Fallacy 6: Spent fuel does not contribute to weapons

Following on from my last blog on climate change fallacies and nuclear power, I had some emails thanking me and asking me some more questions. I am not an expert in this area but a recent article by Mark Diesendorf, where I am sourcing these fallacies from, can give you more details. So fallacy 6 is about spent fuel from nuclear reactors…

Fallacy 6: Spent fuel does not contribute to weapons

That is, spent fuel from nuclear power stations cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by noting that this is one of the most frequent falsities uttered by the nuclear industry and its supporters. This fallacy has been refuted by many experts including Dr Theodore Taylor, commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

MD presents the following information: a standard 1000 megawatt nuclear power station produces about 200 kilograms of “reactor-grade plutonium annually”. This, according to MD, is enough for 20 nuclear bombs. They reactor grade quality is below weapons-grade, it still has an amazing amount of destructive capability.

Attached to this fallacy is that nuclear power stations based on thorium rather than uranium cannot produce a nuclear explosion. MD says, ‘not true’: to use thorium as a fuel it must first be converted to uranium-233 which is ‘fissile’. This means that it can undergo nuclear fission and can be used as either a fuel or as an explosive in a bomb!

MD also reminds us that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are intimately linked: each nation with power ambitions moves pretty quickly into establishing bombs… the more nuclear stations the more likely we are to see more nuclear weapons - something that no-one should be comfortable with.

Confronting climate change deniers 5: Nuclear is part of the answer

Given the recent election of Tony Abbott as Opposition leader who supports a nuclear solution to global warming (and who has been supported as such by some sections of the media), it is time to consider the nuclear equation. As such, I turn back to Mark Diesendorf’s book, Climate Action, to reflect on this. As the title of this blog suggests, this is the fifth fallacy that those concerned about climate change must be prepared to confront.


Response: In his book, Mark Diesendorf (MD) begins by noting that high grade uranium ore will, at current rates of use, only last several more decades. When this is all used up, we will have to revert to low grade ore.


What does this mean? Well, according to MD, for every 1 kilogram of yellowcake (a type of uranium concentrate), some ten tonnes of rock will need to be mined – a process which uses massive amounts of fossil fuels. The carbon emissions of this process will be significant. MD argues that the result would be no different to running a gas-fired power station.


Some pro-nuclear commentators have argued that this can be overcome using ‘fast breeder reactors’: which have the potential to increase the original uranium fuel by a factor of 50 to 1. In response, MD notes that the world’s last large such reactor was in France and only functioned for 276 days in its 10 years of operation, and was closed in 1998 after countless problems and cost eu9 million. Only one other such reactor is currently operating and is also unreliable. Even if this was not a problem and such reactors were reliable, they require large-scale processing of spent fuel which is intensely radioactive – which involves serious hazards and costs.


There are also economic reasons why nuclear power is not the answer. MD also explains that three commercial reactors have been built in the USA, but all have failed to be economically viable and been closed.


Then there is the waste issue. Overall, MD notes that while there are a handful of non-military plants operating successfully, there is only a small fraction of plutonium produced globally in nuclear power stations is being ‘recycled’: the rest is unseparated in high-level waste and stored temporarily next to the stations that produced it. How temporary: in some cases temporary has meant 50 years!


Another limitation of the nuclear option is the long planning and construction time – especially for new entrants into this industry. In Australia, MD notes, it would 15 years to get one up and running even if there was no public opposition (which is unlikely). Further, such dangerous technologies should never be rushed or things can easily go wrong (as we have seen various spills in Australian mines and English power plants).


Even in the UK, which produces about 19 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, there have been constant problems and a need to change the type of station being built: a process that has meant construction times have been long and the costs always much higher than predicted. A new station being built in Finland is experiencing similar problems: by December 2008 is two years behind schedule and its costs had escalated by about eu1.5 billion.


MD concludes that based on current technology, nuclear power is neither a short-term nor long-term solution to global warming. The so-called Generation 4 plants are at least 30 years away: if they ever arrive. In other words, nuclear power is a distraction from genuine solutions to global warming.

If you want more information on this issue, check out the article by Prof. Ian Lowe from the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Socio-logic with James - FBi Radio (19 Nov 2009): feminism and slavery

Hey everyone

The last couple of weeks have been crazy so I have not had a chance to post my blog with the usual enthusiasm, but I am back this week.

This week on FBI Radio (94.5 fm), I covered 2 broad areas: feminism (yes, the ‘f’-word) and modern day slavery.

The feminism story was inspired from the news the week before of the some of the degrading rituals that some Sydney Uni residential colleges follow. Alex and I discussed this on air but alas, no blog. For a great read, however, check out the article by Carina Garland.

So let’s look at this week’s issues...

Is Feminism still relevant?

For some background on gender, sex and feminism check out my blog below.

To begin with, we should understand that feminism simply means the push for political, cultural or economic rights and legal protection for women. (See, it is not a scary word!)

We can look at the challenges facing women both in Australia and internationally. These are different challenges and should not be simply grouped together. What is important however, is that challenges still on exist both on the economic and social front (again, see below for some evidence I provide) as well as check out the figures provided by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Feminism is about confronting these challenges with the goal of equality: and I think remains relevant today though the challenges, in Australia, have changed.

I call myself a feminist – and believe that it is just as relevant today as ever.

Modern day slavery

Slavery ‘officially ended over 200 years ago, but unfortunately, it persists today. Though exact figures are almost impossible to come by, it is estimated that that there are 27 million people around the world today are being held in slavery. To think about the size of that, it is the Australian population plus another 7 million! Figures indicate that this illegal industry generates up to US$100 billion per year.

One organisation working to stop slavery is Free the Slaves, which was founded in 2001 as well as its UK sister organisation Anti-Slavery International (which is the world's oldest human rights group).

Slavery is essentially the ownership of a person: they become like any other commodity (like a pair of shoes: unfortunate example, but this is something that we need to be brutally honest about).

Free the Slaves draws an important distinction between slavery and extremely exploitative labour, though they also admit that this is a very thin line.

Sweatshop workers are exploited by being forced to work long hours under difficult and abusive conditions with little pay. Slaves face the same conditions, but additionally they cannot walk away – having lost all their rights and free will.

Further, most slaves are paid nothing at all, and the physical and psychological violence used against them is so complete that they cannot escape their slavery.

Both Free the Slave and organisations like Oxfam Australia and also many organisations like Apheda which are associated with labour unions work on these issues.

What is important here is that we can all do something about this – our everyday actions can break down slavery and overcome sweatshop conditions.

Follow the hot-links to find out how you can help (as well as get more information).

Cheers, james

Understanding where gender relationships come from in everyday life

Introduction

This blog is focussed on the idea of performance: the way we perform of ‘gender’. As I will explain below, there is an important difference between sex and gender.

