overconsumption

Waleed Aly ("A Rhetorical State of Emergency," Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September 2019,) has dressed up banality as insight and has been very long-winded about it. His focus is climate change and he laments the fact that we have so "engineered a lack of [political] consensus" that Australia is never likely to successfully address it.

But there is a sense that Waleed believes his unique understanding sets him apart from the problems he describes ... I would like to help him find his feet of clay.

That we worry about climate change is because of the harm it is doing and will do to the natural environment; Waleed's focus, therefore, ought to be environmental decline from any cause, and not just climate change.

The two key drivers of environmental decline are the growth in human population and ever rising levels of consumption. Remarkably, the two key components of Australia's particular economic model are: more people -- population growth via high immigration -- consuming more and more ... forever.

If Australia wishes to address environmental decline -- as Waleed believes we ought -- we must address our levels of consumption and the growth in our population. The latter will require a substantial reduction in immigration -- the principal driver of our population growth.

There is a popular consensus for this measure. What stands in the way? Well, among other things, pundits like Waleed and his occasional employer, the ABC, who refuse to go anywhere near the immigration issue.

For all his posturing and puffing over our dysfunctional politics, Waleed is part of the problem he describes.

France has banned fracking, but the United States is allowing lateral mining to utterly demolish democracy and people are facing destitution and starvation because of the lack of citizen rights in the United States to protect farm and town water. Here are some quotes from the film: "Using our resources against us"... "Greed and money: they're just sucking all of the water out of the ground. Why can't I have a say? Why can't these oil companies understand?"..."We've got to have some restrictions on mining... "If we run out of water, we're going to have to pump it in and it will cost more than oil. So why do you think the people of this town should be quiet about it?" In the face of a winner takes all, some farmers are caving in and trading farming in for mining and selling off their water. "... If you've got to have the oil you have to use the water. The demand is out there." Australia's government is going the same way as the United States.

The way The Australian writes him up, Tim Flannery, who once wrote so articulately in defense of our land and its ecology and our place in it, now seems reduced to a quasi-apologist for extreme mining technologies. The Australian writes in such an unbalanced way. See also "Fracking Democracy..."

"Tim Flannery backs coal-seam gas and mining industry" by Amos Aikman, The Australian, October 25, 2011

Unbalanced perspective

The article reads as if Tim Flannery, (famously author of The Future Eaters), alarmed at the roughshod being run over Australian farmers' rights and the environment, is trying to get higher standards in the mining industry.

He is reported to have said that, "similar arguments applied to mining generally, and called on government and industry to do more to regulate and rein in poor performers."

The Australian cites him as saying that mining is utterly necessary for modern life.
It fails to balance its argument by giving the case for allowing population to downsize and relocalise and for people to be more self-sufficient in a slower economy to allow the planet time to heal. No attention is given to how we all work harder for less and how many of us don't see the point in producing all this short-lived 'stuff' that finishes up in land-fills. Yet it is only in order to continue producing all this stuff that extreme technologies like gas-fracking can be artificially politically justified. In the end the only reason to go on producing more and more stuff is to keep a few undeserving greedy people at the top in the positions to which they have become accustomed.

Completely different perspective operates outside our system, but we don't know of it

Here is the comment I sent to the Australian regarding their article:

"France recently passed a law in parliament to make fracking illegal. The law rescinds rights previously granted and put any schale-mining for gas on hold pending new and safer technologies. Source: JT, Edition du Mercredi 13 Avril 2011, http://jt.france2.fr/20h/ Since then a further report was released and covered on the news for France 2, Monday 3 October 2011, which said that the French Government remained unconvinced by the latest techniques proposed by fracking concerns. All permits have been cancelled. High on the list of reasons against fracking in France was the risk of contamination of water supply and its impact on agriculture and human health.

This parliamentary decision is yet more evidence for those aware of different legal systems, that the Napoleonic system in France and Europe is far more democratic - in protecting peoples' rights and communal (and national) assets and vital resources - than the anglophone systems in their various forms in Britain and her current and ex-colonies."

Let's see if they publish that.

