I’m sure you would agree that good discussions are stimulating, perhaps even as stimulating as caffeine.  And this time, we changed topics as many times as we took large sips from our coffee mugs. And then all of a sudden, my neighbour said something that made me sit back in my seat.

“I’m not sure if using solar power is the best thing we can do to alleviate climate change.

“I’m not even sure the science is all that accurate,” he said with a great look of certainty.

I rapidly reminded him that I’ve lived off the grid with solar power for the past seven years. It works well too. I’m not saying it’s the single solution to climate change, but it certainly makes sense in a sunny country with rising electricity prices. I haven’t seen an electricity bill for many years now.

The recent years of rain and cloudy summers means I have to monitor the system more, it also means I have to burn through the odd 20 litre can of petrol to power the back-up generator.  Petrol prices rise so I’m careful about my energy use. Living with solar power is really no different to living with tank water. You know you have a limit so you adjust your usage accordingly.

There are no power lines on my property, no clearing was needed to run overhead or underground cables to my house and my lights remain on even when the rest of the street is suffering a summer blackout. Virtually every hour of every day is a ‘switch your lights off earth hour moment’.

What’s more, I told him, I really do think there is a benefit to not being yet another consumer contributing to the burning of coal to power the massive generators housed conveniently out of sight, and miles away. I was about to say that 97 per cent of climate scientists have shown … and then I could see his attention drift off. I’d lost him and there was no point trying to convince him any further. We both awkwardly took a hurried sip of coffee.

So where does my neighbour get his information to help him form his opinion? How many people think the same as he does? The media, and quite a few, as it turns out.

Balanced reporting is the mantra of the journalist. Provide both sides of the argument. Keep the balance and let the reader decide.

As Ross Garnaut recently pointed out in an article for the new online start-up, The Conversation, the balance can become a little puzzling to find when it comes to climate change.

“Mainstream media has often sought to provide balance between people who base their views on the mainstream science and people who don’t – if you like, between scientific authority, and unscientific opinion. That is a very strange sort of balance.

“It is a balance of numbers of words and not a balance of scientific authority,” he wrote.

ABC’s head of policy for news, Alan Sunderland was reported in an article written by Margaret Simons for Crikey as saying if the majority of credible evidence supports human-induced climate change then the resulting media coverage should reflect this.

“It is one of the most common and inaccurate myths about balance on this or any other topic that it requires all sides to be given equal time and equal weight. It does not. It never has and it never will. Our editorial policies make it quite clear that ‘it is not essential to give all sides equal time’. Another better way to express and understand this is to understand that the kind of balance we aim to achieve in our news coverage is balance that follows the weight of evidence.”

Unfortunately the mainstream media, including journalists whose opinions are often expressed as fact, such as Andrew Bolt, help promote to the public that there is a 50/50 split within the scientific community about climate change.

My neighbour, along with 40 per cent of Australians, according to a recent CSIRO report, now believe the growing count of words which help create doubt about the science.

The Baseline survey of Australian attitudes to climate change report conducted an online survey of 5000 people during the last federal election campaign. Half of those surveyed believe we are the cause of climate change, while slightly less believe it is a natural fluctuation in temperature. An even smaller amount simply don’t believe it at all.

Interestingly, university scientists were considered the most trusted sources of information. While environmental organisations came in a close second for those who believe in human-induced climate change, with the second most believable source for those who consider climate change a natural temperature fluctuation, being family and friends. Governments ranked alongside, car companies and oil companies as the least trustworthy.

One of the most interesting findings was the level of confusion amongst those who don’t believe humans are responsible.

“As a group these people still viewed countries, governments and global organisations as at least partly responsible for causing climate change,” according to the report.

This confusion, or inconstancy, may in part be related to media coverage. It may also be displayed in a recent Queensland Household Energy Survey.

The survey of 3500 homes found 75 per cent of Queenslanders believe it is important to reduce their energy consumption, yet three out of four now own one of the most energy intensive appliances — the air-conditioner. When climate scientists tell us coal-powered electricity generation is an important contributor to climate change, this is a worrying set of figures.

The current Queensland Minister for Energy Stephen Robertson, said we are “increasingly energy hungry”.

Now, before you shout out ‘it’s population’, energy use has increased by more than double the population growth in Queensland in recent years.

So, we’re more confused, we’re split about the cause of climate change, we like using energy, yet we want to use less.

When small sound bites and headlines are all we have the time to listen to and read, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and ironically, switch off. Perhaps we have too much information, too many opinions and not enough simple and concise facts explaining exactly what each of us can reasonably do.

Maybe most of us are too busy earning a living to have the time to understand what’s going on — to understand that the reasonably priced air-conditioner we just bought to cool the family next summer is going to continue to cost us every quarter, every year. Perhaps even cost us in ways that we find hard to imagine.

I leaned forward in my seat again, placing the coffee mug down on the table.  I know we all have different opinions and at the same time I realise neighbourly friendships are important to maintain. If friendships are a one of the trusted sources of information about climate change then perhaps next Sunday we should continue our discussion. Perhaps in a small way, coffee will help bridge the gap too. At the very least, our conversations will make us both think more about this important issue.

Fact Box

CSIRO report – General attitudes towards climate change. January 2011.

How we think about climate change

50.4 per cent think that climate change is happening and that humans are largely responsible

40.2 per cent think that climate change is happening but it’s just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s temperatures

5.6 per cent don’t think that climate change is happening

3.8 per cent have no idea whether climate change is happening or not

Trust

For those who believe humans are responsible for climate change. The most trusted sources of information are: university scientists, environmental organisations, environmental group scientists and government scientists

For those who believe climate change is natural. The most trusted sources of information are: university scientists, friends and family, doctors, people from your community and government scientists

Who is responsible?

