'Consuming the world'

Below is a copy of the presentation which I gave to the Dangerous Consumptions Colloquium in November 2018, with my notes (edited for sense and ease of reading).

 

I begin by paying my respects to Elders and custodians - in particular to the Bunurong people, on whose land we meet, and specifically to Elders who participated in and supported my research project. The image refers to:

• human activities heating the world (climate change), and
• the discourse of humanity (or 'Man') as lord of creation, with power over other species and ecosystems, through the image of the “crown roast”

The image of a lamb crown roast fits the Australian history of white invasion of Indigenous country, and over-running it with sheep (ironically still celebrated in Australia Day advertisements for lamb barbeques).

However, it also refers to the latest IPCC report on global warming of 1.5, which suggests reducing meat eating and switching to plant based foods as an important part of one possible pathway to stay within 1.5C warming.

This is the first time I am aware of that the IPCC has put strong emphasis on ‘demand reduction’ and ‘behaviour change’ as feasible parts of the response to global warming. Meat eating represents danger for planet, but also danger for human health, through the way meat is consumed in high income countries. Like other forms of dangerous consumption, meat eating is often valorised and associated with pleasure. It is also often associated with a certain construction of dominant masculine identity.

The IPCC report also mentions demand reduction in relation to transport, but seems to have less confidence that it can be achieved. However, the report does go beyond a price-based, 'market driven' focus alone. It also looks at co-benefits, and links with the Sustainable Development Goals. Like the Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, the IPCC report also begins to look at 'bottom up' as well as 'top down' responses.

As well as affecting climate by our 'dangerous consumption', we are also destroying biodiversity. A recent report by the World Wildlife Fund says the population of species they monitor has decreased by 60%. Similarly several indicators of the United Nations Environment Program are already at or past crisis point.  

 

The research project involved research with three Primary Care Partnerships (PCPs) from 2009-2017. PCPs are alliances of local health and community services, usually covering several municipalities. During 2011-16, we looked at theory and practice at community level.

We identified 32 projects promoting health, equity and environmental sustainability in the three PCPs. These involved:

• Sustainable food systems & caring for natural environment, healthy eating, growing food, reducing food waste, community gardening, links to Indigenous cultural awareness
• Housing sustainability, particularly for low income groups, reducing energy use and costs
• Active transport, walking cycling and public transport use

Even though small scale, these projects fit with the sectors identified by the IPCC, and with bottom up responses. This work is community based rather than market driven. However it faced significant challenges, particularly political and discursive challenges.

Across Victoria as a whole, planned action to address climate change or environmental sustainability in PCP strategic plans declined from almost 50% of plans in 2009-12, to just over 10% in 2013-17. Some PCPs kept doing the work but ‘labelled’ it differently, however there was clearly a real decline. One respondent in the research project said that the biggest challenge to the work was that climate change was so politicised that "people are too scared to even talk about it".

The politicised context was also a threat to health promotion in general. There were major cuts to health promotion and public health after the federal Liberal National Coalition (LNC) government was elected in 2013. However, there was a particular threat to work on climate change or environmental sustainability.

This political context was also gendered. Julia Gillard was the Labor Prime Minister until September 2013. The government at the time of the image above (2011) was proposing to legislate a carbon price and other measures to address climate change. Ms Gillard was demonised as a liar and ‘witch’, who had sneakily overthrown the male Labor leader Kevin Rudd, and had ‘lied’ about her intention to introduce a carbon price ('tax').

This movement was led by a conservative white male, Tony Abbott, as leader of the Opposition, but as apparent in the photo, it was not supported only by conservative white males. Several LNC female MPs went along with this. (Two of those pictured above subsequently left Parliament, one losing her seat to a female independent)

The thesis also explored the deeper level of discourse underlying this immediate level of political conflict. It explored how the discourse of mainstream economics – the most politically powerful discourse of our polity – although apparently neutral, and about ‘individuals’, actually has embedded assumptions from the patriarchal discourse of the white invasion of Australia

This approach draws on ecofeminist theory, particularly the work  of Carolyn Merchant. However, this theoretical approach is complex and not easily accessible, and can provoke opposition, particularly in conservative regional areas, where two of the PCPs in the study are located.

I am now trying to relate this analysis more clearly to public discussions about climate change and environment. Some examples of such discussions come from participants in the thesis, others I have seen in media and twitter, and in academic sources.