Murdochian only spoken here

Generally, it seems that, if you want to have your opinion published in the mainstream press you may only express it in so far as it fits their paradigm. So Tim Flannery, who once wrote so articulately in defense of our land and its ecology and our place in it, now appears to be reduced to being portrayed as a quasi-apologist for extreme mining technologies. It is hard to believe that he is really behind gas-fracking. One gets the impression that he is now interfacing, on behalf of numerous committees, with a monolithic industrial mining front that speaks uniquely in Murdochian.

It is as if our press and government have rendered us incapable of imagining any other way. France's parliamentary decision to ban gas-fracking is yet more evidence that the Napoleonic system in France and Europe is far more democratic - in protecting peoples' rights and communal (and national) assets and vital resources - than the anglophone systems in their various forms in Britain and her current and ex-colonies.

Australia's mass media and government keep her citizens in the dark and feed them B.S.

Australia's lack of information and news from Western Continental Europe keeps us in the dark about other ways other possibilities, and notably enduring forms of democracy that retain local powers. We only get an Anglophone perspective on matters of importance. America, Canada, Australia are among the least democratic countries in the world, with vast and growing differences between the haves and the have-nots, in legal systems which cannibalise and destroy their own community, citizens and resources. The reason that these countries are not yet obviously reduced to the poverty of Haiti is that their citizens started out with more resources per capita. As commonwealth is transferred more and more into private hands in those systems, people who have to date been able to survive, will not survive. The growing numbers of homeless and hopelessly endebted are indicators of the social unsustainability of the current economic and legal systems in Australia, America and Canada. In France and the rest of Europe, it is virtually impossible for citizens to be left without shelter unless they voluntarily opt out - as some homeless do - albeit with every attempt made to shelter them each winter.

That this same system was able to appraise and legislate against a threat to its peoples' way of life in response to their protests is an indication that their system is more democratic and more flexible than ours.

This article makes it clear that energy consumption and its fall-out, pollution, have enormously increased over two or three generations, to a point where actions commonly recommended to minimise them, are laughably inadequate. It also highlights a tendency for one generation to be encouraged to blame another generation for overconsumption, rather than to blame the market system, which benefits from the social conflict.

In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."

He responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soft drink and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so the same bottles were used over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But we didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have the disposable kind. We dried clothes on a line,not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their siblings, not always brand-new.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV or radio in the house, not several. And the TV screen was the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not as big as the size of a blanket!

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used screwed up old newspaper to cushion it, not styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn fuel just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the train or a bus, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of their mums being a 24-hour taxi service.

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint !

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person.

Hhhh!.....The Green Thing

Source: Anonymously emailed article

I =P x A x T

( Environmental impact= Population level times Affluence or per capita consumption x Technology)

I came upon an orchestration, the environmental movement, and all the musicians were playing violins to the tune of “Overconsumption, overconsumption, overconsumption.” They refused to play any other tune or use any other instrument to compliment that narrow repertoire. Apparently some corporate donors were paying them to be a one-trick pony.

So I immediately resolved to sound out the missing tune that would make an effective chorus. It would be “overpopulation, overpopulation, overpopulation”, and I would use my voice to sing that message loudly because, frankly, I can’t afford or take the time to learn to play another instrument. As soon as the Environmental Establishment Orchestra includes my tune in their program, and gives it the prominence it deserves, I will stop singing solo and apply to join them. They after all have the resources to go on the road with their act, while I can only sing in the shower or yell out the lyrics on the Internet.

But until that day, I will specialize in the one half of the equation, population level, without which there can be no comprehensive understanding of our environmental predicament. I will play left wing on a hockey team overstocked with centre forwards and right wingers. Under new management and coaching, perhaps my team, the “IPATs, will demand all-around players—“two way” players who can play the complete game. Like golfers who don’t try to win the match with “hole-in-one” strokes.

It is people who consume, not ghosts. Reduce their numbers and each can consume more sustainably if they recognize their limits and are rewarded for obeying them

Population growth is the great multiplier of evils. Solve it and so many other problems of secondary concern become easier to solve. And it is much easier to solve alone than challenging popular consumptive habits. Many more people can be reconciled to lower fertility and lower immigration than are willing to see their standard of living drop to comply with lower consumption targets. The vast majority of Swedes, the world’s most affluent nation, are wanting to see immigration cut and a low birth rate persist, rather than sacrifice their standard of living. In 2006 the Dyskos poll revealed that 60% of them were not willing to make any material sacrifices to fight global warming. The working class majority there and here, are skeptical and intolerant of environmentalism that speaks with a middle class voice, and uses the same moralizing sermon that that voice gave them in the 1930s and other challenging times. The voice that cried “Hold the line on inflation” , or “suck it up for the boss”. Sermons given by preachers who preached chastity then drove off in a limousine to the whore house. Green yuppies won’t impress the working poor by putting solar panels on their 4000 square foot waterfront homes and taking their hybrid cars to the airport for their annual overseas trips to Mexico or Bali. If you never had to drive a “beater” to keep food on the table you have no moral authority to prescribe a carbon tax or a Prius. And no credibility if you have sired more than two children.

