An Inconceivable Truth?

12 September 2006, Day 175

King's Domain, Melbourne, Victoria.

Here's something which is stuck in my mind and which I think should be locked into the head of anyone who is not concerned with immediate necessities of food, clothing, shelter or preserving themselves or their family against some threat (!) It could be the single greatest source of denial in human history.

To introduce this entry I want to talk about something I did a few Saturdays ago. I went to see some attractions around Melbourne that were on my 'to do' list. I had a look around Alexandra Park, the Shrine Reserve and the Domain, very close to the city centre. Two things main things I saw were the Shrine of Rememberance and the Botanic Gardens.

This shot is the view from the Shrine of Rememberance down Ceremonial Avenue and into the City. I am shooting away from the shrine in this photo, but you can see the inscription on it's side below. It is an impressive testament to those who fell in the Great War and those in armed conflict and on peacekeeping duties ever since.

It is one of the largest war memorials in Australia, created amidst the fierce ANZAC spirit after the Great War. It was built in the twenties, but was added to after the Second World War. During the Vietnam War it was the target of anti-war demos and the resultant graffitti 'peace' was daubed on it's walls for many years afterwards.



When you are at a war memorial, I think most people's thoughts turn the effect of the world wars on their family. For instance, this is the 'Father and Son' statue. I can only be grateful that neither my father nor I ever had to go to war. The two generations represented here, of course, do lie in my ancestory- my grandparents and great-grandparents generations.

Both my paternal and maternal Grandfathers served in WWII, one in the Navy and the other in the RAF. They were a photographer and a navigator respectively. My Grandmother on my mother's side served in the Wrens and my other Grandmother had to move from Plymouth - whose naval base was heavily bombed - to Torquay. The immediate personal impact the war had on them was huge. Like the rest of their generation it completely altered the trajectory of their lives.

I have never had the slightest interest in joining the armed forces, and that will not change. In the course of human history, the majority of people have not had the opportunity to opt out of conflict whether that be international, civil or tribal.

Click on the shot to the left to make out the inscription on the memorial wall. Whether 'war' has come about over resources, religion or status it isn't going away. Having visited the Killing Fields of Phnom Penh, the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima, the Cu Chi tunnels near Ho Chi Minh City it's something that I've already mused over in this blog. One might argue (though I wouldn't agree) that war is so entrenched in the Homo Sapien existence that to argue its morality cannot prevent its occurence. Regardless there is a reason for me bringing this up. Aside from the major frontlines of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Sri Lanka the world is gearing up for further conflict. This is the impression I receive from reports I've seen in the media. One of the most depressing things I have read lately is this short article on global military spending. Maybe the world is deliberately ignoring priority number one.

This article reminded me of something Al Gore said in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth', which addresses global warming:

'Is it possible that we should be preparing against something other than just terrorism?'

Such an ostensibly obvious question is clearly still pertinent in the United States. In fact it is pertinent pretty much everywhere. Which leads me to the question I would like anyone who might read this to ask themselves:

What is the single biggest issue mankind needs to tackle today?

We need to reach the point at which the majority of humans answer 'the sustainability of the planet'. I believe that. If you don't, I would say that the evidence should at least make you seriously reconsider that position. The VAST majority of scientists say that the world stands at the edge of precipice on water, forestry, soil, marine and air sustainablity. In other words the components that drive the ecosystems which allowed human evolution. Specifically global warming, which exacerbates all these other problems, is an issue which we don't have the luxury of time to debate. The land we farm for food, the water which we drink and with which we wash, irrigate and use in heavy industry, the quality of the air we breathe and the temperatures within which human beings can exist comfortably are all changing. Changing at a pace with which it may be impossible for human kind to predict and comfortably adapt. You know the story. How can we change? Complex legislative, diplomatic, religious and historical problems challenge the ability for united global action to challenge carbon related climate change. Even before you can do this the individual must have the requisite knowledge and unshakeable conviction...

I think we must tackle global warming as a priority alongside other ecological/environmental issues as, untreated, it will make remedial methods for protecting individual environmental issues irrelevant. Am I sure human induced carbon related climate change is fact? Is there really a debate over global warming in the sense of a large faction of thoroughly researched, well argued opposing factions in anycase? To read the popular media and observe the policy many governments enforce, you would think that the answer is 'yes'.

Without being a scientist myself, I am about as convinced as I can be that global warming or carbon related climate change is fact not theory. I am convinced because I've am listening to the majority view of scientists. I can't spend a long time on the case for climate change and there is no need when there is such an abudance of excellent material available, especially from peer reviewed scientific journals. The evidence is accumulated from numerous natural sources - ice cores, glaciers, soil, vegetation and trees, air composition and sea levels. Here's a fairly recent piece of evidence on the Artic Ice Cap melting, which I think is chilling (or rather not!). To put the process simply however, here's the relevant chart:

This is a chart showing the relative levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (in parts per million) plotted over thousands of years. You will also notice the inset focusing on the last thousand years.