Before I get into such descriptions though, I want to mention an important cultural studies theorist, Irving Goffman. Goffman studied the rituals and practices of everyday life – something that may not sound exciting, but if you think about it, it is. Think about how we behave everyday: from shaking hands to standing in queues, we follow these invisible rule. What Goffman argued was that our experiences of everyday life are all based on performance. Life is like we are living on a stage and we perform accordingly. Like any performance, much of what we perform is based on the actors around us.

So, for example, when I am hanging out with students, I take the role of a lecturer. But when I am hanging out with my big brother, take the role of little brother. In other words, our performance is always changing.

How does this translate to gender? Well, as I will argue, there are daily rituals and routines that we follow and perform that give rise to gender identity. In others words, we are going to understand what makes us a man, what makes us a woman, and how we learn to behave in the appropriate way.

By unfolding this, we learn how power is shaped in our society and why for centuries women were though of as the 'inferior sex.' Even today in wealthy nations like Australia, these gendered roles persist and create uneven power relations. To overcome these, we must understand why they come about. So, let's begin…


Sex and gender

The starting point of this blog is to understand the difference between sex and gender.
The simplest way to keep the difference in mind is to think of sex as our biological make-up. That is, there are certain biological aspects that allow us to be defined as men and women: yes, our bits! This is not always clear-cut however, as there are many who are born as what can be described as inter-sex. That is, with biological features of both men and women: never clearly defined. Our society is not used to dealing with this group of people and I would love to write more but this is not the blog to do this.

Gender, on the other hand, are the social and cultural characteristics and personality traits that we assign different the sexes. In other words, what are the characteristics that make us men and women. These are not biological, but the social dimensions assigned to men and women – such as masculine and feminine..

So, if we think about it, we can think about the characteristics that make women feminine and what makes women beautiful. We think of the ideal women and the specific characteristics she is assigned. In our society, the feminine may include things such as thin, demure, polite, sexy but not dominating. You can see how these are social characteristics assigned to women.

We can contrast this to the masculine – or the social characteristics that makes the ideal male: strong, some level of aggression but not too much, fit, the breadwinner, sexually active, the leader and stronger parent.

As we can see, there are social and cultural attributes, not just physical, that we assign to the different sexes – and this is what we define as gender.

'Male' and 'female', then, are biological terms: they point to anatomical, primarily genital difference. "'Man' and 'woman', however, are gendered terms, and signify social, that is behavioural and experiential difference. They are categories with certain coded behaviours which we as young males or females must learn in order to become men or women. Masculinity and femininity thus are not inherent characteristics" (Buchbinder, 1994: 3).

Now, the concept of gender is relatively new and only emerged in the 1970s. Up until this time, it was assumed that your gender was attributed to your sex. That is, your personality was essentially determined by your sex: culture was seen as not really being a factor.

So this brings us to the link between sex, gender and identifying who we are.


Gender, rituals and routines

The question for us to consider is, what role do routines and rituals play in our everyday lives that confirm and enforce these idealised gendered roles. If we all think of what we did in the last 24 hours, we can think of routines and rituals that we have followed and how these are gendered.

Possible examples are:

• Putting on make up? Feminine
• Tuning the car? Masculine
• Doing the ironing? Feminine
• Preparing the children for school? Feminine
• Fixing a leaky tap? Masculine
• Sitting on the couch drinking beer and watching footy with mates, eating pizza and yelling at the television? Masculine
• Shaving your legs? Feminine

Ok, you can hopefully see that there are some specific roles rituals and routines that are assigned to genders. These are not natural or ‘innate’ but my point is about the role we assign to certain tasks.

Let's now try and ground this a little further. Think of a family roast and assign the following roles:

• Who does the inviting?
  
• Who does the cooking?
• Who sets the table?
• Who watches the footy while this is happening?
• Who serves the food?
• Who cleans the table?
• Where do the different men and women congregate during the preparation?
  
  

My point here is that the process of performing gender and what is accepted as appropriate 'gendered' behaviour is learnt and culturally specific. And the way we learn most of this information is not that someone sits down and tells us: this is how men behave and this is how women should act. Rather, we learn it in the rituals and routines of everyday life – and usually by just observing what others do and following.

Importantly, these rituals and routines tell us a great deal about our culture. And we can hopefully see from the examples above, how they shape power relations in our society.

The beauty myth

So where does this take us? When I say culture, I am drawing on the following definition provided by Anthony Giddens:

'Culture consists of the values the members of a given group hold, the norms they follow, and the material goods they create' (Giddens, 1989, Sociology, 31).

Let's think about gender and beauty, and what insights this provides us about our culture and power relations in our society.

Some important economics around the beauty industry:

• Australians spend $2.5 billion on cosmetics, skin care and fragrances each year;
• This has been increasing by about 10% per year; and
• This is part of a $50 billion industry around the world that focuses on skin care alone. (I am not sure about cosmetics and fragrances.)
  

We also have the rise of Botox parties and the increasing acceptance of cosmetic surgery for younger and younger girls, time spent at the gym, dieting and diet fads as well as all the focus on celebrities and what is happening on their bodies.

In other words it is not possible to actually determine how much money is spent in this area. What we produce tells us a great deal about our culture – so what does the production of the beauty industry tell us about our culture?

According to Naomi Wolf in her very important book, our culture has produced a 'beauty myth.' That is, that our culture has established the myth that there is only one understanding of beauty and this is being universalised. The beauty myth, according to Wolf, is something that we are all expected to work towards it. For Wolf, this beauty is something that is manufactured by the advertising industry and is an important component of the global economy.

While Wolf focuses on the feminine, we also see similar patterns for the masculine. Despite this, Wolf also argues that this confirms the dominance of men over women: there are many more beauty rituals that are demanded from women than men. Think of the following routines that are mainly feminine and reflect the beautiful:

• Makeup: women spent a great deal of their time buying and using makeup. Wolf argues that this is to attract the male gaze;
• Shaving: while men shave their facial hair, women are expected to keep all their body hair in check. If we think about the pain of waxing and the frustration of shaving legs, armpits and plucking facial hair, what use is it to women? As far as I know, there is no use except making women more feminine.
• Grooming: while men are expected to groom, more pressure is placed on women to look attractive. A man can look un-kept and still be attractive. The same does not apply to women.
• Cosmetic surgery: most cosmetic surgery is undertaken by women rather than men. This involves Botox to look younger, breast augmentation and cellulite – which are three of the most popular procedures undertaken.
• Anti-aging treatments: most again are directed to women. Men, as they get older and get grey, are said to look sophisticated. It is hardly the case for women. (Look at news readers: most women on TV are young while men are older.)
  

We do not have to look far to see images around us: what we expect men and women to be like. The point of Naomi Wolf's work is to highlight how the beauty myth is specifically targeted towards women.

Authors such as Arthur Brittan undertake similar work when it comes to male masculinities. We can see pressures placed on the male identity: though this is a very different pressure that exists. For Brittan, masculinity is used as a way to measure men: to pressure them to fit into an ideal. So men are pushed towards certain professions and sports because these are the masculine. Everyday experiences of masculinities that have their own rituals and routines include the breadwinner ethic, alcohol consumption and also exposure to violence.

