Environmental Questions

Environmental Activism

When is enough...enough?

10 March 2006

Activists are extremely important in environmental progress. Government and Activists need each other. 'When is enough...enough.' At what point does an Activist cross when they are so emotionally involved that what they do becomes dangerous. Is point at which they no longer are making logical gains or progression for the environment? Will it cause a negative public view towards, not that Activist group but generalise it towards all Activist groups? Would you call some of these Activists extremists? Is this a point where the government needs to take these activists interests into consideration, but make their own informed decision?

The less activists are heard, the more time that has run out, and the more of them there are, may push them over to a more extreme approach because of an increase in emotion - but not necessarily of the beaten track and dangerous.

When activists make bad uninformed decisions and damage property they will receive a bad name. It is very important for activists to make successful gains for the environment that they do not do this as giving activists a bad name means that no one will listen to them and then may become dangerous.

Activists that destroy property and take the violent approach (usually towards the government) are a community within the environmental activists community. They have the same 'attitudes' but not the same values or ethics. "...differences often cause a newly formed group to go through a period of disagreement and power struggle before establishing an agreed pattern of operating and decision making."

The violent groups within the environmental activists will give them a bad name, but it is the same as within the groups within the government. National Party to the Greens to Labour or Liberal.

Maybe the main problem when thinking of an answer to this question is establishing the individual groups with both the environmental activists and government parties.

An important part of activism is communicating views with the general public and gaining support. It is important for activist groups to consider the most effective methods of gaining public attention and support. As I see it, there are two extremes.

1. Relying primarily on the presentation of information and views presented to the public in a non-confrontational manner seen as 'acceptable' to society.

2. Engaging in 'extreme' behaviour so it is difficult to ignore the issue.

Both methods can be successful depending on the gravity of the situation, the community and how the community responds to activism. Both methods have problems associated with them. The effectiveness of simply presenting the information can be limited in the amount of attention it gains from society. On the other hand people can begin to dismiss the views of emotional, vocal and socially disobedient activists as 'extremist' behaviour. Such behaviour may result in society ignoring an issue that may be of relevance. It may also lead to society assuming all environmental activist groups behave in the same way. There is a point where 'extreme' activist behaviour goes to far and can start to have a negative affect on solving an environmental issue. It may be preferable to present views and information in a passive manner so the public do not form negative opinions of activist groups and also allows the public to come to its own conclusions on an issue. Perhaps an important part of effective activism is finding the right balance between socially acceptable and vocal, possible disruptive presentation of views.

Not all activist groups are the same, because not all situations are the same. It would be very hard not to get emotionally involved, because it’s due to someone’s emotions that they get active. Emotion seems to be an element that’s left out in a lot of situations, which may confine the issue. With genetically modified organisms, for example, the arguments all seem to be trying to leave out emotion because this means the manufacturers and consumers will have to answer to ethics. No one likes discussing ethics so because its left out of the situation the ‘bigger picture’ won’t be addressed.

If someone’s emotions drive him or her to do a more extreme form of activism perhaps it could instigate another person to look into the situation who then brings the issue up with someone else and so on. Word of mouth is a powerful tool.

Let's not forget the broad spectrum of environmental activists out there. Jamieson (2003)discusses some different types of environmental activists:- community - usually motivated by local experience; professional - eg Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth; militant – whose concerns are spiritual and moral; and personal – ranging from new age philosophy to individual efforts to shop in an environmentally conscious manner.

Each type has a different impact and when considered all together would seem to have a great deal of power to encourage government regulation.

Activists are like Scooby-doo: they dont have all the facts but they are still effective

04 March 2006

Imagine a world without environmental activists: Every country with nuclear weapons will be testing them. There would be no pushing for green energy. Radioactive wastes would be dumped at sea. Incinerating organochlorine wastes would be dumped at sea. Antarctica would be a mine. There would be no such thing as illegal logging. Whales would be extinct. Persistent Organic Pollutants would be in use. Everything we eat would be genetically modified food. Nuclear rectors would be the way to go. The great barrier reef would be a mine. Kakadu would be called uranium world. Millions more animal extinctions. Companies would get away with a lot more. Environmental issues would not be near the tops of many government agendas.

Governments are made up of people and people have their own opinions. Granted that these people work within government policy that if left without environmental activists the world would not fall into disrepair. The decisions made by government agencies are not always made to the detriment of the environment, and in many cases the opposite situation occurs such as the recent commitment by both the Commonwealth and State Governments to repair the Murray River. Another example is the mining of the Great Barrier Reef. Under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 a provision is included that "prohibits operations for the recovery of minerals (which includes prospecting or exploration for minerals) in the Marine Park“ Further, the Labour Party recently wanted to pass legislation that extended the park in order to exclude it from any impact of mining in the surrounding area off Townsville.