One type of discourse often drawn on is about culture, lifestyle, and even addiction. For example, a participant in the research spoke about a “car culture”, saying people would get into their car to go from one end of the street to  the other (talking about a street in a country town such as the one in the image). I also conducted a review of relevant health promotion literature, which looked in part at suggested causes for the ecological crisis. Several articles suggested 'lifestyle', or people's desire for affluent lifestyles, as a cause. Some academics, such as Frederica Perera (2008), specifically use the language of addiction (‘Children Are Likely to Suffer Most from Our Fossil Fuel Addiction’).

I also recognise the role of capitalism, or commercial determinants, and the concept of creating ‘addictive products’, which others will talk about in this colloquium. However, I want to explore deeper levels of discourse, and consent, particularly how mainstream economics often constrains us, including people working in public health, into a form of consent to its assumptions.

I don’t know much about these images and their sources, so show them just for fun, but they do convey messages about advertising and masculinity that are significant culturally, even though contemporary ads aren’t normally so blatant and make at least some appeal to women and diversity (sometimes in a very patronising way).

Different suggestions, such as those shown above, can be found in both popular and academic sources. Many are sensible. But I am concerned with examples of how the apparently neutral language of economics, maths and numbers, actually hides many issues of power and inequality, and diverts from real issues and responsibilities that we need to face.

This may arise from the intersection of contemporary, supposedly ‘non-gendered’ and ‘non- racialized’ ideas, with a continuing underlying discourse that is in fact gendered and racialized. There are continuing historical influences, for example in Australia, from a discourse in which the normative individual clearly was, in the late 19^th and early 20^th century, and in some ways implicitly still is, a white adult middle class man.

In this analysis I am focusing particularly on suggestions about technology and babies.

One of the commonest examples of what I call the ‘technology will save us’ approach I see in popular discourse, is a focus on electric cars, powered by renewable energy. I think this was particularly cleverly demolished by this image which I saw on twitter.

Clearly the resource implications alone of changing the entire fleet (millions of cars) in 10, or even 30, years, are enormous, and would have major environmental consequences. But even if this reduced carbon emissions, and reduced the negative health impacts through less pollution, many of the environmental and social issues are not changed. The environmental impacts of roads and infrastructure, and the mining and production of metals, plastics and glass, would not be reduced, and some could potentially be increased.

The idea that we can keep living much as we do, but with new technology, seems to involve a reluctance to admit that major social change is needed. Even the focus on climate change alone, rather than environmental degradation more broadly, can be reductionist, although this is a separate and complex issue.

The quote and the picture above are both from Scientific American on population issues. The language of the quote is neutral, about average “people”, or individuals. However the picture tells a different story. It is about a woman of colour. The discourse of population growth and climate change is not always racist and sexist in its unspoken subtext, but it often is.

The parallel with the discourse of economics is suggested by the utility curve. People are envisaged as individuals who want to maximise their utility. This is all supposedly value free and neutral.

 

When we look deeper, there is no average person

On a country or national level, there are particular countries, Australia being one of them, which have very high incomes, high CO2e levels and large ecological footprints, but low birth rates
There are others that have high fertility rates, and are very low on the other indicators, like Afghanistan. Basically even if the population of Afghanistan doubled in a generation, it would still represent a very small fraction of the environmental impact of countries like Qatar and Australia.

Stable population is an important goal. Improving the conditions for women in low income countries (which many, although not all, of those who focus on population growth admit is necessary) is also important. But focusing on these issues alone is a diversion from the responsibilities of high income, fossil fuel producing countries.

Ultimately I suggest we need to change from the dominant ‘economistic’ discourse, where we are conceptualised as individuals who compete for resources in order to improve our utility, to one in which we are understood as part of a socioecological system, where we all have responsibility to care for each other and share resources fairly and sustainably. As one of the participants in the research project said, we need to think about 'what kind of future we want'. In doing this we can learn from ecofeminist theory and from Indigenous knowledge.

 

 

‘Random people on the internet’ are those who shared their thoughts with me on the research project blog and on twitter and the internet more broadly.

 

 

Submission to Greens - draft notes

Over the next few weeks, I plan to develop a submission to the Victorian Greens, with two main purposes, one specific and personal, the other broad and policy oriented. The first is to ask for a review of the refusal of membership to me, with a clear statement of reasons. The second is to call for a clearer vision and purpose for the Greens, looking at what kind of society they are aiming for, and how the party itself represents that vision.

In brief, do the Greens aim to be an egalitarian, inclusive, democratic and open party, aiming for an egalitarian, inclusive, democratic and open society? Or do they aim to be a hierarchical organisation, dominated by small groups, with limited accountability, and aiming to manage society in the way they deem best? That seems to be the position confronting the Greens, and to be exemplified in the way I was treated, and others have been treated, in the party.