Why feminism is cool

In today's society, the word 'feminism' is given a bad wrap: it has been labelled as something that is from the past and is no longer relevant. I want to emphasise the point however, that the word feminism is another way to describe demands for gender justice and equal rights.

The question that I am often asked is, 'is this still relevant today?' Here are some statistics that we should note:

• Average total weekly earnings according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) where: $756.50. For Men: $897.50 but for Women: $611.50;
• Only 8% of board positions in publically listed companies are taken by women; and
• On a daily basis, men spend 2.5 hours a day on work around the house, and women spend almost 4 hours.
  

If we combine this with the concept of the beauty myth, you can see that women still have a battle on their hand to achieve equality: and this is why feminism is still important – and this is why feminism is cool.

Concluding comments

The main issue I want to emphasise here is that there is an important difference between sex and gender – and we are socialised through certain rituals and routines to follow emphasise gender roles. The question is, do we simply pass them on without question and reflect existing power relationships, or do we attempt to confront them.

According to Frye, we often accept gender roles as natural or innate, but this is not the case. This has implications for power, which Frye notes as follows:

'For efficient subordination, what's wanted is that the structure not appear to be a cultural artefact kept in place by human decision or custom, but that it appear natural – that it appear to be quite a direct consequence of facts about the beast which are beyond the scope of human manipulation' (Frye quoted in Lorber & Farrel, 1991: 33).

Sources:
Billington, R. et al (1991) Culture and Society Macmillan, London.
Brittan, A. (1989) Masculinity and power, Basil Blackwell
Buchbinder, D. (1994) Masculinities and Identities Melbourne Uni. Press, Melbourne.
Connell, B. (1987) Gender and Power Polity, Cambridge.
Connell, B. (1995) Masculinities Polity, Cambridge.
Dunecki, L. (2006) 'Peddling the beauty myth', 14 October 2006, The Age
Wolf, N. (1991) The Beauty Myth, Vintage Books, Sydney.

Confronting climate change deniers 4: CCS is the sole answer

Fallacy 4: We can solve everything using carbon capture and sequestration

Continuing my review of fallacies offered by climate change deniers discussed by Mark Diesondorf in his latest book, I now turn to a shorty but a goody! The fallacy is simply this: coal power with CO2 (carbon) capture and sequestration (or CCS) is the principle greenhouse solution.

Response: Big Mark D begins by note that a while a few components of this solution exist, it remains largely an unproven technology.

The federal government is pouring $2 billion into this technology in an effort to save the coal industry (yes kids, Mark does say $2 billion). Despite this, pilot plants will only be built in about 10 years with no commercial production possible until long after that.

In contrast to the Australian position, the US Government terminated funding to a power station with CCS technology because of the out of control costs. In addition, there are substantial risks that the carbon captured will escape – which adds to the cost and liability!

Despite this, Mark D does not dismiss the technology, but quotes the Future of Coal study that indicates it is possible that CCS can make a contribution but not before 2025. So rather than dismissing, Mark argues we should not put all our eggs into this unreliable and unproven basket. Rather, we should also be investing in renewable technologies that are ready to go (wind, solar and so on) as well as the ones that are close to fruition (such as rock geothermal)

Hard to argue against that one!

Cheers, james

Socio-logic with James - FBi Radio (28 Oct 2009): population and religion

Hi everyone

This week on socio-logic with the amazing Alex Pye on FBI radio, we looked at some controversial issues… would love your thoughts…

Population growth: what should Australia’s population level be?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/challenges-of-our-growth-spurt-20091025-hely.html

The Prime Minister recently got excited about the idea of having 35 million people in Australia. Ken Henry, Treasury secretary responded by raising concerns about Australia’s ability to handle this – fair point.

I have historically avoided talking about population growth and environmental issues because it makes me feel that we are adopting a ‘life boat mentality’ and we can use it as an excuse to exclude people (here I am thinking refugees). This has been described as the ‘greening of hate’ by the very cool Betsy Hartmann.

I think we cannot shield ourselves from what is happening around the world including population growth and herein lays the issue: the problem is not with the poor countries with big populations, but with us. That is, we use way more resources than they do.

In fact, if everyone used the same resources as an Australian, we would need four earths to support us! (Check out this website on eco-resources.)

There are two ways around this that would also act to deal with the excess resource use that is threatening our planet:

a) The first is to build smarter cities: mass investments in public transport and green medium density urban environments; and
b) We should get used to using fewer resources!

We are better off doing this now in a negotiated way and having a response to the issue of population growth – not have it forced upon us at some future point.


Religion v. ethics in schools
http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/06/dumbest-education-policy-australia

The issue of religion or scripture in public schools has always perplexed me. I only realised recently that it is done as a compromise between the State government and the Church in a deal struck in 1880 (see article above).

When I was at school, many of us avoided religious studies because we could not relate to the teachings – so we just kicked the ball around instead.

The Parents and Citizens Association has recently proposed that ‘ethics’ could be taught in parallel with religion as a way of giving non-religious children and families an alternative.

I think this is a great idea and it could act as a way of discussing the many ethical dilemmas to modern life: how can anyone be against this. Further, any teaching of ethics must include religious ethics because the frameworks are related.

In seems that sections of the Church are against it however – it seems more because it sets a precedent than because they do not like the idea. What a crock I say!

Teaching on ethics are important – both religious and secular – and are part of a well-rounded education. In fact, I have had a long association with a number of religious groups who are strong advocates for human and environmental rights: and there is no reason why these things should be in conflict. For the State government to squander this opportunity is to let us all down: well those of us who believe in a well rounded society anyway.

For some information on ethics teaching, check out the St James Ethics Centre who designed the proposed program.

Speak soon

james

Socio-logic with James - FBi Radio (21 Oct 2009)

Hey everyone

This week on FBi Radio (94.5 FM) we got into some serious stuff. It was a week when Parliament has been sitting and throwing mud at each other in debates that my first year students at University of Western Sydney undertake with much better dignity!

This week’s stories…

1. Refugees and Australia:

We started by looking at the Australia's attitudes to refugees: it felt like we were going to return to the Howard Government era of fear and hate towards some of the world's most vulnerable people. A brief look at the lives of those who risk their lives shows that we need a more humanitarian approach: click here for a discussion by Australia's Human Rights Commission!

There is no doubt that race plays an issue here, but as I have written for the Centre for Policy Development, I do not think we should take a simple approach by saying Australia is a racist country.

What is needed is leadership - and while the Prime Minister did not show a great deal, a number in the ALP stood up to be counted (as did the Greens Senator Bob Brown). The truth is that refugees flee countries because they have little or no choice - it has nothing to do with Australia's policies. These are human beings like us and we need to show humanitarianism rather than use it for political advantage - as the Liberal Party seem bent on doing: see a great piece by Crikey here.

2. Political Donations

The issue of political donations was the second story discussed. The question is: do political donations corrupt democracy? I have discussed this previously in a paper looking at the need to reform the system and make it more transparent (read it here).