I am referring to larger scale things such as governments failing to comply to/or put of treaties and protocols like Kyoto for example with fingers pointing at the US and AUS. Also the world summit last year. Governments had a good chance to really get along like they did in Rio but unfortunately not much came out of it. The precautionary principle is a great step but really how many countries actually spend the time and money to follow such things. Not many. While many westernised countries are trying to advance themselves even more through sustainability there are many places in the world which sustainability means keeping yourself alive let alone trying to take care of other things. It is these areas that many activists cry out for and harass people in power to do the right thing. Not the other way around. If there are going to be any gains for the environment the world has to have equity throughout, and this is what many activists are seeking.

A huge part of achieving sustainability is achieving equity. However, just looking at the current state of the world it is almost asking the impossible? We all want it, but those who have it don't want to loose it! - that side of human nature called greed! We are asking for a major world restructure and the end of the world as we know it (as far as current government and social structures are concerned). We need equity - drastically - but how can the world achieve that when it is currently where it is at?

Maybe this is a long battle but we still need to keep believing that there is a need of equity. Many people are still living in their own world ignoring every crisis in humanity and environment. Maybe, it is the responsibility of those who believe the treasure of equity to pass this message on. People may think these people are stupid or as you said 'surreal', but the world needs these people to keep it going.

We certainly do need those people and it sure is a huge battle. The day we stop believing is the day we will all be in serious trouble. How do we (as a society) though ACHIEVE Equity? - which will then lead to sustainability? What can WE do to help?

It is the activists/environmentalists that are the driving force behind sustainable change while acknowledging they can't do it by themselves without the government.

Committed to development, the government encouraged massive land clearing by means of Land Acts of 1910 to 1961 that prohibited any regrowth on land cleared. This attitude was clearly elucidated by the dismissal of the first Director of Forests in Queensland, Edward Swain, who overtly opposed broad scale clearing of far north Queensland hardwood forests in 1930s. Not until 1995, the environmental impacts of this land clearing practice were detected by satellite remote sensing. This triggered the changing attitudes of the government towards vegetation clearing, from encouraging to discouraging. In 2000, the Vegetation Management Act 1999 was proclaimed as a means to regulate vegetation in Queensland. (Queensland Department of NRM. 2003)

Land clearing is an environmental legacy of the Queensland Government. This was evident by the governmental encouragement regarding land-clearing given to farmers in past generations. With such encouragement, many farmers bought their land property with an aim to clear the land for further development. Most of their capital has been staked on this orientation. Their future generations were trained to make their living within this context. Owing to the alarming environmental impact in the country, the farmers are prohibited to clear their land and are forced to change their ways of living abruptly. In this way, the Queensland government is asking the farmers to clean the environmental legacy of the government. This approach is not just and seriously violates the “Inter-generation Equity” principle of sustainable development.

The Australian Government should not keep giving a free hand to these farmers, as the ecosystem disruption has reached an alarming rate. When asking these farmers to stop their ways of living, the government and the public may like to consider the equity issues by the following:

An open and transparent consultation that involves all stakeholders is needed to devise a solution; a fair and just compensation scheme should be provided; appropriate financial assistances, better environmental education and comprehensive training of alternate livelihoods should be provided; and long-term land rehabilitation program should be carried out to improve both of the land quality and productivity.

Likewise, in the case of third world countries. When asking them not to log anymore, some international poverty eradication program in terms of financial and technical assistances should be provided.

When the government and the decision-makers ignore all these measures, activists who have environmental conscience should voice out loudly until the point is got crossed. And, this spirit needs to be carried on to next generations through proper environmental education.

Farmers are not the only environmental vandals. People living in the cities are the biggest resource consumers and wasters! Farmers are making a living off the land – most of this we consume.

Majority of the farmers are environmentally friendly who manage their farms for long-term viability. Majority of farmers want to pass their property on to their children and see their property as an investment. It is not a way to make a quick buck at any expense. So why would they destroy the land? It is only our perception that they are destroying the land. We as a community have to take some of the blame as we force some farmers into a corner and force them to act unsustainably. The economic environment is a prime example. Every time we purchase something, we are effectively voting for that product to be produced – think about that next time you buy a non-environmentally friendly product!

As for the government giving farmers are “free hand” that so far off the mark! Farmers have to fight for assistance from the government especially in drought. Even when they finally receive assistance it is not enough or simply too late. Furthermore, the government hinders their production through unrealistic and “false science” legislation. This is sometimes the result of a poorly informed green movement. Farmers have gotten the raw end of the stick. Isn’t it about time that we start enacting legislation on people living in cities to change their ways of living?

