Browse > Home / Archive by category ''

What One Does in the Dark

March 29, 2009

Australia relies heavily on the readily available natural resources. Our nation’s ability to exploit this asset has drawn the attention of the United States Government’s Energy Information Administration, who describes Australia as being ‘rich in natural resources with significant petroleum, natural gas and coal reserves.’ However, the opposite has become a reality. In the past Australia may have had an abundance of petrol, gas and coal but, due to our increasing dependency and increasing expectations of high living standards this is no longer the case. Due to our vast landscape, we can play a vital role in transforming the world into a green one, where renewable energy is more readily available than fossil fuels though. If properly implemented, Australia can derive between 60-80% of its energy in 2020 from renewables and by 2050 be solely reliant on green energy. Australia has the opportunity to lead should it implement such a scheme, it should also incorporate the governmental, social and economical factors into an inherent environmental problem.
Australia is not the only country that faces such a dilemma. Bar Scandinavian and small countries, other developed countries, like America are still slow in their introduction of sustainable practices. It is important to recognise that all nations must work together to stop climate change and the disastrous effects that occur when left untamed. Australia has the opportunity to act as a catalyst by setting a high standard, and spurring other nations into action.     

Environmental issues are often portrayed by the media, government and non-governmental organisations as notions too complex for the average person to comprehend, resulting in ambiguous science and vague implications. The general public is encouraged to partake in events such as Earth Hour, where they feel good despite the lack of tangible outcomes. Millions will turn off their lights but, how many will change their lives? A realist perspective asserts that there is no proof, scientific or otherwise, to show that Earth Hour leads to systemic lifestyle changes. Whilst this does not discredit the noted event, it presents us with the pressing question about what should instead be done. Society needs to be educated about the ramifications of not acting on climate change, and that small contributions, such as shorter showers and energy saving appliances, are only a small facet of solving the bigger problem at hand. These bigger and wide reaching changes are to be achieved through lobbying the government, otherwise it is probable that they may never eventuate.

Changing Australia, or any nation, into a green energy community is no easy feat. No one denies that Australia has a complicated and insufficient energy grid, our vast land mass should be seen as advantageous though. We possess a great capacity to effectuate various forms of renewable energy. 18% of Australia is desert land which can be used to generate wind or solar power. In a twenty-four period, Australia accumulates enough solar radiation to supply the population with one-third of its energy demands. As an island, we are surrounded by water which could also be used to generate wave power. When combined with factors such as wind and geothermal power, Australia could begin the transition from coal dependency to coal independency.     

Becoming sustainable is a costly process. The principles of a free market, when regulated, have made solutions appear viable though. The free market works on the premise of a fluctuating economy, where an equilibrium could be reached through supply and demand. Essentially, in context of this solution, the output of renewable energies will match the demands and vice versa. In an unregulated situation, the market is free to operate despite any problems. This is the case in Australia, where the demand for renewable energy is not being matched by the amount currently supplied. Hence, the government needs to regulate such a situation through legislative means, which should effectively fix this market deficiency.

Environmental planning, a possible form of regulation, is seen as aspirational. Society will always question the practical application of any given solution and its possibility of increasing living standards. This is an inherent societal flaw, where our own material means ought to increase despite the possible environmental and social justice consequences. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has added substantially to this predicament. Solving climate change will financially worsen the situation in the short term, thus individuals may be less inclined to understand the urgency of the issue. Interestingly, for every year that a recession takes place, with a hypothetical 5% reduction in the market, there is a correlation in the percentile of greenhouse gas emissions reduced. Logically it makes sense; when a market makes a profit then productivity increases, which implies an increased usage of machinery and technology by humans, which in turn increases greenhouse gas and so forth. Hence, when the market slumps into a recession, productivity decreases as does the subsequent quantity of green house gas emissions. This scenario implies that whilst the GFC may produce negative financial short term effects, perennially it may provide a solution to saving our planet.
Moving to a greener Australia immediately could have a positive repercussion on the economy in the future. By beginning the gradual progress now, we can ensure that industries like tourism, which raises a revenue of over ten billion dollars annually, is not lost. The loss of tourism will equate to a depleted economy and society, through the loss of jobs and livelihoods for many communities. The Kakadu National Park is a prime example of a far reaching dependant landmark.     

Despite the social and economic problems associated with the transition towards sole dependency on renewable energies, Australia can overcome such problems through the implementation of governmental legislations. This would resultantly increase the amount of funding and resources allocated to green infrastructure, such as wind turbines and solar panels. In the future Australia could take two paths; it could remain the world’s largest coal exporter or it could become the world’s largest solar power exporter. Which option seems more sustainable to you?

Filed Under environment, Featured Articles, Sustainability · Leave a Comment  

Vegetarianism

February 17, 2009

In the back of our minds, we are each aware that there are millions of people dying each year from starvation – in a single day, thousands. Many organisations like to make us aware of this but do little else. Even donations to Caritas, or participation in the 40-hour famine seem to me to be actions that, for all their good effects, largely ignore the real issue here. That issue isn’t that these people don’t have enough money or that there isn’t enough food. It’s a whole lot of different things. This is about one of these things, the inequitable distribution of food. It’s also about what can be done.