Big polluting countries, multinational corporations, wealthy countries and the federal government

Major environmental actions taken by survey respondents to engage in climate change relevant behaviours

Recycling household waste, reducing water use, using environmentally friendly products and switching lights off around the house

Climate change deniers have their heads in the sand. Illustration: Julie Fiedler www.studiojdesign.com.au

When faced with tragedy, atrocities or grief we humans, it appears, have a wonderful way of dealing with it. Denial.

In his book States of Denial, Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering, sociologist Stanley Cohen writes: “One common thread runs through many different stories of denial: people, organisations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing … the information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or misinterpreted”.

The information, including its implications, is totally avoided in a kind of self preservation tactic as we “bury our head in the sand”.  However the only legitimate use of the term denial, writes Cohen, is when someone is firstly aware of something, and then deliberately ignores it. To know and at the same time, not to know. Or, as he goes on to state: “information is selected to fit existing perceptual frames and information which is too threatening is shut out altogether”.

George Marshall, founder and director of projects at the UK’s Climate Outreach and Information Network believes Cohen’s research can be applied directly to climate change. As far back as 2001 Marshall wrote of our knowledge and awareness of climate change and “yet, at another level, we clearly refuse to recognise the implications of that knowledge”.

According to Marshall there are many valuable lessons to be learnt from psychoanalytical theory. Such as the way we can angrily deny there is a problem at all. Scan the online comments section of any article on climate change and you will certainly see the level of aggressive denial. Be that an outright denial of man-made climate change, or denial of particular facts and trends.

Another reaction is to blame others, to cast the responsibility onto someone else. An example might be the comments from the new British high commissioner to Australia, Baroness Valerie Amos. She expressed surprise about there being a debate on man-made climate change in Australia. “In the UK there is a degree of political consensus about what in broad terms needs to be done,” she said. In a sense, she is telling us that all is well in the UK and the problem only exists ‘over here’.

As Clive Hamilton and Tim Kasser stated in their paper, Psychological Adaptation to the Threats and Stresses of a Four Degree World, which they presented to the Four Degrees and Beyond conference, held at Oxford University in September this year, this behaviour is a “maladaptive coping strategy”.

“Blame-shifting is a form of moral disengagement whereby people disavow their responsibility for the problem or the solution. Denial of guilt is the first step to shifting blame onto others and is reflected in narratives such as ‘it’s not my fault because my country is small’ and my carbon footprint is smaller than others”.

But the reality is very different. As was reported in Issue 13 of Eco news a Cardiff University survey found 20 per cent of Britons are “hardline sceptics” while 40 per cent believe there are serious questions about the evidence. Growing levels of scepticism and denial it seems, are a global problem not confined to any one country.

So what about examples of denial closer to home?

The Rudd government calls it “the great moral issue of our time”, yet baulks at making the changes suggested by the scientists and encourages the continuation of coal. This, at a time when even big business believes those changes could be viewed as a form of risk management.

Even on an economic level the government appears to be following Cohen’s suggested patterns of denial.

Referring to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, Dr Richard Denniss from the Australia Institute wrote: “There is no economic case for the billions of taxpayers’ dollars that are to be given to the polluters and arguments about the need to protect our polluters are inconsistent with our longstanding strategy of lowering our trade protection to encourage other countries to follow suit”.

Family First Senator, Steve Fielding, recently called for a Royal Commission into whether climate change is man-made. This is known as a “denial of our agency” according to Marshall (a type of ‘I didn’t do it … did I?).

Yet, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus — about 97 percent of climate scientists, worldwide.  Recent reports such as The Copenhagen Diagnosis, written by 26 scientists, have warned that the 2007 IPCC predictions may be grossly understating the problem. Without significant mitigation, according to the report, global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

John Cook, a former physicist majoring in solar physics at the University of Queensland believes the reasons for denying the problem exists, or the unwillingness to make adequate changes, are varied.

“Some people don’t like the “big government” solution of cap and trade. Some are worried a global agreement to regulate carbon dioxide will lead to a one-world government,” he said.

“Basically, people don’t want to change their lifestyles. And as we get closer to actual laws regulating carbon dioxide, the opposition is intensifying.”

This is a trend we have witnessed before according to David McWilliams, an Irish economist, journalist, and presenter of the recent ABC TV documentary series, Addicted To Money.

Speaking with Phillip Adams on his long-running ABC radio program Late Night Live, McWilliams believes there are parallels with the financial crisis. Despite the warnings, we tend to wait for the crisis to appear. We appear “pathologically, almost terminally, unable to act until there is a crisis,” he said.  All this at a time “when the insatiable demands of six billion people are going to crash into the limits of our natural resources. When we have not just peak oil, but peak everything.”

He believes we travel through a general set of three stages when faced with immense problems. The first is ridicule and denial of the problem. Those who ring alarm bells are often ridiculed and dismissed. ‘Extreme greens’, ‘climate fanatics’, the ‘new religion of environmentalism’ and ‘climate fraud’ are terms constantly appearing in writings from those who deny the science of climate change.

The second is a violent or aggressive opposition, such as the East Anglia email theft, or “climategate” as many would call it. Criminals stealing personal information and publishing it, in what appeared to be a somewhat desperate attempt to expose climate change as a ‘fraud’ prior to Copenhagen. A similar form of desperate opposition appeared two years ago when the Bush administration used pressure to limit the use of the words “global warming” or “climate change” according to a 2007 Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project report.

