the time for skepticism is past

I know what you’re actually saying, and I generally agree, but the time for skepticism is never past.

There were a number of comments from the floor and the panel that the time for skepticism is past, and one question from the floor along the lines that Directors need to consider the risks they run by agreeing to major carbon emitting projects, given it seems likely that the limits on carbon will end up greater than promised, rather than less. Of course a panel and a few questions are not representative, but they are certainly a bit of a guide.

So the elites of the business world (do they count as “elites” - they’re certainly paid that way - and they are probably right of centre)are firmly in the camp of acknowledging climate change as a major issue. So the coalition is out of step with it’s natural business constituency also.

I’ll have to think more about this.

Risk aversion to economic damage, even to limiting growth by the smallest increment, was Howard’s policy to climate change until the last months, and was the central element of Bush’s stance. It was the subject of a very funny column by Terry McCrann who, considering costs to 2050, concluded that 0.2% too much to bear because of the potential loss of schools and hospitals. Apparently, we spend the last 0.2% of our economy on this important social infrastructure, having spent the other 99.8% on much more important stuff.

Of course, this is an extreme position, and should have been debated by political conservatives who are also conservationists, of which there are many. (Off topic, the bush conservatives who lined up against mandatory detention were fantastic - making the Nats very nervous, and pushing a couple of parliamentary reps to work from the inside).

As Paul said, there are a significant number of green conservatives out there. Analysis in hindsight will show their silence of the past decade to be another depressing contribution to the delay to act.

And some blame the environmental movement for this failure.

Climate denialism is a right wing elitist viewpoint - its not mainstream.

Workchoices was even worse - strictly ideologues only, not even a rump elite caste were that supportive. Note that the coalition was happy to hyper-regulate the price of labour, but oh!! Give people accurate info about the price of cheese and coffee - that’s BIG GOVT!

Voters just had to categorize each of 14 issues as no important, important, or extremely important. Pretty well issues had 80% or more saying it was at least important

Candidates were given a list of fourteen issues and asked to pick the four most important in order. I think “in the top four” is closest to “extremely important”.

Also, some of the candiates must have misunderstood the question, since the the total number of issues in the top four is more than four times the number of candidates…

The irony about the obsession with some about the possibilities of space travel and colonisation is that even as modest a goal as getting humans to Mars and back will require advances in developing closed loop systems, low entropy, low resources throughput, reducing/reusing/recycling etc., for the spaceships which would be more productively employed here on Earth.

***************************************

Ecology and Conservatism

• Core principles of conservatism:
- tradition (‘the desire to conserve’, including caution about unintended effects of change);
- pragmatism (including belief in limits of human rationality);
- human imperfection;
- organicism;
- hierarchy;
- authority;
- property.

• Some affinities seen between conservatism and environmentalism, e.g. desire to conserve, organicism.

However:
- conservative principles of hierarchy, authority and property are problematic for many environmentalists;
- desire to conserve social structures is incompatible with green projects involving major social change;
- conservatism silent on limits to growth and extending value beyond humans;
- In practice little cooperation between conservatives and environmentalists.

Ecology and Liberalism

• Core liberal principles:
- individualism;
- freedom;
- reason;
- political and legal equality;
- toleration;
- consent;
- constitutionalism.

• Varieties:
- classical liberalism (laissez faire);
- social liberalism (accepts role for state intervention in markets and welfare state);
- neo-liberalism.

• Eco-liberals:
- believe in possibility of achieving sustainability within framework of liberal democracy and market economy;
- tend to support “ecological modernisation” and “market solutions” which will be considered later in course.

• Many examples of political liberals being environmentally concerned (liberal US Democrats, Al Gore, Australian Democrats, Liberal Party “wets”, UK Liberal Democrats).

• Many green theorists utilise liberal principles of “rights” and “justice” as basis of “moral extensionism”, green theories of justice, concept of ecological citizenship.

• Problematic elements of liberalism:
- emphasis on individualism and economic freedom may conflict with need for collective solutions to environmental problems and constraints on individual lifestyles;
- strong emphasis on property rights may not be ecologically rational.

Ecology and Socialism

• Core socialist principles:
- community;
- “fraternity” (or sorority!);
- social and economic equality;
- production and distribution for need;
- class politics;
- common ownership and control;
- planning.

• Ambivalent relationship with environmentalism.

• Traditional socialist positions:
- “productivism”: economic growth is unproblematically good because it creates jobs and rising living standards;
- anthropocentrism - rational to use and transform nature for human benefit;
- environmental problems are due to irrationality of capitalism rather than industrialism (and former communist countries weren’t really socialist);
- no limits to growth.

• Minority alternative currents within socialism have questioned productivism.

• Eco-socialism attempts to reconcile socialism and ecologism:
- human emancipation and achievement of sustainable society both require replacing capitalism with democratic socialism;
- ecological sustainability must be a core principle of socialist society;
- accept ecological limits to growth and need to revise conventional socialist positions.

• Notable cases of red-green cooperation and alliances, but elements of both “red” and “green” camps remain hostile.

“The New Right”

• Combination of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism.

• Internally contradictory (e.g. values traditional single-income family yet supports destruction of industrial relations framework designed to support this family form).

• New Right parties and governments:
- US Republicans;
- Thatcher Conservative government in UK;
- right wing of Liberal and National parties in Australia.

• Also various industry-funded “think-tanks”.

• Neo-liberal element:
- disapproves of environmental regulation which entails intervention in market or infringement of property rights;
- advocates “free market environmentalism”.

• Neo-con element:
- hostile to movements seen as associated with “the Left”, including environmentalism;
- tends to deny or downplay existence of environmental problems (e.g. global warming)

• Both wings defend economic benefits of activities which lead to environmental problems, and warn of costs of environmental policy proposals.

“The Old Left”

• Adhere to traditional labourist and communist doctrines which make material economic goals central to the socialist project.

• Uncritical faith in science and technology.

• Hostile to alleged “middle class” environmentalists.

• Posit “jobs versus environment” dilemma as irreconcilable conflict.

• Tend to deny or downplay existence of environmental problems (e.g. global warming).

• Often in alliance with the New Right and business against environmentalists (even though this is detrimental to working class interests – 2004 Federal election).

NB: Relevant reading for this lecture: Carter, Neil (2007), The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

The extremist expression of this Lockeanism is found in the nutty notions of space travel and colonisation. This “final frontier” fantasy continues to nurture a dwindling but frenetic coterie of Lockeans.

If this false Lockean assumption were repudiated, then a tourniquet might be applied that chokes off the blood supply to the notion that there are no limits to growth and that natural systems are impervious to disruption.

Eventually, this element of Lockeanism will be repudiated by facts on the ground.

Paul, I grabbed Heywood’s Political ideologies in response to Adrien’s challenge on another thread. Heywood has a 25 page chapter on “ecologism” where he relates it to other political philosophies. That was complicated enough and I’m sure you know much more.

So I’ll vacate the field for now and wait to see what you come up with.

But - as a general principle - the conservative viewpoint should surely lead to the view that we should be very hesitant before doing anything that might adversely affect the natural environment, because we don’t know what the potentially adverse consequences are.

Paul, go to it, we can wait, we can wait!

Just hope you can bring a sandwich for that one.