Some of this will necessarily be impressionistic. However, I will assemble and present as much clear evidence as I can. First, I begin with a general description of the Greens' position in Victoria at present.

Results of the last six elections:

Lower house votes

2018, Greens 10.71, ALP 42.86, Liberal/National total 35.20, Other 11.23

2014, Greens 11.48, ALP 38.10, Liberal/National total 42.00, Other 8.42

2010, Greens 11.21, ALP 36.25, Liberal/National total 44.78, Other 7.76

2006, Greens 10.04, ALP 43.06, Liberal/National total 39.61, Other 7.29

2002, Greens 9.73, ALP 47.95, Liberal/National total 38.21, Other 4.11

1999, Greens 1.15, ALP 45.57, Liberal/National total 47.02, Other 6.26

Upper house votes

2018, Greens 9.25, ALP 39.22, Liberal/National total 29.43, Other 22.1

2014, Greens 10.75, ALP 33.46, Liberal/National total 36.13, Other 19.66

2010, Greens 12.01, ALP 35.36, Liberal/National total 43.15, Other 9.48

2006, Greens 10.58, ALP 41.45, Liberal/National total 38.98, Other 8.99

2002, Greens 10.87, ALP 47.49, Liberal/National total 38.88, Other 2.76

1999, Greens 2.23, ALP 42.19, Liberal/National total 47.00, Other 8.58

Overall the Greens have been a significant presence in Victoria since the 2002 election. This likely reflects the big shift in 2002, following the Tampa incident, when Labor members like myself began leaving the party and switching to the Greens. 

The Greens vote, however, has declined somewhat in recent elections. For the lower house, it has declined from 11.48% in 2014 to 10.71% in 2018, while for the upper house, it has declined from 12.01% in 2010 to 9.25%. The Greens upper house vote is at its lowest point this century. 

This decline would likely in part reflect the increase in votes for minor parties and independents, which has been very marked in the upper house in the last two elections, and also present, though to a lesser degree, in the lower house (see 'Other' figures above). It is noticeable though that this has not affected the Labor party to the same degree. While the Labor party vote has declined since 2006, it has increased in the upper house in the most recent election and in the lower house in the two most recent elections. The Liberal National total vote has decreased since 2010 and declined dramatically in the most recent election. 

Overall, both Labor and minor parties/independents have increased their vote significantly in the last two elections, particularly at the expense of the Liberal/National coalition, but also apparently at the expense of the Greens. I argue very strongly that this should not be happening. At a time when climate change and environmental degradation are existential concerns, inequality is increasing dramatically, and the Victorian population overall seems to reject racist populism and the demonisation of asylum seekers, the Greens should be the party of choice on the basis of policy. The fact that they're not seems to indicate problems in the way the party is perceived, and in its messages to the people. It is in this context that I make this submission.

Continuing the discussion about population and emissions

In my previous post, I discussed why 'not having children' isn't the most important thing people can do to reduce emissions, contrary to what some people believe. I think this idea particularly comes from some American modelling a few years ago, which I will try to analyse in a subsequent post. However in this post I want to expand on my simple calculation in the previous post.

In that post I suggested that if everyone in Australia stopped having children, the theoretical reduction in total emissions by 2030 would be 12%, which is well below the necessary reduction of about 50%. However of course it's totally unrealistic to think everyone would do that, so I suggested we could probably think about a 10-20% decline in births at most, which would equal a 1.2-2.4% decline in emissions - not nothing, but very small.

That's a highly simplified and theoretical calculation of course, and is more like 'emissions forgone' than an actual reduction. If we were currently reducing our total and per capita emissions, it might be more meaningful, but we are not. A slightly more realistic way of looking at this might be to calculate the actual population decline involved (leaving aside immigration).

The current number of deaths per annum in Australia is around 160,000 (ABS). (It puzzled me a bit at first that they are so much fewer than births, which are around 310,000, but the discussion below* explains this.) I won't show the detailed calculation, but if you think of the impact of not having children in terms of population decline and associated decline in emissions, the annual decline in emissions would be about 0.6%, or cumulatively 6.6% by 2030. This is a more 'real' way of calculating it (potentially an actual decline rather than emissions forgone), but again the likely decline in births is much less. Taking the 10-20% estimate again, the likely real decline would be 0.66-1.3%. A tiny amount of the needed 50% in other words.

Over the long term, a declining population would reduce emissions of course. And over the long term, because our fertility rate (births per women) is below replacement rate, we could have a declining population (depending on immigration levels). A declining population also causes some social and economic problems, which I won't go into here, but the big issue is we don't have a long time. We have to reduce emissions fast, and the thing we as Australians can do is work out why our emissions are so high and how we can reduce them. (Suggestions based on the IPCC report are in the previous post, I'll try to expand on them later.)