There is no doubt that when someone makes a political donations there are, at least some, strings attached. The questions is how many strings?

I think that we need to demand more from our politicians and ask them to reform the system. All donations over $1000 should be made public and no longer should there be such cozy relationships between big business and government. Even if there is nothing to worry about, the truth is that the perception that such a relationship means 'favours' are being done, we are seeing the undermining of our democracy.

Ok, that is it for now... join me next week on FBi!

Cheers, james

Socio-Logic with James (on FBi Radio)

Hey everyone

As some of you may know, I have a regular gig on FBi Radio (94.5 FM). It is a trial for 6 weeks so let’s hope that they like me and keep me! (You can email them and tell them I rock or even better subscribe to keep independent radio alive and well in Sydney).

I am on Up For It with the cool and funky Alex Pye every Wednesday morning at about 8.15 am, so please tune in!

This week’s stories…

1. Pay to use the internet:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/10/2710367.htm

This week at a conference in Beijing, the News Corporation chairman, Rupert Murdoch, criticised online companies like Google – saying they were ‘content kleptomaniacs’. His argument is that Google makes money by directing people to content loaded by organisations such as Fox News and Sydney Morning Herald, and they should pay (and by extension, we should pay).

The internet has always been a battleground since its development as corporations have always tried to commodify it and make us pay, while the open source software movement has always believed that this is something that we all own as it was built by our tax dollars and should remain free. An amazing guy here is Lawrence Lessig – you should check out his work!

I am all for free content – and think Rupert’s move is a negative one. He never establishes why we should pay to visit his site: is it better than everybody else’s? I do not think so: it is just a way to enclose more area for profit.

Watch this one – I think it will heat up – and get ready to get active to protect what is owned by all of us already (a true commons) – in which corporations are already making money off!

2. Climate camp

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/11/2710652.htm?section=justin

The second story was a discussion about Climate Camp – which is a community of volunteer’s environmental group – that has emerged because they believe that the government is not doing enough to combat climate change: and I think they are spot on the money!

The Climate Camp ran for three days at Helensburgh near Wollongong. This was symbolic because it is the site of one of Australia’s oldest coal mines and the NSW government, despite everything we know about carbon emissions, coal and climate change, has decided to expand it! (Note that residents are also concerned – not just about the emissions, but the risk to the local environment and water quality).

The meeting culminated with about 500 protesters blocking and closing down the mine on the Sunday afternoon. It was a peaceful protest though 13 people were arrested.

I am all for non-violent civil disobedience – it may be the only way to make people list and confront power.

Again, watch this space – I think we are going to see a whole lot more of these leading up to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year. (Click here to be linked to Oxfam Australia's discussion and background information and Copenhagen).

Join me next week on FBi!

Cheers, james

Confronting Climate Change Deniers Fallacy 3: Climate change is unstoppable

Continuing my review of Mark Diesendorf’s new book, Climate Action, I know move to look at the next fallacy…


Fallacy 3: Climate change is unstoppable

This is a simple one - climate change is happening and is unstoppable, so why waste money on mitigation and spend it on adaptation.

Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by explaining the difference between mitigation (which means reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (which is reducing the impacts of climate change while doing nothing about reducing emissions).

The underlying assumptions for this position include that Australia is too small to have any impact on emissions (something that he repudiates in fallacy 2).

The second assumption is that expenditure on mitigation is expensive and ineffective and will not reduce the cost of adaptation. Big MD responds as follows: if the global mitigation effort is sufficient enough to avoid catastrophic tipping points, some mitigation is much better than no mitigation. That is, a 2 degrees rise in temperature will have a significantly smaller impact on the earth than a 3 degrees rise - so why just go with the worst possible outcome?

The third assumption is that the cost of adaptation will be below that of mitigation. For Big MD this is a ridiculous argument - and I have to say, I agree with him. He uses the following example to make the point:

One strategy of adaptation is building more dams in areas where droughts happen; as MD points out, however, what good is a dam if there is not rain brought on by climate change?

MD also quotes the Stern Review: where it notes that the cost of adaptation if climate change continues unabated, the cost of adaptation will be much more expensive.

The solution is quite simple: for some countries to take the lead and make changes. For them, they will be in a better position to take advantage of new clean industries that are going to emerge. In other words, time to show some leadership!

New article: Surviving Neo-Liberalism: NGOs Under the Howard Years

I have just had this new article published titled "Surviving Neo-Liberalism: NGOs Under the Howard Years” with NEBULA - an academic journal of Multidisciplinary Scholarship.

In the article I look at the issue of social rights - and int he process provide a historiography of a government that went out of its way to silence dissent...

For those interested in understanding the complex nature of the nation state, check out my previous blog here...

Cheers, james

Promises and Perils of Modernity

Introduction

This blog is based on a guest lecture I did at UNSW on the same topic. What I was attempting to do here was to look at the issue of how, based on the dominant cultural view that has emerged in the west, we attempt to control the environment. That is, since the Enlightenment, the dominant cultural view of our relationship between society and the environment is one of ‘control’: that scientific and rational decision-making can harness the power of the environment and overcome any challenges we face.

The truth is, that in the western world modernity has, until know, met many of these promises. We have used the resources of the world to a great deal of success: we have powered the industrial and post-industrial revolutions, and now have a consumerist lifestyle that even 30 years ago seemed unimaginable. We have relied on science to overcome the limitations we have faced: an exploding world population was met with a green revolution that increased food output; pollutants that have been harmful to the environment such as CFCs have been replaced; and we are finding more efficient ways to use energy. We are living longer and wealthier than we have ever been.

The problem is, I am going to argue, is that the very reasons for our success and wealth are also leading to the potential of humanities downfall. The very consumerist lifestyles that have driven our wealth are leading to potential devastation. It is for this reason that we have called this lecture the ‘promises and perils’: and I want to focus on the perils.

I will be looking at three authors: Jared Diamond, Ronald Wright and Ulrich Beck


Jared Diamond’s Collapse

Jared Diamond’s most famous work is Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. The focus of the book:

How societal collapses may not only involve an environmental component, but also contributions of climate change, hostile neighbours, and trade partners, and societal responses.

In writing the book Diamond intended that its readers should learn from history. Diamond's approach differs from traditional historians by focusing on environmental issues rather than cultural questions.

I do not have time to cover Diamond’s thesis in this lecture and we will return to it later in the semester. What is key here is that Diamond lists some key factors that have led to various societies collapsing. These are lists eight factors that have historically contributed to the collapse of past societies.

Importantly, he notes that key here is environmental abuse (including habitat destruction; soil problems; water; effects of introduced species on native species; and overpopulation). However, he also states that: "it would be absurd to claim that environmental damage must be a major factor in all collapses: the collapse of the Soviet Union is a modern counter-example, and the destruction of Carthage by Rome in 146 BC is an ancient one. It's obviously true that military or economic factors alone may suffice" (p. 15).

Diamond says Easter Island provides the best historical example of a societal collapse in isolation.