Thirdly, said McWilliams, we have universal acceptance, often after the crisis has arrived, such as when the financial crisis finally hit. Governments around the world, instead of implementing preventative actions before a crisis, are forced into reactionary responses.

So do we have a way forward through the fog of denial before it’s too late?

Speaking on the same program, Tony Kevin, visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and author of the book Crunch Time, which argues that a renewable energy based economy is the urgent and only option we now have, believes we need to move beyond the question of economic and market-based solutions.

Basically, we need to view the issue of climate change through the prism of morality. It was morality, he said, that drove William Wilberforce to help end the horrendous transatlantic slave trade — known at the time as “black gold”. By the late 18th century, 80 per cent of Britain’s foreign income was related to the slave trade. Two decades later, after years of ridicule and claims that its abolition would lead to economic collapse, the British slave trade was finally ended.

According to Tony Kevin we need to work “within the resource and waste disposal limitations of the planet”. We don’t need a single “Wilberforce’ type figure to emerge to champion climate change mitigation. Instead, those who understand and trust the science must unite and not argue about which form of renewable energy is best or whether taxes are better than cap-and-trade schemes, and so on. While we argue, he said, “the coal lobby smiles smugly above the fray”.

“Doing what we are is poisoning the atmosphere of our planet and it is therefore morally wrong for the future,” he said.  “We cannot base our prosperity on cheating our children and grandchildren”.

Associate Professor Peter Waterman from the University of the Sunshine Coast

The climate was on everybody’s mind as low clouds created hot and humid conditions on the Sunshine Coast today. But it wasn’t only local weather patterns being discussed. As the Copenhagen climate conference enters its second week, thousands of Australians took to the streets around the country for the 5th annual walk against warming.

On the Sunshine Coast almost 200 residents not only demanded government action at Copenhagen, they also showed the value of local businesses and environment groups coming together.

The Sunshine Coast Environment Council, solar business, Ingenero and Maleny Credit Union used the day to launch the Sunshine Coast 10,000 Solar Roofs Project. Injecting an estimated $20 million into the local economy, as well as creating over 100 jobs, the project will install 10,000 solar-power systems without any upfront costs.

Sunshine Coast Regional Council environment portfolio chair, Cr Keryn Jones said the Sunshine Coast ranks as one of the most popular areas in Australia for solar-power installation.

“The Sunshine Coast now has one of the highest per capita installation areas for solar power in Australia and the new 10,000 Solar Roofs Project will keep us in the forefront,” she said.

Associate Professor Peter Waterman, who teaches climate-change adaptation at the University of the Sunshine Coast believes we need to keep focused on locally-based action.

“It is great to be aware of the bigger picture but we have to do things in our region, our homes, our workplaces and our lives. We have to think about adapting — we have to climate proof,” he said.

In this edition we take an Up Close look at their lifestyle and why they decided to home-school their daughters.

“The most revolutionary thing you can do is to provide your children with a connection to nature.  If you feel you are a part of something, you will naturally respect it,” says Sally Johnson. She says it in a way that tells you that this is a statement made after many years of searching and learning.

Elly and Jessie play under the shade of a tree. Image: greghardwick.com.au

With so much news bringing almost daily predictions of pending doom, climate change has caused many people to simply switch off. Crowded by a growing population, along with an increasing trend to self-impose busy lifestyles upon ourselves, many people are starting to perform a collective head-in-the-sand reaction.

“It’s getting a bit depressing and we’re getting a bit immune to it. People don’t want to listen to it any more — it all sounds too bad to do anything about it,” says Sally.

However, she believes there is something we can all do — change the way we relate to the environment.

“I feel that there needs to be a shift, you push something on people through fear, and it never works.  People have to make a shift inside themselves and let that gradually take over”.

Local academic and author Dana Thomsen recognises our disconnection from nature as a major problem. She wrote, in her recently published book Sustainability innovators: Agents of change on the Sunshine Coast: “ Media coverage of climate change has raised awareness of human-environmental interactions on a scale not seen in recent times where the general trend has been an ever-increasing disconnection with our natural surroundings.”

Sally, her husband Paul and their two young girls, Jessie, 4 and Elly, 6 have lived on their property in the Noosa hinterland for the past seven years. Paul and Sally, both in their late thirties, have that healthy look that comes from years of eating well and spending time outdoors keeping active. Both of them have a keen interest in creating a sustainable lifestyle for their family. Their girls have a youthful sparkle in their eyes and they seem equally as relaxed handling the chickens, helping in the gardens or doing as children do, playing together under the shade of a tree.

Driving down their dirt driveway, cone-shaped piles of mulch are waiting to be placed around native plants. The familiar deep-green-leaves of local Lilly Pilly species line the left of the narrow driveway and on the right, healthy looking chickens quietly graze under a home-made dome, inspired by Linda Woodrow’s The Permaculture Home Garden.

The last big rains flooded the local area earlier this year and now the ground is dry and almost scorched in the midday sun. Trees, lining local streams, still have flood debris lodged a metre or so up the trunk, yet the stream beds are now dry with dead leaves and branches, all poised to be washed away by a summer deluge.

Paul and Sally Johnson. Image: greghardwick.com.au

Fruit trees dominate a northern slope close to their house as lorikeets swoop down to feed from a native grevillea. Despite the dry, hot and sometimes energy-sapping weather, the house and the surrounding land provide a calm retreat from the Sunshine Coast’s growing population.