What I’m talking about is absolute poverty: an issue that directly impacts upon no reading this and very few people in Australia. I’m not looking at the world poverty that has been an object of political discussion for at least thirty years. I’m not interested in the decades of suffering and the inaction that has historically accompanied it, with successive generations pledging to do their bit and consistently failing. What I’m interested in is looking at world poverty in the modern context of the world food crisis. This is because it is current, it is a moral disaster, and because there are things that we can do.

This ‘food crisis’ might come as news to some of you. This is because we are lucky to be of the first world or, as some people call it, the minority world – a title ironically contrasting the first world’s relatively miniscule population with its vast consumption. Because of our lucky position, all the world food crisis means to most westerners is having slightly less money to spend on mobile phones, jewelry, or new shoes for the school formal. We are allowed to smugly continue our unsustainable habits of consumption, pretending that these problems can be solved without real change. The reality is far different.

In the majority world, including the ‘two dollars per day’ world that is 45% of the world’s population, this food crisis is another matter altogether. Whereas in the western world 15% of income, on average, is spent on food, the world’s marginalized spend up to 75%. And of late, for a number of different reasons, food prices have been rising. Since the start of 2006, the average world price for rice has risen by 217%, wheat by 136%, maize by 125% and soybeans by 107%. These products are staple food items in much of the majority world, and their increased cost has had a vast human toll: people can no longer afford to eat. The poverty of these people means that they can get priced out of the market, the food that could have fed them going to a consumer who is able to pay more. They can’t compete.

So, in Haiti, people, to live, have had to make salted cakes of mud to eat. In Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, The Ivory Coast, Egypt, Haiti, India, Mozambique, Senegal, Somalia and Yemen, people have launched protests against rising food prices and the failure by governments to deal with the issue. Malnutrition already kills 3.5 million children annually, and this is going to get worse.

Think about this: Six million Jews died in the Holocaust. This is common knowledge and it is an event that the media remembers, that people and governments remember, that is recognised.

On the other hand, seven million children died in the time it took me to complete my SACE. Seven million. One person for every millimetre in seven kilometres. Everyone who lives in Sydney and Melbourne. And so little is being done. This is a reality that no one with enough food to eat can begin to understand. People are literally dying because they don’t have enough food. We aren’t talking about an artistic tableau demonstrating the plight of the homeless. We are talking about 30 000 children under 5 every day. This is sickening. It’s sickening that it happens, it’s sickening that not enough is being done, it’s sickening that it isn’t on the conscience of every single westerner.

It’s too easy to hear this, as we all have, before, to varying degrees and think: ‘nuts…this problem is too big for me, I can’t cancel the debt, I can’t make trade fair, I can’t give more aid.’ Well yeah, you can’t. But there is one thing that everyone can do, and, I believe this: one thing that everyone should do to try to minimise the suffering in our world.

While there are lots of different things contributing to the food crisis, one of them is meat consumption. Eating meat contributes to the suffering of millions, of billions of people the world over.
Because, to be prepared for slaughter, cows, pigs, chooks, sheep, are fed food specially grown for them on huge areas of land. The animals ssentially are transformers: they convert this vegetable protein from corn, or grain, or maize into animal protein. This is a hugely inefficient process. According the theory of trophic dynamics, the study of the energy economics of natural systems, it requires ten times as many crops to feed animals being bred for meat production as it would to feed the same number of people on a vegetarian diet. What this means is that ten times as many people could be fed if the meat wasn’t involved.

What this means is that land is being used to grow food, and this food is going to animals for meat: it is not going to people. In the US, 70% of grain is consumed by cattle, not people – with a horrific human toll. According to ecology professor David Pimentel, “If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million.” Worldwide, of the 2.13bn tonnes of grain likely to be consumed this year, only 1.01bn, less than 50%, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, will feed people. 760m tonnes will go to chickens, pigs and cows for meat, instead of the world’s starving. This amount could cover the global food deficit 14 times. The raising of animals for food is condemning people, all over the world, to starvation. This is about humanity. This is about preventing injustice. And this is a heinous injustice that needs to be righted.

Whether or not you are vegetarian, the less meat you eat the better. Less meat eaten means less food going to animals for meat and more food going to people to live. Simple.

It is easy to look back on past generations and criticise their moral ignorance: issues such as slavery, apartheid, the subjugation of women, the Stolen Generation, seem almost to be too obviously wrong to have ever happened. It’s much harder to look at our own generation in the same way. Acting morally isn’t just about taking big stands on controversial issues. It’s about living so that your decisions make the world a better place. I initially became vegetarian to prevent animal suffering. Since then I have learned more and more about vegetarianism and have become more and more resolute. The meat I don’t eat means that there is more food for the rest of the world. Food that goes to the world’s deprived instead of the world’s depraved. This is a choice that you each has to make. The power is on your plate.

Filed Under environment, Featured Articles, Humanitarian, Sustainability · Leave a Comment