Let’s imagine what the last Easter Islander was thinking when he was cutting down the last tree:

• A scientist will come along to find a substitute;
• I am sure that the problem has been over-exaggerated;
• I am sure that there will be more trees over there somewhere; or
• It is this that made us wealthy, so why should we stop now!

It is this final point that I want to turn to: what are people thinking, and what are they willing to do. Diamond finds that societies most able to avoid collapse are the ones that are most agile; they are able to adopt practices favourable to their own survival and avoid unfavourable ones.

It is this point that ends Diamond’s thesis: the real problem is that the modern world remains in the sway of a dangerously illusory cultural myth – that most governments and international agencies seem to believe that the human enterprise is somehow 'decoupling' from the environment, and so is poised for unlimited expansion.

To emphasise the point, Diamond draws a distinction between social and biological survival (because too often we blur the two). The fact is, though, that we can be law-abiding and peace-loving and tolerant and inventive and committed to freedom and true to our own values and still behave in ways that are biologically suicidal.

In the end, Diamond raises some cultural issues dealing directly with our promises of modernity and science:

• So we should take problems seriously – as well as the difficulty in finding solutions;
• Societies may reach a cognitive impasse having mental fixations that prevent their later problems from being recognized;
• Societies make choices: both good and bad ones – which ones are we making
• Role of the elite… they did not insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. Is our contemporary society different? Just look at the gated community – which you can get away with it for only short time. It is not viable to have a two tier society
• Importance to reappraise our core values – often painful. Blueprint for trouble is when we cannot do this – especially when these core values are the source of our strength. For example, consumerism (resource consumption) and isolationism


The problem is progress – Ronald Wright

Ronald Wright argues that our modern predicament is as old as civilization itself: a 10,000 year-old experiment we have participated in but seldom controlled.

Wright examines the meaning of progress and its implications for civilizations past and present: The twentieth century was a time of runaway growth in human population, consumption, and technology that placed an unsustainable burden on all natural systems. History has shown us that each of the societies coming before us fail – and the 20th century represents our last opportunity to succeed where our forefathers almost without exception have not.

Wright's concerns reflect that of Diamond’s:

“Our civilization, which subsumes most of its predecessors, is a great ship steaming at speed into the future. It travels faster, further, and more laden than any before. We may not be able to foresee every reef and hazard, but by reading her compass bearing and headway, by understanding her design, her safety record, and the abilities of her crew, we can, I think, plot a wise course between the narrows and the bergs looming ahead… (we must act)...without delay, because there are too many shipwrecks behind us. The vessel we are now aboard is not merely the biggest of all time; it is also the only one left. The future of everything we have accomplished since our intelligence evolved will depend on the wisdom of our actions over the next few years. Like all creatures, humans have made their way in the world so far by trial and error; unlike other creatures, we have a presence so colossal that error is a luxury we can no longer afford. The world has grown too small to forgive us any big mistakes.”

He sees societies self-destruct from a combination of lack of foresight and poor choices that lead to overpopulation and irreparable environmental damage.

So returning to the guy from Easter Island – according to Ronald Wright, he was not even thinking!

He asks: "Why, if civilizations so often destroy themselves, has the overall experiment of civilization done so well?" For the answer, he says, we must look to natural regeneration and human migration.

Again, covering everything that Wright argues is not possible, but key for us are "progress traps" throughout the book — including even the invention of agriculture itself. Wright labels such cultural beliefs and interests that act against sustainability — and hence civilizational survivability as a whole — the very worst kind of "ideological pathology":

We still have differing cultures and political systems, but at the economic level there is now only one big civilization, feeding on the whole planet’s natural capital. We’re logging everywhere, building everywhere, and no corner of the biosphere escapes our haemorrhage of waste. The twentyfold growth in world trade since the 1970s has meant that hardly anywhere is self-sufficient. Every Eldorado has been looted, every Shangri-La equipped with a Holiday Inn. Joseph Tainter notes this interdependence, warning that "collapse, if and when it comes again, will this time be global. ... World civilization will disintegrate as a whole. P.124–5

Ecological markers now indicate that human civilization has surpassed (since the 1980s) nature's capacity for regeneration. Humans in 2006 used more than 125% of nature's yearly output annually: "If civilization is to survive, it must live on the interest, not the capital of nature" (p. 129).

Wright concludes that "our present behaviour is typical of failed societies at the zenith of their greed and arrogance" (p. 129). "It is a suicide machine" and "Things are moving so fast that inaction itself is one of the biggest mistakes. The 10,000-year experiment of the settled life will stand or fall by what we do, and don’t do, now". We must therefore "transition from short-term to long-term thinking", "from recklessness and excess to moderation and the precautionary principle" (p. 131).

The problem is, however, that we our culture is simply focused on progress and expansion, and changing this around seems impossible.


Risk society – Ulrich Beck

The third perspective is Ulrich Beck’s "risk society": a term that highlights how our very practices create risks and increasingly becomes organized in response to these risk. The thinking is that this is a consequence of its links to trends in thinking about wider modernity, and also to its links to popular discourse, in particular the growing environmental concerns during the period.

In contrast, to the positions above, society is increasingly preoccupied with the future (and also with safety), which generates the notion of risk, Society must organise in a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself.

So the guys on Easter Island are still chopping down the trees, but thinking about how they can make money from it and who will wear the consequences.

The risk society is a phenomenon firmly from the perspective of modernity: which is seen as a shorthand term for modern society or industrial civilization – it is vastly more dynamic than any previous type of social order. It is a society... which unlike any preceding culture lives in the future rather than the past.

Beck argues that it is possible for societies to assess the level of risk that is being produced, or that is about to be produced. The problem is that disasters such as Chernobyl means that public faith in the modern project has declined leaving public distrust in industry, government and experts.

Beck contends that widespread risks contain a 'boomerang effect', in that individuals producing risks will also be exposed to them. This argument suggests that wealthy individuals whose capital is largely responsible for creating pollution will also have to suffer when, for example, the contaminants seep into the water supply.

So, modernity creates risks that are worn, initially unevenly, and the boomerang to everyone. While this is happening, many are making money from it, and hence this is unlikely to change quickly.


Conclusion


Modernity has made many promises – and has fulfilled these. The problem is, now that it is failing us, how do we walk away from its processes.

Environmental Economics

Introduction

One of the things that seems to perplex most activists, academics and activist academics is ‘economics’: what it means, what it aims to do and how we should respond to those who put forward economic arguments to social and environmental problems and policy.


I want to start a new series of blogs on ‘economics’. This one introduces economics and how it is applied to environmental issues. It was prompted by a lecture I did at University of NSW – and I am hoping to expand on these concepts in the coming months.


While I am no fan of those who uncritically apply economics to environmental challenges, it should be recognised that environmental economics is a field that attempts to bring together one of the fundamental premises of our society (on going economic growth) with concerns that this growth is having detrimental impacts on our environment.


