I am in furious agreement with most of the points raised in the discussion on
climate change that precedes. However there is an interesting irony in the
juxtaposition of the debate on the Impex LNG facility and arguments for the use
of gas or Broken Hill as a location for wind turbines because no humans live
there.
Climate change is no doubt a critically important issue however it has
effectively drowned any other environment issue - many of which are directly
connected to the climate damage (think Gunn's and Kraft pulp pollution). Some
issues are contributory but significant for other reasons - our obsession with
occupying every piece of coastal, lake side or river front real estate (think
Moonee Moonee, Ralph's Bay in Tasmania).
Like climate change these assaults on the ecological systems which sustain us
are a by-product of a three century long obsession with economic growth for
growth's sake. Initially this meant cheap practical goods for most of the
developed world (cotton underwear, labour saving domestic devices with
substantial longevity). Now it means a consumptive binge on products which have
a user life of less than a year in many cases (I have assembled dozens of
climate controlled bird brooders from what I can collect off the street).
In the face of species (us) threatening process of our own making isn't it time
we actually looked at the core systems that may be driving us to an apocalypse
(personally I find this a little biblical and tend think it will be a very slow
boil and well after my life expectancy). As Hillary's husband said "its the
economy stupid". In the production of goods solely for production's (read
profit) sake you are going to end up using far more of everything making
objects that have little need or use value. For decades we have heard idealist
rhetoric about markets and choices (a close read of A. Smith the trumpeted 18th
century architect of the theory indicates he was not quite what the boosters
thought) and really only received Coke and Pepsi, Optus or Telstra (does
anybody really watch cricket on their mobile phone), Jennings's or Hookers
McMansion, Sodom Hussein or George Who.
If you want a sustainable world you need a sustainable economic system and
hopefully one that also deals with the inequity (both local and global) the
current one provides. In 1969 the US stuck a couple of the species on the moon
- interesting but no where near as significant as the Russian and US robots
digging up rock and bringing it back and those probes still going decades
later. So we can build very long lasting complex technologies which have a use
- we just don't do it with transport, IT, 'entertainment technologies' (I will
ignore large four-wheel drives, jetskis and flying a couple of thousand klicks
on the vague hunch of a Vanuatu Petrel), consumer 'durables' (??!).
Why? Well you may only make the object once in a decade or more, it will
require a more flexible manufacturing system than mass component production,
use more expensive skilled labour in design construction and, critically
maintenance, it will not allow the beguiling 'individualism' we enjoy from
current consumer goods and above all it will not be an income stream. However,
an alternative approach might mean a few more Painted Snipes to see and they
might just be down at the old Ikea site now returned to a wetland. You can get
there by electric train and pick up the bicycle or electric car (I don't
envisage being that mobile all the time) at the station.
Idealistic (I remind you so is the perfect "market") or do we really have no
choice?
Chris Lloyd
Training Officer
WIRES
PO Box 260
Forestville NSW 2087
==============================www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
=============================
|