Finally, it's an ethical question. Even if we could reduce our total emissions in Australia by reducing births and restricting immigration, why should we continue to have such high per capita emissions rates? What is there that justifies us emitting so much CO2e per person, one of the highest rates in the world, if not the highest? We need to think as global citizens rather than just Australians, and calculate how we can get down to a sustainable level of emissions, as fast as possible. We could do this in ways that have multiple social and health benefits - to be continued ...

*The reason deaths are so much fewer than births is that the number of older people is still much fewer than younger people (see figure here). The Australian population grew rapidly until about the 1970s, when the birth rate began to drop. So although the fertility rate is now below replacement rate (which is about 2.1 children per woman, while the current fertility rate is about 1.7), births still outnumber deaths at present as there are many more in the reproductive years than in older age groups.
(Edited slightly for clarity today)

Why 'not having children' isn't the most important thing you can do reduce emissions

(Edited 11 December to clarify a few points. I also wanted to look at this from the perspective of population decline, but I can't write more on this page on the iPad, so will have to start a new post)

On Twitter and elsewhere, I frequently come across people who believe that not having children is the best thing they can do to reduce emissions. I discussed the problems with this idea in my presentation to the Dangerous Consumptions colloquium, which I'll post soon. Basically it's the problem of trying to apply averages in situations where they don't apply. In summary, the reason why this doesn't work is that countries with high birth rates tend to have low emissions, while countries with high emissions tend to have low birth rates.

Differences in emission rates correlate with wealth, but also reflect whether the country produces fossil fuels. Countries like Australia, USA, and the Arab gulf states (wealthy fossil fuel producing countries) tend to have very high emission rates. Australia's per capita emission rate, according to the latest greenhouse inventory report, is almost 22 tonnes CO2e per capita. (Around 2 is probably a sustainable level).

To help make it a bit clearer why 'not having children' isn't the most important thing anyone can do at present, I've included some simple calculations below. I should make it clear that I'm not saying sustainable population isn't important - Australia's birth rate is a bit below replacement rate at present,  which without immigration would lead to a declining population. That's not a bad thing at present. However decreasing the birth rate even further isn't the most urgent or important thing we collectively can do to reduce emissions.

I'm interested in any comments on this, including the calculation below. I haven't seen much research on this, which is why I'm looking at it, but there's bound to be people somewhere specialising in this, I'd think.

Calculation

Australia's current population - c 25 million (ABS)
Australia's average yearly births - c 310,000 (ABS)
Australia's per capita emission rate - c 22 tonnes CO2e (as above)

So total emissions = c 550 million tonnes CO2e (25m x 22). If we had no births next year, and if we assume babies have the average per capita rate (questionable, but to keep it simple), then we would save about 6.8 million tonnes CO2e (310 thousand x 22), or 1.2% of current emissions. Over the course of 11 years to 2030, that would be cumulative, so would add up to about 12% reduction in emissions per annum by 2030.

So is that the biggest thing we can do? Well no. Over the 11 years to 2030, we need to reduce emissions by about 50% or more if we want to stay within 1.5C global warming (Climate Council), so it's only a minor proportion. Secondly, it's of course completely unrealistic to expect everyone to stop having babies for 11 years. I've got no idea what you could realistically expect. The birth rate certainly declined a lot in the 20th century, but once it's below replacement rate, it's hard to say how much lower it could go, especially in only 11 years. Maybe a decline of 10 or 20% is possible, which would amount to less than 3% decline in emissions, out of the more than 50% decline we need.

On my reading of the latest IPCC report on Global Warming, the most important things we collectively could do (not in any particular order) to reduce our emissions, are:

• Reduce energy use and shift to renewables (which of course includes stop mining coal)*
• Shift to a locally grown, organic* plant based diet as much as possible 
• Shift from motorised to active transport as much as possible 
• Reduce consumption across the board (reduce, reuse, recycle)

I'd argue the main obstacle to these is the 'economistic' discourse of growth, shared by both major parties in Australia, and not effectively contested by the Greens so far. Underlying that, I'd say, are the assumptions of hierarchical, capitalist patriarchy, but that's a long story I'm trying to write about in articles at present, so won't expand now. 

Interested in any comments on this, especially if my calculations are wrong.

*as far as I know the coal we sell isn't currently included in our per capita emissions, but we should stop mining and selling altogether anyway

* organic in this case to reduce emissions associated with production, transport and spreading of synthetic fertilisers, although there's other good reasons as well.