As you will no doubt note, I am sceptical about this field of research, but what is important here is that it is an attempt to break through the ‘progress trap’ of ongoing economic growth. As I discuss this area of economics, please weight up in your own thoughts and reflect on the following question: is environmental economics an attempt to green the economy, or part of an ongoing process of turning the environment into a commodity traded for profit rather than sustained for our livelihoods.


Economics – some brief background

While there are many definitions of economics, for us it is the study of how people make choices about what they buy, what they produce, and how our system of exchange works. Our economy, like most around the world, operates on a market system.


There are two fundamental concepts that all economists attempt to confront no matter what system they operate in.


The first is scarcity: that is, in a society where our demands, needs and wants are ongoing and seem ever growing, we live in a world that only has limited resources. (Note that many economists argue that our desires are infinite and soon as we fill one desire another emerges, I do not agree and think that is a pretty bleak vision of human nature, but do not have the space to discuss that here). Regardless, there is a mismatch between material desires and available resources.


This concept of scarcity is one of the most important concepts in economics: it is an attempt to study and assist the many decisions on how to use those resources in the face of expanding desires.


The second concept is opportunity cost: as there is a mismatch between desires and the resources to fulfil them, there is a need to choose one desire to fulfil over another. The ‘opportunity cost’ of any decision is what you are giving up to get what you want. Consequently, if you want a holiday or a new stereo and you decide on the holiday, the opportunity cost is the stereo you are giving up. You may choose to come to class or go for coffee with someone: you have to give up one to do the other. We can think of many such examples, and in each one, you make a choice and have to sacrifice another.


No matter what decision we make, there is an opportunity cost: and it is not necessarily a monetary one.


There are also four basic questions that every economy must answer:


o What should be produced?

o How many should be produced?

o What methods should be used?

o How should the goods and services be distributed?


In a market economy, the ‘marketplace’ decides how to answer these by allowing each producer to answer these questions themselves. The success of each of these decisions is, however, determined by the marketplace. So while a producer may decide what product to sell to make money, we (the consumers) determine whether to buy or not.


Note: in most textbooks you are told that there are two types of economies: a command economy (where a government makes all the decisions) or a market economy (where we are ‘free’ to choose through the market). The truth is, however, that most (if not all) economies are a mixture of the two. Even in a market economy like Australia’s, the government involves itself in the market by offering incentives (through taxes and subsidies) to guide the market. For example, there are billions of dollars of subsidies to the coal industry (including building roads and ports to assist in the production of coal) while offering very few incentives to renewable energy sources.


Economics in environmental policy

Environmental Economics… undertakes theoretical or empirical studies of the economic effects of national or local environmental policies around the world... Particular issues include the costs and benefits of alternative environmental policies to deal with air pollution, water quality, toxic substances, solid waste, and global warming.

National Bureau of Economic Research Environmental Economics (http://www.nber.org/)


The rise of environmental economics as a discipline and a field of policy follow the growing recognition that that the environment is a scarce resource and its use requires important decisions about opportunity cost. That is, in much of modern history, the environmental was seen as boundless: being a free resource that we could use forever. For example, much pollution was dumped with minimal controls because the earth was seen as both there to be used for free, and able to handle anything we throw at it.


As economics is a field aimed at dealing with scarce resources, it is a mechanism that has been seen as being useful when dealing with environmental problems.


The fundamental principle that drives environmental economics is that the environment is costed: given a price. That is, we can put a price on the value of different aspects of the environment: be it clean air, clean water, the Great Barrier Reef or a single tree – environmental economics relies on the principle that it is possible to estimate their worth.


Once this is done, it is believed that we can make decisions about use of the environmental by weighing up the financial costs and the benefits. Hence, it is possible to estimate the opportunity cost: so the cost of protecting a river because of the ‘value’ it offers as a tourist destination, can be measured against the benefits of attracting people to the areas.


Environmental economists acknowledge the difficulty in estimate such costs and benefits; it is better to estimate them than to come to the conclusion that it is too hard. The argument also goes that using the tools available through market-based instruments, environmental and economic goals can be reached efficiently.



Are these contradictory?

In fact, as the sphere of economics has become a growing part of our lives for various reasons, the public continuously demands that this is done before decisions concerning the environment are made.


Many argue, however, that there are inbuilt contradictions in the twin objectives of economics (which focuses on growth) and environmental protection (which tends to have a conservation focus). Consequently, it is believed that a choice must be made between one and the other and that both cannot be achieved concurrently.


I will not discuss this here, but will return to it in another blog.



Market failure


Central to environmental economics is the concept of market failure. This simply means that the market mechanism has essentially failed to efficiently allocate resources:

A market failure occurs when the market does not allocate scarce resources to generate the greatest social welfare. A wedge exists between what a private person does given market prices and what society might want him or her to do to protect the environment. Such a wedge implies wastefulness or economic inefficiency; resources can be reallocated to make at least one person better off without making anyone else worse off.
Hanley, Shogren, and White (2007)

Common forms of market failure include externalities, common property (or non-exclusion) and public goods.


Externalities

The basic idea is that an externality exists when someone makes a choice that has affects on other people but is not accounted for in the price set by the market. The most basic example is when a company pollutes it does not take into account the true costs that this pollution imposes on others. Consequently, the firm’s choice has a negative impact on the broader population. The result is that a less than efficient result is achieved: in this case, the resource of a clean environment is not allocated in the most efficient way.


In economic terminology, externalities are examples of market failures, in which the market does not lead to an efficient outcome.


So what environmental economics aims to do is cost these externalities: put a price on them to either act as a disincentive to stop the polluters, or charge a tax so people can be compensated for their environment being polluted.


Common property

A second focus of environmental economics revolves finding solutions to a lack of property rights that emerge when it is too expensive to exclude others from accessing a resource. When this occurs, it is said that the market allocation is inefficient.


This was highlighted by Garret Hardin's (1968) concept of the tragedy of the commons (which we will discuss in a future lecture). "Commons" refer to the environmental assets that allow collectively owned.


The basic problem is that if people ignore the scarcity value of the commons, then they can be over harvested as a resource: fisheries are one of many examples. Hardin argues that in such cases resources will be abused: and hence recommends the emergence of exclusive rights.


Note: this has been disproved including the work of Ostrom (1990) who showed how people have worked to establish self-governing rules to reduce the risk of the tragedy of the commons.


Public goods:

Public goods are a third type of market failure. This emerges when the market price does not capture the social benefits of its provision. For example, protection from the risks of climate change is a public good since its provision is both non-rival and non-excludable. That is, climate protection provided to one country does not reduce the level of protection to another country; non-excludable means it is too costly to exclude any one from receiving climate protection. A country's incentive to invest in carbon abatement is reduced because it can "free ride" off the efforts of other countries.


Public goods are a market failure because the market fails to provide them because people tend to hide their preferences (and hence refuse to pay) for the good while still enjoy the benefits.



Valuation

I want now to return to the concept of valuation: that is, estimating the value of the environment (or a piece of the environment).


