away. As the poor only continue to get marginally more wealthy as greater amounts of the Earth’s Gross Biotic Product becomes utilised, a more closed system human ecology, relying only on technological and cultural advances for the improvement of human life, could see inequalities exacerbated by the operation of a free market.

It maybe that in the future, the rhetoric that supports continued GDP expansion performs a volte face. GDP growth – as a result of - say - building a new road or a new power station would not be considered as progress but would be viewed as policy failure. A new road would be indicative of poor urban planning and a new power station as a failure in promoting energy efficiency.

Voters, aware of the environmental impacts of continued consumption would punish governments and business for their wastefulness and inefficiency. Being innovative in how our finite resources are managed would be the measure of success, not growth in energy consumption. However, until the terms of the debate surrounding the use of GDP as an indicator of improving wellbeing is challenged, we will continue to see its growth as an unquestioned logic. But Clive Hamilton has certainly kick-started the debate.

* Defined as ‘an object of obsessive concern’ by the OED

It is a broadside against the underlying values of contemporary consumer capitalism… [and] bound to trigger major controversy.

(Journal of Australian Political Economy)

Clive Hamilton’s work is just silly, dangerous, left-wing crap.

(Michael Egan, NSW (Labor) Treasurer)

About Clive Hamilton >
Posted by Living with Matilda at 5:44 AM - 0 comment(s) - Generate URL






Thursday, November 18, 2004
Banning Barbarism
Posted by Living with Matilda at 4:13 AM - 0 comment(s) - Generate URL

I see the Olde Country is finally coming to grips with outlawing hunting with dogs. The elected representatives’ will on the matter is long overdue, but it is still disturbing that the ban is likely to be enforced using the ‘Parliament Act’, not something it was necessarily designed for. It seems the cruel rural pursuits of the wealthy are going to be more difficult to stifle than the cruel working class fetishes of dog and cock fighting. And despite what Mr Blair may think, there is no ‘third way’; a licensed hunt would be every bit as unjustified as any other. Both would end in the unnecessarily brutal death of an animal.


Difficult to police?
I don't think so!

Earlier attempts by the Lower House to ban hunting in 2000-01 fell prey to the worst flaws of the UK Parliamentary system. The lack of any fixed term allowed a nervous Prime Minister to evade confronting the Lords and the rural bourgeoisie. The government knew the Bill would never pass muster in the Upper House and so it could avoid the issue altogether. It also allowed the executive branch of government to blatantly ignore the will of the legislature by not devoting Parliamentary time for its resolution.

Additionally, having an unelected Upper House still containing hereditary Lords who did not reflect public opinion (I cannot think superlatives enough to describe such an arcane system, so I will not bother trying) allowed the elected chamber’s will to be thwarted time and time again. But it seems that this time, Tony Banks et al will get their way.

Arguments for opposing the ban (or for supporting for the status quo) fall into two categories. There is the ‘moral’ argument – that the majority (“townies”, always) should not interfere with the legitimate pursuits of the minority (“countryfolk”) and the ‘rational’ – that fox hunting is, in fact, good. Both are deeply flawed.

The beady gaze of the state should rightly stay well clear of legislating against the activities of section of society that has no impact on the rest of us; this is the foundation upon which British Liberalism has been built. Paradoxically, it has been keenly adopted in UK Conservatism, a political philosophy that makes firm commitments to certain moral issues. Although it is doubtful that traditional supporters of hunting are of the same constituency as those who would naturally support gay-marriage or private drug use, it is on this doctrine that many ‘Pros’ base their argument.



Call it a sport? Fox problems can be controlled humanely without this so called 'entertainment.' Should have been banned years ago. It is akin to something from the 'dark ages.'

Gillian, Co Antrim, Northern Ireland


But when a section of society is acting with cruel impunity, impinging on the health and welfare of an animal, for no other purpose than for pleasure, then it is right and fair that the people, through the institutions of a democratic state, intervene to prevent it. If outlawing badger baiting or cruelty to children is pandering to the nanny state, then long live the nanny state!

What is at stake, is where individuals judge the boundaries of their ‘moral community’ to be. For Pros, it the protection of rights and obligations should not extend beyond the human species and so the democratic state’s responsibility should not extend to protecting animals from cruelty, inflicted by humans.

But accusing Pros of championing cruelty to animals is likely to be met with derision. They all ride horses and own hounds of which they are probably deeply fond. This incoherence is the deep flaw in the Pro's argument. It is about impuning Nature – of assuming that the life of a wild animal is valued less than one bred for domesticity. However, the democratic state has already legislated that cruelty to some animals is inadmissible, but yet it remains acceptable to be cruel to a fox and to take its life in brutal manner, not for food or protection, but for pleasure. Just do not harm "Apples" the pony.