The first thing which catches the eye about the chart is that it shows the natural cyclical nature of CO2 levels dropping away during natural ice-age geological periods. The sigficance of global warming is comparing this pattern to the immediate past. You can see from the inset tagged to the period of the last thousand years that CO2 ppm have increased to levels double those of any previous geological period in a miniscule fraction of the time that natural increases took without human fossil fuel contribution. The last thousand years contains the industrial revolution, the energy economy and the onset of increasing standard of living in the western world. It is a terrifyingly quick increase. It is true that there are other 'greenhouse gases' such as methane. Methane is increased by natural forest clearance for global scale livestock grazing (domesticated animals are thought to produce about 100 million tonnes of methane a year). The global warming we currently face, however, exists mainly due to CO2 release from the burning of fossil fuels. The evidence is compelling.

This non-debate reminds me of how Guardian journalist George Monbiot dealt necessarily brutally with David Bellamy the British botanist and TV personality on Channel Four news 18 months or so ago. The topic under discussion was carbon related climate change. Bellamy had recently published an article in the Daily Mail branding global warming 'poppycock'. According to Wikipedia there was contorversy surrounding his 'spurious references and sources of data – preferentially citing internet conspiracy-theorists rather than peer-reviewed scientific journals'. Monbiot fiercely constested the data Bellamy referenced in this article, and out argued his 'opponent' to the point of humiliation. In the process, Monbiot exploded the single most destructive misnoma about climate change - that climate change is an unconfirmed theory. There is NOT disagreement between scientists over the existence of man-made global warming, as the peer-reviewed article I link to above confirms. Whilst obviously Bellamy should be able to say whatever he wants, climate change denial by someone of his influence (a household name in Britain) is extremely damaging. We don't have time to waste proving David Bellamy got his facts wrong. In fact Bellamy subsequently announced the he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming". Fortunately other 'climate-change' denier's arguments meet similar ignominous ends.

In the UK I have been involved with limited community action against global warming, therefore since I arrived in Australia I've chosen to be involved with the Greenpeace local group here in Melbourne. Despite some personal difference of opinion with Greenpeace, the work they do and influence they exert on a local and global scale is largely unparalleled. I will explain a little more about this in a moment.

To set the scene the movie I quoted from above, 'An Inconvenient Truth', has been released whilst I've been in Australia. The movie says nothing particularly new to the converted, but a very high profile movie with it's attendant promotion and media coverage offers a unique opportunity to rouse people to action over this issue. I think the team producing the movie have suceeded in making a succint package which covers the major points of carbon-related climate change. It's neither fact light nor heavy, emoting while arguing with it's head not heart. In recent weeks environmental groups from all over Victoria have tried to directly lobby or recruit those leaving the cinemas having watched the film, for instance Greenpeace and Environment Victoria. A good idea.

Though I have always been sceptical over how much impact lobbying politicians would have in achieving a sea change in environmental policy (which the film espouses), education and tipping the weight of public opinion leads to major community action and pressure. This, I think, will ultimately have the greatest impact on the scale of environmental change/damage caused by global warming and whether it will allow us to voluntarily adopt more austere sustainable lifestyles or whether resource wars and genocide will grow from Africa and the Middle East and envelop the rest of the world. This brings the post back full circle - more conflict not less is likely over the horizon, and we are making it far worse than it need be at the moment, especially if nations are investing in arms not renewable energy.

This is a fragment of balloon used in a Greenpeace direct communication or press stunt to highlight the huge amounts of energy consumed (and therefore carbon emissions generated) by the Alcoa aluminium refinery in Portland and Port Henry, Victoria. The two smelters already use about 15% of the state’s electricity. 15% for one industry! That's a colossal amount. The Greenpeace event was based around a Victorian state initiative urging people to cut back on their personal greenhouse contribution by depicting every 50 grams of greenhouse gas used by households in a single black balloon. For instance changing to energy efficient lightbulbs saves 1,000 of these greenhouse gas balloons being released per household each year. Greenpeace subverted this initiative to represent how much greenhouse gas is released each year by Alcoa aluminium producers (who tout themselves as 'part of the greenhouse solution'). Alcoa releases the equivalent of 240 billion balloons per year. We had a fun morning blowing up the black balloons (not released but disposed of after the event) and then transfering them to the steps of the Victorian Parliament. The point we were trying to make was that Greenpeace had 1,000 balloons for the media coverage – Alcoa emits nearly eight times that number of balloons per second just from the electricity it uses in Victoria. This is a typical example of the political pressure or lobbying organised by environmental groups on politicians (in this case Victorian State parliament) and big business (in this case Alcoa). Greenpeace internationally has a fabulous resume over the years of causing dramatic changes in government policy and the modifying the actions of big business on a variety of environmental topics. Hopefully Alcoa will cut their energy consumption dramatically over a MUCH quicker period than they are currently.