Pointing towards the north-facing slope, with a keen smile on his face, Paul tells me of his future plans.

“We would like to do more with the gardens, like they do in Bali with directing water, playing with swales and deep ripping, so that the water stays in the ground rather than having to store it in a dam.”

The size and the number of fruit trees, along with the vegetable gardens displays just how much work they have done.

“Its small steps,” says Sally.  “While we still look at the big picture, at times it’s easy to think you’re getting nowhere. But we can now look back and see how far we have come.”

We sit down in the shade of the veranda. The modest timber clad house is cooled as an easterly breeze flows up the valley. The corrugated roof above us supports a 2 kilowatt grid-connect solar power system which sits beside a solar-hot-water panel and tank.

They chose the property due to its location. Few neighbours surround them and yet the area is known for its strong sense of community. For Sally, there was something more.

“The reason for wanting to live here, for me, was my childhood link with nature.  What I connected to in my childhood is what I want for my children.  To allow Elly and Jessie to have the same connection with nature is very important for me.”

Paul, has worked in the landscaping industry and now works for a tree-lopping business and Sally, who has studied applied science and wilderness management spends her weekdays home schooling her daughters.

Home schooling the girls, says Sally, gives them time to continually connect with nature.

“At that young age the connection with nature is the most important thing.  There’s plenty of time for the computers and watching TV when they’re older.”

There aren’t any concrete statistics in Australia for the number of children being home schooled, yet some believe there could be between 17,000 – 40,000 school-aged students, nation-wide. While the Sunshine Coast is thought to contain the highest number of home-schooled children in the country.

The most frequently asked question about home schooling is a concern about socialising. Yet local gatherings with up to 10 other home-schooling families, just in the Cooran area, means their children often get to mix with different age groups, free of the usual and sometimes difficult peer pressures of the school yard.

Through home schooling Sally wants her daughters to experience the small subtleties of nature. As she points out, if your first experiences are the bright flashy lights of new technology, then nature can seem almost dull and uninteresting.

It’s a problem that is recognised around the western world. “Right now children are spending their days inside and their evenings and weekends plugged into electronic media,” said Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club — America’s oldest grassroots environmental organisation.

“They are missing out on the daily childhood joy of playing outside that their parents’ took for granted just twenty years ago,” he said.

According to the 117-year-old conservation organisation, research shows that when children spend time outside they are more creative and better focused.

“Children also have that curiosity of the world, that sense of wonder.  They like to see how things connect,” adds Sally.

“We’ll go for a walk with the girls and Elly, the eldest, will say; ‘Oh, that’s why that happens’ — she is putting things together that she learnt a few weeks ago. “

“We’ve learnt so much too,” says Paul.

“Children are so simple and uncomplicated — they often live in the moment.”

They also make interesting and quite profound comparisons. After watching a kangaroo with a joey in the pouch, Elly quickly noticed how differently we humans live.

“We need prams and lots of other stuff,” she said. “I think it would be better if we made things from nature and lived in smaller houses”.

Further information

Motivation and inspiration: Hunter Campbell “Patch” Adams, M.D.

Currently reading:
Walden: or life in the woods (Henry David Thoreau)

Illustration by: Ryan Stevens

Our solutions to water shortages and climate change have, to date, focused upon consuming less. Reduce water consumption during long dry periods and use less carbon-based energy resources. Reduced levels of water use are quickly achievable after some reasonably minor behavioural changes and a greater understanding of its rarity.  However, carbon-based resources such as coal, have become a political football, as it’s so readily available, especially in Australia.

The solution in southeast Queensland to the lack of drinking water? “Build more dams,” we hear the politicians cry out.  A political chorus heard most profoundly by residents of the Mary Valley. Criticised as being similar to buying another wallet and then expecting that it would in some way create more money, the proposed dam is an example of bad policy. Live on tank water and you quickly realise water’s value and limitations.

The alternative to increasing water storage areas, according to scientific reports? More efficient use of our current water supplies. In simple terms — use less water — consume less.

To date, it is the high consuming nations, and not simply the most populous ones, that use the largest amount of carbon-based fuels. Our love affair with these fossil fuels is not a new one, and as with any long romance, it’s a hard thing to walk away from.

As Tim Flannery pointed out in his book The Weather Makers, extraction of coal from British underground mines was the motivator for the invention of the steam engine. Coal-powered steam engines ironically, were initially used to pump out water from the deep coal-mine shafts, so that more coal could be extracted. Such was the desire to use the rich carbon resource while it was still available. We have now — well most of us have, recognised the need to reduce its consumption.  As we have noticed with large cities and excessive car use, or with the hole punched in the ozone layer, pollution does accumulate in the atmosphere, and it does have an impact, no matter how the sceptics try to convince us otherwise.

In Australia, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, for example, is designed (albeit not very well) to curb consumption of fossil fuels. But, we are tackling climate change by focusing on consumption and yet the world’s population is expanding, including within the highest-consuming nations. So do we ever hear voices calling for less people?

We do, but most notably these occur in letters to the editor, online comments and rarely from former or currently serving politicians. At a government level, there is a strange silence except for the odd rant about so-called illegal immigrants.  More often for state and federal governments it is a catch-cry reminiscent of the post-war slogan of “populate or perish”.

In 2004, the then Treasurer Peter Costello urged Australian couples to have “one (baby) for your husband and one for your wife and one for the country”. It is well documented that during his time in government Costello strongly supported increasing the country’s fertility rate. It is clear therefore that many of our political leaders feel the need for a higher population (we grew by 2.1 per cent over the last year), perhaps in the belief that it will feed a somewhat strange formula for economic growth.