“Too many people consuming too much. consumption. Neglect one factor and you neglect both. You are in denial.” But “too many people” is the Achilles heel of growthism, and the one that deserves priority attention.

Tim Murray,

February 19/09

Many of us use costly elephants to do jobs that don't need an elephant. What do I mean?

In a small household of one or two people, the elephants are the machines bigger than are needed for everyday - such as the washing machine that takes 20 minute and 75 litres for a few clothes that really only need freshening, the 1 tonne car for six people plus luggage with only one person in it, the power motor for a pocket lawn, the ducted heating for a house when the occupants are in only one room.

What can be done? Sometimes there are many people in the house, or small children or sickness, or time-demanding jobs, so that these elephants are useful at particular times. But not always.

Some people solve this by living in group houses that share the big appliances.

Another solution is to have homes with space for 'small elephants' as well, for everyday help. These can include a versatile little twin- tub, which makes even hand-washing easy, a carpet-sweeper, a light hand-mower, a bicycle, motor-scooter or minicar, and a way to shut doors of singly-heated rooms or to use environmental ways of keeping warm. Over time you save the cost of buying these- and often they can be bought cheaply second-hand, since they cost less to use, as well as being responsible for less greenhouse gas. The big elephants also last longer, with less use (if a way is found to stop car batteries going flat).

Quality of life includes comfort. Average Westerners live in comfort unthought of even in my childhood - but risk it all in part through unnecessary excess. This excess is paid for by our future, through its effects in helping to drive climate changes, resource shortages, pollutions and environmental damage.

The big problem - our economy is at present geared to require average Westerners to live with excess to keep the wheels turning and the whole show 'growing'. So there is excessive production, advertising, carbon emissions and waste.

Let us imagine one of the ways in which we could still live in comfort, but without wasteful production and wasteful trashing.

We could stop always using elephants at the times that we may only need miniatures.

If we could travel in a small two-seater car when we did not need the family size. (And of course, when public transport or walking is possible, take those options.)

If we could do the laundry with a water-saving power-saving twin-tub when we did not need the full power-washing machine. (And there is always hand laundry too).

If we could cool the room with a fan to stay under 24 degrees when frail people did not need the air-conditioner (and of course have insulation and all that too).

If we could warm ourselves with clothing and exercise and some neat innovations to keep a bit of local warming around us over twelve degrees, so we did not need space-heating (and of course have insulation and all that too).

If we could dry our laundry in the fresh air when emergencies of climate or illness did not make indoor drying a boon.

If we could use drip-dry so that we never had to iron except for special things at special times.

If we could give our small lawns the 'Australian lawn' look with a fast light hand-mower when we did not have large areas of bumpy lawns needing power mowing. (The 'Australian look' for lawns is unwatered dry brown in summer, resulting in a fair amount of green flatweeds in with the actual grass in winter, mowed to look tidy and lush, but not the close-shaven English lawn.)

If we could use fast economical washing-up methods with top basins, soap and a proper dish-rack - no tea-towel drying - for when we did not need the full dishwasher load for piles of dishes.

If we could sweep with a broom, or brush with a carpet-sweeper, for when we do not really need the full vacuum cleaning.

If we could use - and re-use - modern no-pins simple-wash snazzy cloth nappies, keeping disposables as a boon for the emergencies of travel or illness.

If we had durable clothes that we could adapt to the latest fashion with accessories, as Korean girls used to do with their national dress.

If we had a kitchen system that used and re-used everything - including bones for soup and scraps for worm-farms - so that the trash- bin hardly ever had to go out for collection, and the recycling bin only sometimes.