I've recently read a book called 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond, which argues that the onus is on the public to change the behaviour of industry contributing to global warming or environmental degredation of other kinds. The types of business he mentions include oil, coal & hard rock mining, forestry and marine fisheries. He argues that business exists to maximise profit and that the environmental conscience is down to the consumer. Whilst I don't agree with the kind of moral loophole he seems to be allowing companies, implicitly suggesting that shareholders are allowed to be entirely selfish, that is clearly the status quo. As a business can easily be sued buy it's shareholders if the executive board do not maximise profit, business won't and never has made changes for the environmental benefit unless it makes financial sense to do so. That might be through public campaigning and boycotts, or the knowledge that sometimes investment and profit comes through the attraction of being 'environmetally sound'.

The kind of environmental regulations we have throughout the first world are still weak and will do little as they exist to preserve a planet earth that can sustain it's present population. To give you an idea of how insufficient the position of some parties in western countries is on global warming in particular, consider Liberal Party organised 'Sustainable Planet Forum' I attended a few weeks ago in Melbourne. This was arranged by a guy called Clem Newton-Brown - Liberal Party candidate for Prahran, which is an inner surburb of Melbourne. It was dank night in a rather windy town hall auditorium (a giant answer hanging in the air for you there, Clem!). The event which included notable environmental and social speakers such as Rob Gell, a prominent environmentalist and TV weatherman, individuals from Environment Victoria and Dr. Paul Mees, lecturer in Transport and Land Use Planning at the Univeristy of Melbourne. This was counterbalanced by speakers from the Liberal Party, such as Mr. Newton-Brown himself who chaired the meeting. Whilst the Newton-Brown insisted that the event was designed as a debate not a platform for Liberal policy, he himself featured heavily on the promotional material as did the Liberal Party logo. Each of the external speakers made excellent cases for cleaning up the Yarra river, increasing state CO2 and renewable energy targets, improving public transport provision and trashing Liberal party policy in the course of doing so. Interspersed were Liberal party speakers ending with David Davis, the shadow state secretary for the environment and planning. He made, in my opinion, one of the most unconvincing speeches I have ever heard on environmental issues. Allowing for the fact he was given the task of 'wrapping up', he regurgitated and mixed messages from earlier in the evening without making any firm proposal or commitment on umbrella or individual environmental policy in the Liberal Party. By the end of his few minutes I wondered if he was feeling ill. The whole event seemed to be about the promotional material beforehand and the fact that Clem Newton-Brown was an environmental nice guy, despite his party. It should have been a serious environmental debate as advertised, a platform for major change in Liberal party environmental policy or improving on the incumbent ALP state government's present policy which is fairly average. In truth, the Victorian Liberals are change happy to stick with the brown coal while there's plenty of it about, thank you. In fact, if anyone attended the event and had any interest in the environment they would have gone away convinced that they could never vote Liberal. God help us if we get to the middle of this century trying to reach the the 60% cut in greenhouse emissions we need, if the likes of the Liberals are in power.

I digress. Here's the other thing I saw on my ramble around Alexandra Park - the Botanic Gardens. Living an urban or suburban life it's easy to forget what enables us to live our lives. A bit of natural life brings it all back.

The photo to the left is the Ecalyptus or Gum tree. One of the biggest environmental issues of recent times in Victoria is it's old growth forests in Gippsland. This native Australian species makes up (or made up) a significant proportion of those forests. Across Australia 8% of old-growth remains since European settlement. A quick explanation of their importance to air, water and wildlife can be found here.









Controversy in the botanic gardens. Click on this picture to see whom the graffitti writer blames for the decimation of the rainforest by commercial logging (!). Not a very helpful statement, perhaps, but true nonetheless. Aside from acting as a natural carbon safe, natural forest is essential to a catchment areas water cycle and soil quality.









Asplenium Australasicum (Bird's Nest fern) or nature's compost bin! This plant evolved to catch the falling leaves from the canopy of the rainforest and help reduce them to a nutritious mulch. This plant is native to Australia's rainforest and can be found in New South Wales and Queensland. I include this as an obvious reminder of how an ecosystem is developed to support itself. Once parts of an ecosystem are removed it can fall apart much like an airplane missing a few rivets to use Jared Diamond's analogy.

I would invite comments on this post specifically from those of older generations who are supposedly more sceptical about this issue, if anyone should read it!

My message and reason for writing this post is that anybody with their head screwed on should be campaigning or acting on global warming and environmental issues in the way they feel most effective and comfortable with themselves. Be that through how they make purchases, how they improve home energy efficiency and preservation, in opinions they express to friends and colleagues, who they vote for, lobbying their MP, participating in direct action against the worst offenders or promoting, funding or setting up alternative energy sources in their community. These are only a few forms of positive action.

NGOs and environmental groups are part of the tipping point in public consciousness we need. I think it's down to the individual to decide that opposition to action on global warming or indifference towards environmental sustainability is seen as morally insupportable.