The Land Looking after The Land

"The Earth regulates itself." So goes one of the stories reeled out by those advocating NOT acting on global warming and environmental degradation. You know, because it can look after itself.

And it's a fair point. In clean green NZ, it's easy to think, looking across the green fields of the Waikato, the Marlborough vineyards, or interchanging between padded cells in one of our big cities, that all is well. That it is impossible for our little pocket of existence, even multiplied 8 billion times, could have such an effect on a mass that is 75% water anyway.

And again, it's a fair point. Or would be - if we hadn't had 60 years of Post-war industrial development, gas and chemicals masticating the planet.

It's not our personal consumption that has caused this crisis. It is the engines of industry.

One example I like to use is in Australia where they're suffering a water crisis. Now, we know the planet is warming, and we know it's only going to get worse. So there are big billboards! all over Melbourne -everyone is doing their bit having short showers, hand watering plants every second day, not leaving taps running, turning off public fountains... complaining of course, but chipping in.
Unfortunately, the private water consumption of 26 million Australians only accounts for 10% of water use. Industry takes up most of the rest, including irrigating arid, otherwise unfarmable lands.
And, like here, they want more water.

It's the same with every industry, because our economies have been geared to growth, growth growth. We've been ramping them up and up and up, drawing on huge banks of investment and credit... Yes, credit - that thing banks just make up out of thin air to "create wealth", an endless snowball of funding so industry can keep digging, and making and selling; and when that product is made obsolete three years later, they make and sell again.

Unfortunately that credit does not come out of nowhere. It is value being extracted from labour, and from the earth. Basically it's like the credit crunch - we've been drawing too much too fast from the earth's resources, and now we can't pay it back fast enough to stop the whole system collapsing.

And after spending their inheritance, we'll leave future generations to clean up our mess.

Now we have a UN report that provides an answer. It is very positive, saying we don't have to go back to personal gardens to make all our climate/economy crunches so much better:

War against hunger, global warming can be won on farmlands –
Improvements in cropland and grazing land management as well as the restoration of organic soils and degraded lands are the most significant technical measures to lessen the impact of climate change.

Nearly, 90 per cent of this potential will come from capturing carbon in the soil before it escapes into the atmosphere, according to the report, "Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies."

Now, I know there are a class of people that take some perverse pleasure in insisting that chemically augmented crops are "just as good if not preferable" to organic; but I hope they're not also convinced "the earth regulates itself". Because this report clearly, but tactfully states that yes, the Earth has a great organic potential to regulate carbon itself - but we've been poisoning it on a hyper-industrial scale for 60 years.

The chemical seeds and fertilisers corporations will not be happy with this solution. So expect it to be buried, like emissions, like renewable energy, electric cars, etc, etc. Chances are this report will lie around like the other 40 years of reports warning this very situation would happen.

Unless, maybe - we tell our governments to do something different.

We've poisoned the Earth's lungs and soiled its air. Some say we didn't know any better, fine - it's not about guilt. Just use our enormous creativity and wealth - and democracy - to fix the damn thing up.

A Portrait of How Far We're Right

Tipping my hat to a couple of great "Left-wing" sites. I use the inverted commas, because "lefty" is thrown around like that means these commentators want a command economy and everyone doled out the same few cents from a bulging public purse. I've never read anything from either The Standard or Tumeke that suggests this is the case.

If they, like many of us, are pulling "left", it is because the "centre" of an intelligent, responsible government presiding over a mixed economy, was abandoned by our government 25 years ago. In 1984, the 4th Labour government (which was not "left" at all) decided the best course of action for managing the complications of a modern economy was to not manage it at all. This government and its successors have progressively sacrificed the principle that they are there to act on our collective behalf, in favour of the idea that as long as there is more money in the economy ("growth") that is an inviolate good, and makes life better for everyone.

This transfer of power away from Democracy towards Capital - the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else - was prescribed from 1972, in Samuel Huntingdon's "Crisis of Democracy", and it has been in process ever since.

The real effect of these "free market" principles have been to open society to the law of the jungle. It is feudal; it is like the wild west. But instead the power isn't with those with the army or the bigger gun. It's the bigger chequebook. Money is power. Literally you can tell where you stand in a capital-dominant society like ours, by comparing your bank-balance with that of whatever individual/organisation you're up against.

Democracy is supposed to be the balance for this. But because government accepts profit and growth as some lower common denominator that is good for everyone, they do not intervene with "red tape and regulations" - you know, safeguards. All that annoying stuff that the last Labour government started putting back in place, and National is cutting away. Or "streamlining", making "efficiency gains", or whatever crap the media swallows and spits out on our screens.

Hey - democracy is slow. It is inefficient. It is costly. But it is cheaper to combine our money and empower our government to act on housing, food, communications, energy, water, clothes, insurance - keeping the cost of living down - than it is for us as individuals to throw our cents around in a market dominated by corporate millions.
Without democracy, the only real "law" of the market is that the individual/corporation with the bigger chequebook always gets his way. As Tumeke reminds us.

Of course, people are persuaded by the idea of tax savings, tax cuts, yada yada. And you know what? Fair enough. The vast majority of people are being taxed too much, from the money they need to support themselves. It's power they need to save and expend how they choose. A real choice society.
But less tax for them does not need to come at the cost of a responsive, well-funded democracy. Because the way our economy is structured, there is a small cluster of individuals and corporations that are being taxed nowhere near enough.