A better compensation scheme for farmers since farmers do need to stop clearing the land for any more developments. As you may aware the land salinity problem in Australia of the follow:

Area at risk and impact: - Approximately 5.7 million hectares are within regions mapped to be at risk or affected by dryland salinity. It has been estimated that in 50 years’ time the area of regions with a high risk may increase to 17 million hectares (three times as much as now). - Some 20 000 km of major road and 1600 km of railways occur in regions mapped to have areas of high risk. Estimates suggest these could be 52 000 km and 3600 km respectively by the year 2050. - Salt is transported by water. Up to 20 000 km of streams could be significantly salt affected by 2050. - Areas of remnant native vegetation (630 000 ha) and associated ecosystems are within regions with areas mapped to be at risk. These areas are projected to increase by up to 2 000 000 ha over the next 50 years. - Australian rural towns are not immune: over 200 towns could suffer damage to infrastructure and other community assets from dryland salinity by 2050.

Also, environmental impacts of dryland salinity areas are as follows: Drinking and irrigation water: Salt loads adversely affect the quality of drinking and irrigation water supplies. Excessive extraction will also reduce a river’s capacity to dilute salt loads.

In-stream biota: Salt interacts with in-stream biota, changing the ecological health of streams and estuaries.

Soil: Dryland salinity exacerbates soil erosion. Blue-green algae blooms: Salts help fine matter (e.g. suspended clay particles) to coalesce, allowing more sunlight to penetrate rivers. This, in turn, may lead to more blue-green algae blooms if suitable environmental conditions are available.

As an agent of degradation: Dry land salinity causes soil erosion, eutrophication of streams and loss of riparian zone vegetation. As a result, there are loss of farm production and income and declines in capital value of land, damage to infrastructure, salinisation of water storage, loss of farm flora and fauna, and loss of shelter and shade.

Agriculture: Broadacre cereal crops and traditional pasture species grown in Australia do not tolerate salt and are seriously affected when salts concentrate within the root zone.

Infrastructure: Large decreases in the lifespan of road pavement occur when groundwater levels rise to within 2m of the pavement surface. Salt also destroys the properties of bitumen and concrete structures. Road and bridge damage caused by shallow, saline groundwater is a major cost at all levels of government. Structures associated with communication and gas pipelines are subject to a similar fate.

Biodiversity: The greatest threat posed by dryland salinity to biodiversity is from the loss of habitat – both on land and in water.

Apart from that resulted from its unique landscape; salinity in Australia is mainly escalated by its irrigation and land clearing practices (National Land and Water Resources Audit 2001). It is apparent that salinisation process is extremely difficult to slow, stop or reverse. Therefore, prevention by means of immediate stop of land clearing is a far better option in controlling salinity (National Land Water Audit (n.d.)). Under these circumstances, stopping land clearing is imperative, but a fair and just compensation scheme is necessary.

If it wasn't for greenies or environmental groups rallying community and coming together in protest of our beliefs, the government would be more interested in gaining economic power and wouldn't be so quick to intervene to prevent private enterprises conducting or establishing business that would be environmentally degrading or environmentally unsustainable. We are lucky in that our government has changed it's views and now is becoming more 'green'. This is due to people becoming more environmentally aware and concerned of environmental issues. It has been the public and activists that has bought about this change in government attitude – they haven't done it on their own.

The other issue is for example in some cases like the Great Barrier Reef. It is listed as being of "international importance" and is protected under international legislation. So our Government has obligations under international agreements to protect some of these resources and are forced to do so.

We are seeing the birth of a new age of government (albeit slowly) or at least in this country. Gradually we are witnessing the government taken environmental concerns more and more seriously and incorporating them into policy and legislation, and perhaps, we will see in years to come that this will progress to the point when we will no longer need as much or any input from activists as the government will be fully focused on protecting the environment and pushing sustainable development. This is still some way of, and for the moment we very much need the activists who are the true crusaders in saving our planet and continue to shape the way our governments respond to environmental issues.

Collaborated Approach in Third World Countries

28 February 2006

Lets take a look at the state of environmental issues in third world countries such as India, Brazil, Ethiopia, Nepal and China. It is in these countries that much of the worst environmental degradation anywhere in the world has occurred. In most of these countries it has only been in very recent times that the respective governments have begun to introduce policies to try and minimise the extensive degradation problems that their countries face. It is no coincidence that this policy development has come about soon after the formation of, and pressure applied by various environmental activist groups. Before the governments were exposed to pressures from such groups they saw no reason to draw up any environmental policy. But now that people in these countries are becoming better informed, or, activist groups are not being quashed by strict government regimes, governments are being forced to take notice.

It is all very well for governments to develop environmental policies aimed at conserving the environment. In third world countries however, it is another matter enforcing environmental legislation. Corruption and/or bureaucratic red tape can lead to policies that were tabled to conserve the environment, being rendered largely ineffective.