There are a number of problems that exist in trying to value the environment. Central here is the concept of ‘intrinsic value’: that the environment (both as a whole and in parts) has a value that we derive from it simply by existing. For example, just the idea that the Great Barrier Reef or Amazon forest are there is important regardless of any benefits that we may gain from it. We may never see it, but just knowing that it is there is important.


But let us not just think about something with such obvious environmental and ecological importance, but just general use of environment resources: How do we value the parkland at the end of our stress or a place like Coogee Beach?


One way that has been suggested is to ask people how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good.


Note: I want you to think about a place that you really value for personal and emotional reasons:

o What you would be willing to pay to enter this place?

o How much would you need to be compensated if it was to be turned into a car park?


If I were an environmental economist, to calculate the value of one of these places I would simply aggregate what everyone is willing to pay and come up with a figure. This would allow us to estimate its value and calculate the cost-benefit of the area.


Solutions

The second dimension of environmental economics that is important is the solutions offered. Let’s look at some of the solutions that are offered.


Environmental regulations:

Here, the idea is that a regulator estimates the economic and environment impacts - usually undertaking a cost-benefit analysis. While some mat argue that this is a non-market mechanism and outside the realm of environmental economics, there is still the need for the regulator to calculate the value of any regulation (both the cost of implementing the scheme as well as the cost of doing something) and compare it to the cost of doing nothing.


Quotas on pollution:

Another method for pollution reductions is through tradeable emissions permits: this allows the owners of the permits to freely trade the right to pollute. It is argued that this creates reductions in pollution at least cost. In theory, if such tradeable quotas are allowed, then a firm would reduce its own pollution load only if doing so would cost less than paying someone else to make the same reduction.


Taxes on pollution:

Increasing the costs of polluting will discourage polluting, and will provide a "dynamic incentive" to ensure pollution levels fall. A pollution tax that reduces pollution to the socially "optimal" level would be set at such a level that pollution occurs only if the benefits to society (for example, in form of greater production) exceeds the costs.


Removal of subsidies

That is, remove any hidden subsidies to dirty industries.


Better property rights:

One of the key theories in environmental economics is that the assignment of defined property rights will lead to optimal solutions – regardless of who receives them. For example, if people living near a factory had a right to clean air and water, or the factory had the right to pollute, then either the factory could pay those affected by the pollution or the people could pay the factory not to pollute. Or, citizens could take action themselves as they would if other property rights were violated.


This allows markets for "pollution rights" to emerge – and is known as emissions trading (the focus of current debates in Australia).



Do not confuse environmental and ecological economics

It is important to note that environmental economists apply the tools of economics to address environmental problems or market failure. That is, applying economics solutions to where market economics has proven unreliable.


Ecological economists take a different approach – focusing their work on the impacts of humans and their economic activity on ecological systems. Ecological economics sees economics is a strict sub-field of ecology: the economy should only expand to the size that negatively impacts on the environment.


Ecological economics is seen to take a more pluralistic approach to environmental problems, focusing on the long-term environmental sustainability and issues of scale (that is, what is the right scale for human activity).


Environmental and ecological economics have fundamentally different philosophical underpinnings.


Conclusions

There are many limitations to environmental economics. Many have rejected this field, saying that it does not go far enough in attempting to deal with the environmental challenges facing us.


Many ‘green economists’ reject this field as simply an extension of traditional forms of economics and there should be a greater focus on a new political economy that gives a greater emphasis to the interaction of the human economy and the natural environment.


For us, we should consider whether environmental economics is simply extending current practices or offering solutions…





---
Hanley, N., Shogren, J. and White, B. (2007) Environmental
Economics: In Theory & Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd ed


Hardin, G. (1968) "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, 162, pp. 1243-1248.


Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

'Power-shifting the political status quo'

Earlier this month, I attended Powershift - an initiative of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. While I think some parts were great, other parts did not quite work for me... Regardless, I think that it confirmed much of the research I undertook for the Whitlam Institute.

The event, as a result, prompted me to write an Opinion Piece for the University of Western Sydney, regarding young people and democratic engagement...

Read it here...

Cheers, james

Social theory and the environmental challenge: how far have we come?

Benton, T. and Redclift, M. (1994) "Introduction" in Social theory and the global environment, London and New York, Routledge.

 

 

 

I am continuing my revisit of 'older' environmental philosophy texts and have arrived at a collection of essays edited by Ted Benton and Michael Redclift (1994).

 

Reading this some 15 years after it was written, it is amazing at how much we have learnt and how little we have progressed. The aim of Benton and Redclift's essays are to consider the response by the social sciences to the many emerging environmental crises. In essence, they try and confront the ongoing (and often ludicrous) disciplinary boundaries that restrict the social sciences from dealing with environmental challenges, and in so doing offer some advice as to how we might find some solutions. 

 

Here is a bit of an overview intertwined with my own thoughts and spiced by a recent conversation I had with Daniel L Beaver on a road-trip in Tasmania.  Much of what I also say has been developed with conversations and debates with one Amy Tyler…

 

 

Re-awakening of environmental challenges

 

Not unlike today, Benton and Redclift note that there has been a re-awakening of environmental issues caused by a number of crises. The threat of catastrophic global environmental change is at the top of our consciousness and the immediacy implied by the word ‘crisis’ means that the environment (and by extension, environmental problems) can no longer be considered as something that is 'out there'.

 

To understand environmental challenges, Benton and Redclift said we must see them as a multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional challenge.  That is, environmental impacts flow into and affect the economic, social, cultural and political spheres as well as the more tangible impact upon the physical (natural) world. While science may provide us insights into the impacts of environmental degradation and changes, if we want to understand the causes (and by extension, find solutions), "we must investigate how our patterns of social relationships, cultural forms, political practices and economic institutions are all implanted in the production of environmental change."

 

 

Overcoming core assumptions

 

Benton and Redclift suggest that for contemporary society to overcome environmental crises, it is essential that social scientists confront the long categorical opposition between 'nature and culture.'  They suggest that one of the reasons we have shied away from this confrontation is the difficulty social sciences have in discussing the natural or innate aspects of our society without falling into the trap of biological determinism.  However, by keeping our distance, social scientists have allowed the economists to define the innate of our society: which is to say, we are greedy and driven by self-interest.  This is further evidenced by the fact that economists are more advanced than the social sciences when offering solutions for the environmental crisis: for example, the carbon market. 

 

It is true that many of the challenges, concepts and assumptions of 'mainstream' economics are the same as environmental concerns: especially around the issue of scarcity. Rather than looking at complex solutions, however, economics attempts to solve challenges by either attempting to quantify resources through price signals that are either seen as being free (if abundant – such as air) or negotiated if scarce.

 

One of the reasons why economics has been given such prominence is that many of its assumptions have been accepted as 'true', while the rest of the social sciences are forced to reflect and justify their positions: for example, economic theory has established that we are driven by self interest – as I noted above.  This is largely accepted because we argue that biologically we are driven by individual survival.  Social sciences, then, have to justify why we can also be driven by altruism. Many of the positions taken by economists when it comes to human interactions are seen as already being established and socially re-enforced: lying outside economic life.