As pointed out earlier this year by Andrew McNamara in his Queensland Conservation Council speech, The problem is us, most of the wealthiest countries, such as Luxembourg, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland and Sweden have populations under 10 million people.

Robert Engelman, vice president for programs at the Worldwatch Institute, wrote in the Scientific American in June this year: “In an era of changing climate and sinking economies, Malthusian limits to growth are back—and squeezing us painfully. Whereas more people once meant more ingenuity, more talent and more innovation, today it just seems to mean less for each.”

Less space, less resources to share and then we have the dangerous evolutionary situation of increased competition — and that’s without even mentioning the sorry plight of our rapidly disappearing fellow plant and animal species.

Engelman’s solution is in line with UN agreed strategies. It is not population control, as this stirs up images of a Chinese “one child policy”. Rather it lies within education of, and freedom of choice for females.

“Mostly ignored in the environmental debates about population and consumption is that nearly all the world’s nations agreed to an altogether different approach to the problem of growth 15 years ago, one that bases positive demographic outcomes on decisions individuals make in their own self-interest. (If only something comparable could be imagined to shrink consumption.) The strategy that 179 nations signed onto at a U.N. conference in Cairo in 1994 was: forget population control and instead help every woman bear a child in good health when she wants one.

“That approach, which powerfully supports reproductive liberty, might sound counter-intuitive for shrinking population growth, like handing a teenager the keys to the family car without so much as a lecture. But the evidence suggests that what women want—and have always wanted—is not so much to have more children as to have more for a smaller number of children they can reliably raise to healthy adulthood. Women left to their own devices, contraceptive or otherwise, would collectively ‘control’ population while acting on their own intentions.”

Engelman uses the surprising example of China. It is not the coercive policy of allowing only one child that has helped reduce fertility rates he wrote, rather it was family planning via industry and farming collectives put in place before the 1979 policy, that did the trick.

Thailand, Colombia and Iran, “have experienced comparable declines in family size by getting better family-planning services and educational opportunities to more women and girls in more places”.

But for some, focusing on population levels, reeks of western arrogance. As UK journalist and author Fred Pearce puts it, “over-consumers in rich countries can blame over-breeders in distant lands for the state of the planet”.  This statement is being echoed by many countries leading up to the Copenhagen climate-change talks.

In his online article Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat, Pearce wrote: “ Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 per cent of the global population — are responsible for 50 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 per cent are responsible for just 7 per cent of emissions.

“For a wider perspective of humanity’s effects on the planet’s life support systems, the best available measure is the ‘ecological footprint’, which estimates the area of land required to provide each of us with food, clothing, and other resources, as well as to soak up our pollution. This analysis has its methodological problems, but its comparisons between nations are firm enough to be useful.

“They show that sustaining the lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares, while Australians and Canadians require 7.8 and 7.1 hectares respectively; Britons, 5.3 hectares; Germans, 4.2; and the Japanese, 4.9. The world average is 2.7 hectares.”

The problem with a generic approach to ecological footprint analysis is that ignoring specific biophysical constraints means comparing countries may be as useful as say, comparing Wilson Tuckey with Bob Brown. We obviously have to be sensible with world-wide comparisons, especially if the value of biodiversity is considered lower than intensive crop land.

Australian soil, and the wildlife that effectively feeds off it, is not comparable to British or American soil types. The size of outback stations are not due to greed, instead they reflect a certain capacity of the land — the carrying capacity.  And the value of biodiversity in Australia should never be underestimated.

At the risk of angering many of my fellow Australian environmentalists, I could also say that how we generate our electricity is also based on biophysical issues. A predominance of fast-flowing rivers in high valleys leads inevitably to hyrdo-electricity. An abundance of coal in the ground, and under the current pricing structure — what nation on earth would have previously ignored it?

Finger pointing and blaming each other without understanding the local resources and opportunities available is surely counter-productive and perhaps even hypercritical. Hyrdo-electricity sounds great for carbon reduction but what about the impact on local ecosystems caused by damming rivers? Europeans emit less carbon, but use nuclear power to achieve it, and where does the waste go and for how long does it last?

In Australia’s case we not only have fossilised plant matter under our feet. We have sun and lots of it.  We have a huge coastline and large tidal movements, we have ancient hot rocks and in many regions there are good constant winds. In short, we have great potential opportunities if pricing structures are designed to benefit clean power. Those pricing structures, if designed well, will help direct our consumption towards more sustainable options.

Understanding our consumption patterns must therefore take into account the local conditions and opportunities. Solutions for reducing it are perhaps similar to our Australian wildlife and landscape, where diversity and local adaptation is the key. A single world-wide strategy must consider this.

However, as the environmental and climate sciences have taught us, focusing a question on only one part of an issue without considering the whole, means you will certainly miss the answer.

Reducing overall consumption is not the only solution and nor is simply targeting population levels.  As the earth is a complex beast, so too are the issues surrounding human population growth and development. And any solutions we adopt must consider the well being of individuals in all countries.

Standing in ankle deep mud in a field in Switzerland, cold rain drizzling down upon my head and shoulders, it was the early 90s, and his words had me suddenly missing my homeland and yearning for its wildlife, the waft of eucalyptus on a summer’s day, its bright sunshine, its people.

And now in 2009 thousands of people wait for Peter Garrett to invoke not a passionate yearning for home, but a decision that may in fact save their homes, their communities, their lifestyles. And this time they don’t want a song or a live performance, they simply want one word. No.