It is patently clear that the reason why fox hunting has not been consigned to our barbaric past is the continued existence of an unelected, Tory, unrepresentative and rural dominated House of Lords. Undoubtedly, for the 'Antis', part of the desire for a ban is mischievously based on some kind of misguided class envy – it is just a good old case of toff-bashing. And it is true, many fox-hunters are toffs and horse riding has long been imbued with class-war imagery. Even our language is peppered with such revolutionary metaphor – “get off your high horse!”

But this is only part of the story. People who continue to support fox hunting make themselves such easy targets by putting forward such manifestly ludicrous ‘rational’ arguments for its continuation. Pros almost willingly present themselves as some kind of dimwitted pseudo-aristocrats, bred stupid by the rampant inbreeding that all townies know happens in the countryside. The uncompromising faith in their arguments is akin to that of the Flat Earth Society – clinging unashamedly to an absurd dogma, whilst the rest of us look on, with an almost quaint, but patronising, curiosity.

Arguing that fox-hunting is some kind of ‘natural’ check on fox numbers, or that it is the most efficient or humane way of killing a fox is just plain dumb. How is deploying human reared hounds ‘natural’ and please, please, please someone tell me how driving two dozen gas-guzzling horse boxes along winding country lanes is more ‘efficient’ than hiring a lone marksman with a high velocity rifle? Fox numbers will naturally check themselves, in accordance to the availability of food (from both farms and the environment) and the idea that 'Nature', or what is left of it in the UK, must be persistently ‘managed’ smacks of anthropocentric arrogance.


No! It is a very natural form of pest control. Foxes have no natural predators, only the hounds. It is a very efficient way of reducing the sick and old population of foxes and deer, and thus managing the healthy populations. Something that other forms of pest control cannot do, as efficiently.

Shaun Palmer, Chippenham, Wiltshire, England


Protecting rural industries is always is important, but to not push on with the banning of a barbaric pursuit through fear of the loss of a handful of jobs, is akin to worrying about what is going to happen to all the dealers when we crack down on drug taking.

Given that the arguments to support the continuation of fox-hunting are ludicrous beyond serious consideration, the Pro's bitterness must be a result of a more disturbing schism. They don't just see this as the tyranny of the majority, but as part of a fractious and deepening rural-urban divide; the mass urban liberal lumpenbourgeoisie dictating to a rural minority. Fox-hunting is merely a skirmish in the wider conflict.

It is this divisive rural–urban facet that has given the fox-hunting debate its zeal. For townies, there are no worse victims than rural dwellers, always carping on about something. It is either permanently raining too much, or raining too little, petrol is too expensive or farmgate prices are too low. And for countryfolk, townies will never appreciate the intricacies and special requirements of country life. Lack of empathy pervades the issue.

But this is a serious divide, and one that the Islington Party is well advised to recognise. It is a scandalous that so much Parliamentary time has been wasted in pursuing this legislation, when politicians could have been knuckling down on the grander issues of the day. But before the Pros get on their high horse (that metaphor, again), this also reflects poorly on those who continue to vehemently support cruelty to animals. They should have seen the writing on the wall for their vindictive pastime many years ago, and should not have been wasting our time since.

Peripheral arguments over policing the ban are legitimate, but it is doubtful that any large hunt – resplendent in bright red coats, with bugles, hounds and hunt followers - will be that difficult to dob-in. Whilst it is likely that an illegal core of barbarians will continue to hunt with dogs, even this will soon loose its appeal once ‘the Hunt’ is reduced to the simple act of killing of animals.

The Countryside Alliance will try hard to pin this ban on Government and the Tories will also attempt to earn political capital out of the kafuffle. But it is a free vote. It was only Government policy to force a vote on the future of hunting, not to support a ban or otherwise. It is also unlikely that a ban will hurt Labour much anyway. The Shires have long been Tory.

Banning fox hunting will only push them further beyond Labour’s reach, exacerbating the alienation. But the Countryside Alliance is houndnig the wrong bogeyman. It is not Labour per se that is destroying the countryside, for the Tories made a sufficient mess themselves. It is the rampant operation of the free market that is decimating rural incomes, sky-rocketing village house prices and generating rural traffic congestion. The Countryside Alliance would do well to let fox hunting go (it just has to go) and focus its energy on supporting a rural future of more humane pursuits.
Posted by Living with Matilda at 4:13 AM - 0 comment(s) - Generate URL






Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Saving the Koala in SEQ
Posted by Living with Matilda at 8:12 PM - 0 comment(s) - Generate URL

Yesterday, I attended a presentation on the development of a Koala Conservation Plan for Queensland. The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) have recently been successful in getting the Koala listed as ‘vulnerable’ in SEQ. This classification ensures the state is now obliged to draw up plans for its protection and recovery.