 

Many would then argue that we are all ultimately individualistic and selfish and what makes for the most effective economy is one that provides a market to channel greed productively.  On the other hand, Kenyan environmentalist and human rights campaigner Wangari Mathai, argues that rather than leaving it to the market or government to make our individual interests 'social,' we can work as individuals with a community consciousness.  That is to say, our individual decisions are made knowing how they will impact on the well being of our community.

 

Another settled assumption, that Benton and Redclift argue we need to confront, is the primacy given to the nation-state - especially as a unit of analysis. Many different areas of global studies confirm that we need to look beyond national boundaries - from dependency theory to environmental challenges – because domestic issues are often regulated by international institutions or happenings in foreign countries. 

 

A third series of assumptions that Benton and Redclift encourage us to confront are the issues of time-space abstractions. Benton and Redclift argue that we must look at environmental challenges both within a time-space analysis as well as beyond it. That is, we must integrate time and space into all sociological analysis, including our relationship with the environmental. Our relationship does change across time and space – and maybe what is natural or innate also does. This would, then, allow us to move beyond any nature/social dualisms, as well as the nation-state as a primary unit of analysis.

 

 

Theoretical divisions

 

Finally, Benton and Redclift argue that if we are dealing with environmental challenges, we must also deal with some long-standing theoretical divisions: and a key one is the split between structural limitations to change and individual agency. We must accept that changes to lifestyle are limited by structures: and these structural limitations are unevenly distributed spatially and across time (linking with the point above). This also represents the fact that 'power relationships' mean opportunities for encouraging agency are unevenly distributed. Consequently, while we may appeal to 'rational actors' to change their behaviours, this is not always possible as many people are locked into patterns of life that are environmentally destructive.

 

Despite this, we need to avoid 'structural determinism' and recognise that structural change has always occurred when savvy individuals fight for it.

 

Another theoretical area of dispute that we need to overcome with respect to environmental challenges is the cultural v. individualist approaches to change. That is, are we more than just a group of individuals living together? Economics, especially in its dominant neo-classical approach, is inherently individualist.  On the other end of the spectrum is anthropology, which argues that a group of individuals leads to the emergence of a society and culture.  This split has a profound impact on environmental research and policy: and we need to consider overcoming any false (and forced) binary.

 

Benton and Redclift argue that, whatever approach we take, we must accept that human social structures bind together not just individuals, but also (non-human) animals, physical objects spatial areas and so on. Human structures have effects everywhere, not just with humans.

 

To express the need for action to deal with environmental crisis, we need to overcome the gap between those technocratic perspectives and ones that emphasise the role of popular culture and lay knowledge. This is most evident when dealing with risk, where there is a gap between the official 'risk' numbers (such as a 1 in 1 million chance of something happening), and the socio-cultural preferences that 'lay' people assign to such risks (and here they quote Mary Douglas).

 

The environmental debate in its current contemporary form rests upon different knowledge claims such as scientific v. non-scientific. That is, what is tested and proven and what is still being speculated on.  For example, a friend says that climate change is not necessarily real because it is not scientifically proven.  On the other hand, if we wait until it is definitively and scientifically proven, it will be too late because it will have happened. 

 

We must also acknowledge that if we only accept scientific knowledge then this will also change the communication path. Scientific knowledge does not take into account the cultural or social aspects that cause specific actions or events to occur.  While science may 'prove' that cars produce CO2 and that CO2 contributes to climate change, they do not look at social or cultural factors that encourage society to keep on purchasing cars even when the majority of society 'knows' that they are causing environmental damage.  Moreover, the factors that encourage automobile purchases are culturally appropriate; in one city they may be structural (bad public transport) in another it might be a sign of wealth.

 

The final point that Benton and Redclift raise relates to the increasing sense of individualism.  This is occurring in the material world, but also how the social sciences characterise the present condition of social life as 'postmodern': meaning that there is an academic focus away from explaining social behaviour through large scale social historical processes to micro-sociological events that make meaning subjective of individual life and culture. Are we then doomed to push for individual action in order to confront environmental crises?  If we all become vegetarian will the world be saved?  Or is there a way to reignite collectivism where we can learn to eat appropriate meats for our environment and change our diet to one or two meat meals a week? Moreover, how we analyse the relationship between society and the environment has important implications for how we treat issues of justice and equality. 

 

 

Role of social sciences

 

Finally, Benton and Redclift move onto arguing that no one discipline can provide the insights into why we face environmental crises: we must take an interdisciplinary approach. Environmental problems and solutions transcend disciplines: we cannot solve environmental problems with just physical sciences but we need to include understandings of economics, politics, cultural studies, sociology, anthropology and so on. Environmental crises demand that we breakdown disciplinary boundaries.

 

This is important, because we often see the issue of linearity when it comes to policy design with respect to the environmental issues that works in the following way: scientific research, impact assessments and then policy responses. This totally ignores the fact that most of the causes behind environmental crises today are human-centered. Benton and Redclift argue that we will fail unless we accept that global environmental issues must consider the cultural dimensions: this leads us to consider globalisation as a cultural process linked to changes in the environment (both linked to environmental change, but distinguishable in its own right).

 

The strength of globalisation studies is that we must accept the interconnectedness that globalisation represents: and what is more interconnected than environmental issues? Redclift and Benton argue that this interconnectedness happens on four key levels: spatial, technological, material and representational.

 

Part of understanding the global nature of the challenge also takes us to another foundational assumption: the process of development. The ordering of the global agenda is something that is dominated by the industrial North: development, for example, is still considered and measured by the number of goods and these are instigated and driven by the North. This has consequences everywhere.

 

This power and spatial difference has meant that we have seen, and continue to see, growing differences between global environmental groups and the demands (and needs) of development that are raised by the populations of poorer countries. Even when Benton and Redclift were writing some 15 years ago, there was an acknowledgment by the North that we needed to shift our understanding of development. The debate, however, has not progressed a great deal: we are seeing a split in the way forward between the greening of industry to limit impacts (or Dobson's environmentalism which I covered in a different blog) and a dramatic restructuring in our demands and aspirations - a cultural shift which is described by Dobson as ecologigsm.

 

Benton and Redclift note that development concerns in the South are radically different to those of the North. (But with the rise of the middle classes in China, Brazil and India, I would think that this has now seen a merging of some of the material asprations). Rather, we get people on the margins across the world – both in the North and South - who never figure in our 'images of the environment'. It is important to remember that the majority of the world's population lies outside this image (and discourse).  What makes these margins different is the type of responses they can expect from respective governments.  In Australia, our government might be able to help out farmers faced by drought while in Colombia the farmers are left to fend for themselves. 

 

To respond to the environment we need to bridge many gaps and accept that scientific knowledge is a cultural artifact. Consequently, policy should not be distinguished from social and cultural contexts. Culture and knowledge are not merely determined by science, but serve to fashion science and policy themselves. We must understand all these dimensions to understand the demands that environmental challenges make on social theory and the interventions we need to take. 

 

 

Cheers, james