I've crapped on enough for one day, but here's the Standard's post. It talks about how John Key, the prime minister of our democracy, is being spat on by the money in our society, cheer-led by Rodney Hide, Roger Douglas, Act and their corporate backers.
I wouldn't say John Key is weak, so much as he is vulnerable. He is vulnerable because he relies entirely on his support staff for political advice. He doesn't know anything about democracy, or why a cabinet room is not the same is a board room. Why we are not "NZ Inc". He comes from a banking background, so many eminently "logical" ideas about manipulating numbers for profit make sense to him without any conception of the consequences of exactly the same policy of say, oh, the last 25 years. It's be no surprise if he's suffering from impostor syndrome.

And this government is full of both crowds - the Bennetts, Tolleys, Wilkinsons, Brownlees - like those little plastic cows whose heads nod when you tap them, their knees buckle when you press the right button. They have no clue, except what will get them fed and watered and praised.
Then there're the ideologues: English, Williamson, Ryall & co, who have been sitting on the opposition benches so long, talking to themselves and their same rich friends, they don't realise the rules of the last decade don't apply any more. Their ideology, their free market has been proven broken. 2008's Financial Crisis was not just a cough - it was a heart attack, and the system has been thrust up on life-support, shuffling around until those with all their wealth and prestige invested in it can restructure so when the global economy collapses, they're not under it.
NZ's ostrich approach to Copenhagen and emissions just shows how far our government is stuck in the 90s. There is an ever-growing realisation that, uh, yeah- the Club of Rome was right: there are limits to growth. If Lord Stern of Benford says "We might all have to go vegan to save the planet", there's no point saying "he's trying to ruin our economy!" More sensibly, take that as a measure of how much ground we have to make up with other measures or some brilliant new-fandangled technology. Because man-made or cyclical, global warming is still gonna get us.

I'm reminded of the Portrait of Dorian Gray. It's like this extreme right ideology was painted for Roger Douglas in 1984, gorgeous, perfect; handed over to Ruth Richardson in the Nineties, where the painting picked up some strong vain lines and ghastly knowing eyes; under Michael Cullen it matured, remained superior, silvered, with the first signs of decay...
Of course none of these governments uncovered the portrait to look on it, less they lose its power.

So now Key and English are carrying it around, cheered on by National party triumphalism, maybe actually believing they're full of fresh, invigorating ideas. While under the cover, the painting - their ideology - has sickened and wrinkled into some jaundiced old ghoul.
There are signs around the world, mostly beneath the government level, that this has been noticed. It remains to be seen whether NZ opens its eyes, or continues to suffer under the beast riding its back.

Outrageous Fortune shows its legs

After a day in workshops and seminars yesterday, today I played catch-up with a million tiny things and one big thing, leaving a little time for the blog.

First: Final of Season 5(?) of Outrageous Fortune last night. Gone is the best thing on TV on a cliffhanger ending, which has forever changed Dave Dobbyn's song "Wouldn't You Rather Be? (In Love")" from conjuring a cartoon Wal Footrot swinging around a lamppost to an extended sequence of humour, reeling through chaos, unravelling in horror.

Best moment since the death of Aurora in Season 3, and makes the next Season look promising. The "long snooze" of Season Four is a distant memory.

*

Second, I read a couple of interesting tidbits in the NZ Herald while I was getting a coffee. The Careers section had an article on feeling a fraud at work (no link on its site yet). Called it "Impostor syndrome". Suffered by 70% of the workforce, they estimate. Because they don't "value themselves and their success" enough. Like labelling this epidemic makes it understood.

I already thought most people suffered from this. You can tell just by a look at the shoddy performance of our media versus their status for an example. You have to have an ego like Paul Henry's to cope with with the guilt of the vast gulf between what they produce and what they receive.

This feeling of fraud is complex and is worthy of far more attention than some self-help guru's dismissal. It points to a huge fracture between who we are and the way we work. Part of it is feeling they are given a reward they did not earn or deserve, or boots they are not big enough to fill. Most corporations love throwing young talent in the deep end. They're cheap, skilled, can be bought of with what seems (to them) huge raises and perks and prestige, and they have to really buy into the corporate message to succeed. Or sink, or get out... at which point there's always another young Candide willing to try their skills.

Two things can happen. Either you get sucked in, thrive, and this corporate identity infests you like mould. OR as most people do, they form a shell. This shell personality - role - allows them to interact with the organisation, perform disagreeable tasks, reach amoral agreements. They're disconnected from it, because they have to put their values aside, their needs and wants. Their humanity. And just do the job, whether it's building bombs, or drafting copy.

That shell is called professionalism.

And if you needed proof that having a big job doesn't mean you're grown up-

Rob Fyfe, head of Air New Zealand featured on the business pages complaining about the politics of climate change. Speaking to a "Green skies" conference in Hong Kong, he got to grandstand about how all his company wanted was to clean up his act, and it was just politicians and agencies such as those of the UN, that were paralysing the process.

The best view you could take on his speech was that he was merely a confused child holding his ears wanting parents to stop arguing. Of course we all want equitable, quick action. Problem is, some arguments need to be had. And at the moment the key argument the globalising political economy is facing is no longer whether climate change is happening, it's what to do about it. It's "Weak Sustainability" - placebo measures meant to placate the public but allow the extremist policies of BUA (Business As Usual) to continue - versus "Strong Sustainability" - rethinking the economy's relationship with the sociosphere and biosphere, and taking the greatest possible action to redress the harm in the current structures of our economies that has allowed the current crisis to develop.

More on that tomorrow.