Koalas –given their almost unrivalled status as the most cuddly Australian icon - have had a turbulent history since the arrival of white settlers to SEQ.

Lamington National Park lies on the border of Queensland and NSW and is the jewel in the crown of QPWS in SEQ. Its rainforest and open eucalypt forest slopes include much of the MacPherson Range, an ancient caldera volcano. It was first gazetted as a National Park in 1915 after long and hard lobbying by early nature preservation groups.

It was named after a former Governor of Queensland, Baron Lamington (full title: Charles Wallace Alexander Napier Cochrane Baille)(governor 1896 to 1901), who visited the park just once, in 1897, to shoot koalas.

From his memoirs, his abiding recollection of the trip, was the dying cries of koalas as they fell to the ground.

It might surprise you to learn, but koalas are no longer hunted.

However, back in Lord Lamington’s days, it sounds like it was quite the gentlemanly sport, with ample allowance made for those dapper colonial types who normally struggled to shoot anything that moved quicker than…..well….a koala.

‘The Chase’ would hardly set the pulse racing. It seems that all you need do was stand at the base of a tree, leisurely fire off as much shot as you like and then wait until the dam thing fell to the ground. You would then turn to appreciate the sycophantic applause of your menagerie and break for a fine lunch.

Koalas don’t exactly scatter like rabbits.


Tough job this, hunting koalas

When the Queensland government rescinded its protection of koalas in 1927 (in attempt to draw the unemployed masses out of the shanties of Brisbane, in the Great Depression), in the first month of open season, 584,000 koalas were killed for their fur.

Now the entire population of koalas in Queensland is estimated to be less than 300,000. Yet still the human and the koala populations are on collision course. The densest koala population happens to overlap with the fastest growing human population in Australia: SEQ.

The main cause of death for koalas is not now the huntsman’s gun, but habitat loss, roadkill and domestic dogs. The Koala Conservation Plan aims to mitigate the impact of these killers. How successful it is depends on how much it impinges on human growth and profit. This is undoubtedly a zero-sum game.

Despite the SEQ Regional Plan demanding higher densities, clearing native bushland for housing development is to continue for some years yet. This is the biggest killer. Being pushed off the land causes koalas stress then disease and female fertility quickly collapses. Translocation of whole populations has also been shown to be ineffective. Hitherto, land clearing has been completed with a scorched earth policy and has not provided for bushland corridors, isolating populations from one another and reducing genetic diversity, making koalas less resistant to introduced animal diseases.


Roadkill is the second largest
contributor to koala deaths

The Conservation Plan will use Council planning schemes to enforce phased clearing of bushland, mandate masterplanned contiguous green space corridors and force developers to create wildlife tunnels underneath major roads. The Regional Plan has also protected much of the ‘Koala Coast’ in Redland Shire (to the SE of Brisbane) and the rural areas in Brisbane hinterland from ‘urban’ development.

Dogs are a big killer too. Of the 1,000 koalas that are admitted each year to sanctuaries for treatment, 12% are a result of dog attacks and 80% do not survive. On top of this an unknown number of koalas are killed and not reported or discovered. Most dogs roam free in backyards and are unrestrained and unmuzzled, even at night.

A big part of the Conservation Plan will focus on domestic animal management and will (hopefully) attempt to phase out the ownership of large dogs (the main threat) in the important areas. Some successful ‘Koala friendly’ developments have even required statutory covenants restricting the ownership of dogs on large estates.

The speaker from QPWS was at pains to say that ‘education does not work’. Despite many thousands of dollars being spent on encouraging people to develop koala-friendly backyards, to think twice about dog-ownership and to force planning conditions on developments, developers driven by profits and owners simply not caring, mean that legislation and regulation, to everyone’s cost, is now necessary to protect the koala.

The growth in population in SEQ will undoubtedly further impact on koala numbers. With such fickle breeding patterns and stubborn social attitudes (they are notoriously single minded when on the move) the koala population in SEQ is seriously threatened. Numbers can very quickly collapse and it is still unknown where that threshold lies. A Conservation Plan watered down by vested interest from developers and bloody-minded residents will not save the Koala in SEQ.

Posted by Living with Matilda at 8:12 PM - 0 comment(s) - Generate URL






Disclaimer:
I am employed by Brisbane City Council. All views expressed in this blog are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer.
Weasel Word(s) of the day:

From WeaselWords.com.au