“The hardest years, the darkest years, the roarin’ years, the fallen years, these should not be forgotten years”. Words that will ring in the ears of any Mary Valley resident these days.

“It reeks of politics, signatures stained with tears, who can remember, we’ve got to remember”.

These are just some of the words Peter Garrett sang proudly in his song Forgotten Years.  However it’s hard to imagine any Mary Valley resident forgetting the years since the proposed dam was announced.

And now the decision rests firmly in the hands of Garrett and according to some, so does the future of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) which the federal minister must consider when assessing the proposed dam.

Murray-Darling kayaker and river campaigner Steve Posselt, wants the federal Environment Minister to reject the Queensland Government’s dam proposal.  And he has definitely had a different perspective of the river compared with those who made the decision to propose a dam in the first place.

Kayaker and river campaigner Steve Posselt. Image: stoppress.com.au

“On my ‘Don’t Murray the Mary’ trips, I’ve tried to fight my way through impenetrable masses of hyacinth on the Brisbane river below its dams, and then I’ve had the pleasure of descending the full length of the Mary, as it winds down to its estuary and the Great Sandy Strait.

“I learned of the riffles and vegetation essential to lungfish breeding, and the sand banks essential to the Mary River turtle. I also learned that our lungfish is unique, and native to only two rivers in the whole world.

“When I paddled all the way down the coast from Brisbane to Sydney to deliver over 3000 letters of opposition to the dam to Peter Garrett on the steps of the Opera house, I encountered many people who were dismayed at the threat to this iconic species.

“Since then thousands more letters have gone to Peter Garrett and other ministers, and now Mr Garrett very plainly holds the future of the Mary River in his hands. In fact the future of the whole EPBC Act may be tied up in this decision.”

Let’s just hope Mr Garrett remembers that “these will not be forgotten years”. His decision should be a simple one if the relevant Act is followed.

A simple ‘no’ will mean the former Oils lead singer will be remembered as a man of principle, a man who understands and respects our environment and importantly a man who believes in the rights of his fellow citizens.  A man who still believes in the words he sang decades ago.

But politics, it appears, always tends to muddy the waters and dampen even the most vocal rock star.

Just how healthy is the Noosa River? Image: greghardwick.com.au

Despite the constant high ratings awarded to the Noosa River’s water quality in the Healthy Waterways Reports, fish kills and deformities have brought the spotlight firmly upon local macadamia farmers. In particular, the fungicides and pesticides used on their crops.

After the release of an interim report into fish kills and deformities at the Sunland Fish Hatchery near Boreen Point, Matthew Landos, an honorary lecturer and research associate at the University of Sydney was recently reported as saying: “The interim report highlights that agrichemicals are likely, and in my opinion highly likely, to be causally associated with the syndromes reported at Sunland Fish Hatchery”.

Crop Life Australia goes so far as to not only dismiss Mr Landos’s claims, but they also believe he is lying.

“Claims by activist green veterinarian Matt Landos regarding chemical causing deformities in fish larvae, are irresponsible, will harm legitimate Australian farmers and are blatant lies.”

However, if Mr Landos is correct, harming “legitimate Australian farmers”, will be the least of our concerns.

Although the report is yet to be finalised, local residents should be eagerly awaiting its outcomes.

For years local councils and environment groups have hailed Noosa River as the benchmark for clean and healthy river water in south-east Queensland.

Experts agree that the river is fortunate to have most of  its upper sub-catchments contained within a national park. The Cooloola National Park, with its vast areas of coastal heathland, acts as a large, undisturbed natural sand filter.

Local environment groups and the former Noosa Council have, for many years, been active in protecting and enhancing a river system contained within an area now known as the Noosa Biosphere.

In the mid 90s, catchment groups were established across the state, each containing more than 20 representatives from government, industry and the local community.

Agricultural organisations were well represented on the group established to manage the Noosa River’s catchment area — initially known as the Noosa River Catchment Coordinating Committee and now known as the Noosa Integrated Catchment Association. For most of its early history, the catchment group was led by local farmers. This was seen as a good way of ensuring fairness in decision making.

In 2001 a taxpayer-funded catchment strategy was released. It showed an extensive range of existing and potential impacts threatening the river, and an equally extensive range of possible solutions.

A late 2008 image of a two-head bass embryo from the Noosa River. (Sunland Fish Hatchery - Gwen Gilson)

Although agriculture was deemed to contain varying degrees of impacts — mostly in the form of vegetation loss and sediment run-off, the focus turned towards the relatively highly-populated lower-catchment areas. These were within the estuarine parts of the river system, which housed settlements from Tewantin to Noosa Heads. All organisations represented on the catchment group publicly agreed with, and supported this approach.

Although the focus of action was diverted away from the agricultural areas of the catchment, fish kills and deformities must surely ring alarm bells. After all, many stakeholders have made huge and often voluntary contributions towards the health of the catchment.

If the final report directly links agrichemicals to the fish deaths, just how wide spread is the problem? (The final report is not due until February 2010).

Whether or not the impacts of agricultural chemicals are clearly understood, how serious have some farmers been in protecting the river catchment by minimising spray drift and run-off in accordance with industry best practices? (The neighbouring macadamia farm bordering the fish hatchery, according to the interim report, “is considered to be operating under industry best practice guidelines”).

One thing is certain, a river catchment, is the sum of its parts. If one part is impacted by chemicals, then the entire system is degraded. And it’s not only the local environment that suffers.