If our gardens could be used for healthy outdoor exercise, including gardening, and operated on its own environmental cycle with the help of kitchen scraps and even human liquid sewage (saving flushing and water bills) and with minimum or no input of problematic items like artificial fertilisers and no environmental spoilers like river sands or mosses.

If we kept healthy with 'thrifty housework exercise' and the walking substitute for the car. We could 'lift weights' with buckets for using grey-water or tank-water.

If we shopped with a quality waterproof shopping jeep.

If our kitchen equipment was minimum plastic, so that it was durable.

If we could bake food in the ashes of a garden stove fuelled with prunings and other unusables.

If on hot days we could bake with a solar reflector oven, and heat water outside in buckets. And shower outside from the tank.

What does this do for the economy?

It would mean that lucky people would have to have the space to keep these 'mini-aids' as well as the elephants, or have some sort of neighborly sharing system.

Our present wasteful housing design must be more flexible. Acres of new housing are going up with wasteful designs and materials and 15-year lives - how can this be stopped?

Jobs and businesses would be needed to supply 'little elephant' duplicates for everyone. But the equipment would be durable and updateable - so would not have to be chucked out through built-in obsolescence. So with a stable population, markets would not be infinitely expandable, and manufactures would need to be more flexible.

But the equipment would all be repairable - and it would be worth our while to have jobs for repairers. Repairing tends to be a field for small businesses rather than multinationals. At present, far too much is thrown out 'to save labour' - the cost of mending is too often more than the cost of buying new, unless you count in future cost that you yourself do not pay - the cost of all this wasted embedded carbon and raw materials and energy for the making and freighting.

But what does this saving and re-using do for variety in life? People today throw out socks just to have the variety of new ones. Rethink the variety needed in life - to enjoy the biodiversity, the social-diversity, the immense amount of variety in thinking and imagination and creativity and learning about the world. You don't need to buy a new thingo. Or a new big elephant.

See also Valerie Yule's home page at home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas including Economic & Political Ideas, Planned Obsolescence of 27 May 07, Cutting waste - saving the planet without destroying economies of 7 Feb 08, Unchecked consumption will waste the planet of 31 Oct 07, Rubbishing on about plastic bags of 30 Apr 08, Climate Change at Animal F of 28 Feb 08.

Perhaps the most urgent near-term issue for environmentalists is one that few yet talk about. It is what I call "the human bottleneck".

Just as the genus homo itself went through a bottleneck when all but one of its species vanished, and just as even that one survivor, homo sapiens, seems to have fallen at one point to less than 10,000 breeding pairs, so all other species on Earth will soon have to pass through a bottleneck as humans pass through what we hope will be a maximum population of about 9 billion, later this century. This will leave so little land and food for other species that many, perhaps most of them, will perish.

Note that the narrowest part of the bottleneck for other species will not necessarily come when the human population peaks. At that stage many, or even most humans will still be living in poverty but aspiring to affluence. Hence the squeeze on all other species will actually continue to get worse, and perhaps very much worse, after the human population peaks.

The assumption that world population could peak at approximately 9 billion is taken from
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html

For the assumption that much of that population will still be pursuing increased consumption, and thus intensifying rather than relaxing the squeeze on other species, the author relies on his perception of common experience of human nature and of social inequalities.

You'll notice that the graph has such a small scale on the X axis (which covers 200,000 years) that one cannot read fine detail from it about values on the Y axis over the next 50 years (which would be speculative in any case) or the last 50. This suits, because the figures would vary according to what measures are used.

e.g. it is commonly said that humans now use some 40% of the Earth's primary production (i.e. plant food created from sunlight). But it does not follow that 60% of Earth's surface is freely available for other species, and I presume less than 20% is in virgin state. It also depends whether one includes the oceans. Virtually no part of the ocean surface is not harvested by fishermen, so this might put us as at present intensively harvesting the production of 80% of the planet rather than 40%.

Fortunately, as I say, the graph does not permit of reading its values in such fine detail over short periods --which is another way of saying that the overall shape remains the same pretty much regardless of what measure one uses for human domination.

Mark O'Connor CMC,
home page: www.australianpoet.com

Mark O'Connor is the author of This Tired Brown Land, Duffy and Snelgrove, NSW, 1994. He was Australia's Olympic poet for the year of the olympics in Sydney. He has published many books of poetry, much of it on ecological subjects.