Greg Hardwick is a freelance journalist and Environment Scientist

Below is an article from the Queensland Greens and an interesting video clip explaining the impacts upon the Sunland Fish Hatchery.

***

The Queensland Greens have taken up the cause of Gwen Gilson, the fish hatchery owner from the Sunshine Coast who has reported fish kills and deformed fish among her stock, reportedly from chemical spraying at the neighbouring macadamia farm.

Gwen breeds native fish fingerlings, including silver perch, yellow belly and bass for release into dams and waterways.

Greens spokesperson Libby Connors visited the Sunland Fish Hatchery near Lake Cootharaba north of Noosa recently to discuss the issue with Ms Gilson. Gwen’s fish farm is bordered on three sides by a macadamia farm and has Cooloothin Creek at the bottom of her hill.

In 2006 there was a total fish kill after spray drift from the macadamia farm and more followed. Gwen’s microscope also showed dying fish larvae, some spinning out of control and others with two heads (see image). Complaints to the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries found the macadamia farm was using pesticides allowed by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and the farm’s spray log was in order.

After Gwen sought help late last year in the aquaculture magazine Hatchery International, agricultural veterinarian, Matt Landos, came to the farm and carried out tests. He identified three chemicals being used – Carbendazim, a fungicide with suspected hormone disrupting effects, Endosulfan, a highly controversial organochloride insecticide and Methidathione, a highly toxic organosphosphate insecticide also linked to deformities.

Endosulfan is well known for its disastrous effects on aquatic life but Landos identified Carbendazim as the one most likely to be causing the deformities. It has been identified by the European Commission as being likely to affect hormone function and to be linked to fish deformities. Unfortunately, the testing of chemicals on fish larvae is not a requirement of the APVMA. Carnedazim was de-registered by the USA in 2001 because of concerns about reproductive effects in humans.

The Queensland State Government has set up a task force to examine these incidents and the APVMA is reviewing Carbendazim but the probability of bureaucratic inertia winning the day is very high. Libby Connors wants State and Federal Government to act more decisively.

She is calling for:

• updated State legislation to cover insecticides and fungicides used by unlicensed ground sprayers;
• the APVMA to establish similar review process to that of the European Union with more independent testing of the effects of chemicals on fish eggs, broodfish and embryos before approval;
• the APVMA to test environmentally relevant mixtures and to test for toxicity the whole products used not only the active ingredients;
• the APVMA to test chemicals for their endocrine/hormone disrupting effects;
• all chemicals to undergo a compulsory review every three years to maintain registration.

“The Noosa [river] is regarded as having the best water quality of any river in south-east Queensland and yet the local golden-eyed mullet has disappeared entirely from the upper Noosa River and local catches of bass have almost disappeared,” Dr Connors said.

“Also, all local residents including the township of Boreen Point have rain water tanks.  This is an important issue for the environment, human health and the economy.”

Source of the above article: The Queensland Greens

If a clock can't keep accurate time, it is pointless describing how its cog wheels mesh together

As the Australia Institute rightly points out: “ If a clock can’t keep accurate time, it is pointless describing how its cog wheels mesh together”.

That’s their way of describing the complex structure created around the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) and its inability to measure the amount of renewable energy being produced around the country.

The former Howard government introduced the MRET, which requires electricity retailers to “ source a growing quantity of their electricity from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and biomass”.

Under Rudd, the target for this ‘growing quantity’ is the nice round number of 20 per cent, by 2020. So, like any well-thought-out scheme, with a nice round-number target, you would think there is an even nicer system to measure just how much green power is being produced. Think again.

Enter Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). These tradable, almost imaginary permits, where one megawatt of power generated by a renewable source is worth one REC, form the basis of the MRET.

And, as the independent public policy research centre, The Australia Institute point out, RECs are administered through another body, called the Office of the Renewable Regulator (ORER), and based upon a wordy 137 pages of specific legislation with a further 56 pages dedicated to regulations. Yet the ORER website surprisingly fails to clearly show any increase in renewable energy generation.

“The ORER provides abundant data but there is no information on the actual electricity output from new renewables.”

The report also states: “ [The] MRET has been heralded as a success, yet data to evaluate that claim accurately do not exist. The ORER provides a mass of administrative data but it is not enough to learn that all the boxes are being ticked and all the regulatory requirements are being met.”

And it goes on to declare: “We need to know how much renewable energy is being produced….The implications for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), which will be an order of magnitude more complex than the MRET, are obvious.”

‘Obvious’, is an understatement. As the list of acronyms grow let’s just hope the government can get its complex clock to actually show the ‘time’. For it’s time we are running short on.

One person in particular was recognised for 18 years of communicating the major environmental issues facing the Sunshine Coast. Jillian Rossiter, received what was considered a long-overdue award for ‘outstanding dedication to the environment’.

Jillian Rossiter (left) and councillor Vivien Griffin

“Jillian is a very unassuming person who quietly undertakes her enormous commitment to the environment,” said councillor Vivien Griffin, before presenting the award.

“It is the dedication of people like Jillian that allows the Sunshine Coast Environment Council to continue its valuable work.”

Jillian produced the precursor to Econews, the Eco Echo magazine, which enjoyed widespread support around the Coast for many years. More recently, she has tirelessly organised the popular GREENhouse at the Woodford Folk Festival.

She spent 10 years producing the seasonal Eco Echo magazine, and the last eight years building an impressive list of speakers at the GREENhouse. These have been the highlights of Jillian’s environmental career. A career that has emphasised showing, not telling – a trait, that so often appears in quiet achievers.

“They have enabled me to bring the stories and expertise of many activists, scientists and other experts to the public,” said Jillian.

Jillian said she was honoured to be recognised in this way.

“Especially from such an outstanding organisation as SCEC, that has now, and has had in the past, so many skilled and dedicated people.”

Almost 200 people attended the evening, held at the Lake Kawana Community Centre on November 28. The night was hosted by the Sunshine Coast Environment Council, with special guest speaker, and recent Greens convert, Ronan Lee attending, along with local award-winning singer/songwriter Kate Gibson and artist Blair McNamara.

SCEC manager, Narelle McCarthy said the night was another success, which highlighted how important it is for the Coast to continue with its aim of becoming Australia’s most sustainable region.

“We need to build on the community’s efforts and continue the momentum,” she said.

“However, we wouldn’t be able to hold this event without our hard-working volunteers and the support of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, as well as our other sponsors. I can’t thank them enough.”

Affectionately known as the ‘froggies’, the Sunshine Coast Environment Awards are now in their thirteenth year.

Full list of winners and award sponsors

Biodiversity
Winner: Leigh Warneminde.
Highly commended: Downes Survey Group, Collins Rd Development & Queensland Timber Plantations in partnership – Collins Road Development
Sponsor: Sunshine Coast Regional Council

Climate Change Mitigation
Winner: Liza Neil, Cool Schools & Community Solar Energy
Highly Commended: Sustainable Maleny
Highly Commended: Qld Complete Printing Services
Sponsor: Maleny Credit Union

Eco Attraction
Winner: Eumarella Shores Lakeside Cottages
Sponsor: Rockcote

Environmental Communication
Winner: RAID @ Bridges (sub-group of Yandina and District Community Association)

Sustainable Agriculture
Winner: Rose-mere Farm
Highly commended: Templeton’s Ginger Farm
Highly Commended: Kookaburra Organics Aust P/L
Sponsor: Cedar Hill Flowers and Foliage

Sustainable Project
Winner: S.E.A.C
Highly commended: Veggie Village
Sponsor: Sunshine Coast Regional Council

Sustainable Schools
Winner: Noosa District State High School
Highly Commended: Noosa Pengari Steiner
Sponsor: Insulation and Solar Centre

Waste Management
Winner: Brite Side Industries
Sponsor: Sudtec

Water Quality and Conservation
Winner: Noosa & District Landcare
Sponsor: Downes Survey Group

Outstanding Dedication to the Environment
Jillian Rossiter

Excellence in Journalism
Bill Hoffman

Brett Robb and Leonie Shanahan. Image Frank Wilkie.

Brett Robb, from Roundabout Coffee and Fuel at Noosaville has a vision. One where the local community works together to reduce their greenhouse impacts by helping to educate scores of local school children in growing healthy, sustainable food.

He has that typical, friendly and enthusiastic spark in his eyes, often found in those with great ideas. The coffee machine gurgles as it makes the next brew. The smell is just too tempting.

“What I want to do is change community expectations. Imagine if one small local business could find a way to fund the education of over 700 local school children on how to live sustainably,” he says, as he watches the coffee drip into the cup.

“What could we achieve if we all co-operate and combine our efforts?”

This is not the usual conversation you get from your local service-station operator. The price of fuel or the world’s most talked about topic, weather, usually dominates the discussion as you pay for a product that is quickly becoming something of a luxury. It’s Brett’s background as a former waste and recycling manger for Noosa Shire that provides a clue.

“It became clear to me, during my role as waste and recycling manager, that our current practices of carrying out our daily lives are not sustainable. I became aware that our current way of living is robbing future generations of the quality of life they deserve,”  he says, as he hands me the coffee.

The father of four understands that many people are similarly concerned for the future. As transport is one of the major contributors to climate change and is already becoming threatened by peak oil, Brett realised that most people cannot afford the more environmentally-friendly hybrid cars, but they still want to do something to reduce their impacts. Trained as a diesel fitter, Brett says, “I’m used to building things to fix problems. You learn to become more innovative.” The sign out the front shows just how innovative his business is.

A large display board shows how much money was donated to the local Edible Gardens project last month. Six hundred and twenty-two dollars was raised through a carbon-offset scheme which uses 2 cents per litre of fuel sold. In what would have to be one of the most transparent service stations around, the sign displays the cost of fuel to the business, the carbon offset of 2 cents and how that offset is used.

“Two cents, he says, almost offsets the carbon, at the point of sale”. But it’s not only greenhouse conscious motorists who are benefiting.

Edible School Gardens co-ordinator and local permaculturalist Leonie Shanahan, understands the importance of Brett’s idea.

“Without Brett, the permaculture garden program would not be happening,” said Ms Shanahan. But like many good ideas the Fuel for Schools program needs more help from local businesses.

“At the moment, the children are very aware of the waste produced at school and therefore we are looking for donations of compost bins that we can use for our food scraps. Not just for Tewantin school, but other schools and community gardens as well. There are many schools that are keen to be part of the permaculture gardens program,” she said.

I place the now empty coffee cup back on the counter. As I prepare to leave I wanted to ask one final question about the type of feedback Brett has received from his customers. Before I can ask, a young woman, in her thirties, pays for her fuel and comments how great Brett’s initiative is. It’s her first time here to fill up the fuel tank. “I’ll be back,” she says with a smile.

It appears that his idea is not only helping local children understand a healthier way of living, but he is tapping into the local community spirit and in doing so, he is set to have a growing base of customers. Perhaps it’s time for other businesses to join in.