Taking the situation of each country into consideration is very relevant. Environmental activism works in Australia because the country is at a position to put our environment in the scheme of things. We’ve been able to do this for almost 40 years. People wouldn’t and can’t think twice about allowing mines, destroying thousands of acres of forest or protecting waterways because they just aren’t in an economically viable position to do so. It’s great that in Australia people can, to an extent.

Third world countries are not the most environmentally degrading! Third world countries have to make do with what they have, and usually competing with large populations (because lack of contraception available.) Once a resource (for example water) is gone, it is gone, and people know that they will not be funded or looked after by the government, because it is not a priority. Therefore 3rd world communities have limited access to natural renewable and non-renewable resources and that is why 3rd world countries are not harming the environment as much as 1st world countries.

1st world countries, such as America, Australia, Japan, Canada are producing the most CO2 in the world, contributing to the greenhouse gas emissions in a massive way. As well as 1st world countries using natural resources until near depletion occurs. (This happens because the country has the wealth to buy the product). There are the exceptions - Norway, Sweden, and Germany governments that have worked WITH the environment and benefiting economically from being environmentally sustainable.

Adeola (1996) points out the ‘environmental contamination exacerbated by environmental imperialism and international dumping of hazardous wastes in the Third World, specifically in Nigeria’. Why did countries in Third World welcomed hazardous wastes into their countries, ignorant could be. However, the urgent need to acquire capital to develop is always the reason behind the acceptances (Foster 1994, McKee 1996). These poor people do not have many choices and they do have the right to develop and perhaps enjoy what we are enjoying today. This is one of the principles of sustainable development: Intra-generational Equity.

This scenario leads to two issues: a) environmental degradations in Third World are partially escalated by developed countries and b) the right to develop of the developing countries should not be neglected. Cleaning the backyard of the rich developed countries by transporting hazardous wastes to the poor developing countries as well as forbidding the developing countries to develop (e.g. logging) seriously violates the above-mentioned principle of sustainable development.

When trying to influence environmental agendas, maybe we need to take what Clark (1993) suggests: ‘should be cautious not to adopt an imperialistic attitudes when pushing for environmental changes in the third world. Although there is sense of urgency in fixing environmental problems, individual cultures and their unique perspectives should be respected’.

In Central Africa 80-90%% of the indigenous population walked to wherever they were going (for many it was nothing to walk 20-30kms a day on foot). They also mainly lived in houses or compounds that didn't have electricity. On top of this many purchased/ate bulk produce like "sheema" or fresh vegetables - there is very little packaging in their grocery shopping etc and hence waste. Their ecological footprints would be drastically lower than developed countries. That is not to say however that due to overpopulation etc, etc there are not severe environmental problems occurring over there. Many of their habitats are far less undisturbed than ours.

'Bush meat' trade is occurring on a large scale in Central Africa, Sarawak, and Brazilian Amazon. Rural people often rely heavily on wild meat, but, in many cases, this important source of food and income is either, already lost (through localised extinctions) or is being rapidly depleted. The local communities in these countries rely on the money generated from the sale of wild meat. What should be done in this situation? - get the government to try and stop/reduce poaching and risk forcing hundreds of thousands of rural people into further poverty (which in many cases could result in increased crime)or allow it to continue and watch species hunted for wild meat further decline into extinction. Either decision will have massive negative impacts. This raises the question - which do we value more as a global community - The lives of hundreds of species that are hunted for wild meat or the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings. It's a big call either way. In this situation a collaboration is necessary to resolve this issue (and many others like it). Successful conservation of hunted wildlife requires collaboration at all scales, involving local people, resource extraction companies, governments and scientists (and not just activists and government).

Are First World countries more environmentally degrading because they consume more? The environmental degradation in Third World countries is more at point source. As to which one is worse I wouldn’t know. Over population is of course a very important consideration but I understand having large families is more or less needed as a resource for more income. Your point about education is important. Everyone, from the government to local scale, should be educated on why efficiently using their resources is economically viable for them and ultimately the environment. For positive results in collaborating all sides need to be informed.

People in developed countries have a tendency to take too much for granted - like fresh, clean drinking water. We just assume it will always be there! Guess we have a lot of work to do to get the message across that our resources aren't without limit and to achieve sustainability.

Australia is the sixth worst country in the world, in regards to land cleared. Today, major land clearing still continues to be a problem in Australia, (Wilderness Society, 2002). We have both models functioning in our society today.

Some people in this discussion mentioned the Australian legislation for the environment (e.g. Nature Conservation Act 1992), thus we have policies in place (functional model). The Wilderness Society Website invites you to become involved in their campaigns; we have freedom to actively voice our views (conflict model). So, if we have this "integrated" system, why do we not have the results (see land clearing facts above)?

I'm not saying there have been no victories won by either model, but broadly speaking, are the results worthwhile? Have either of the models really given Australia significant enough environmental gain, to use as a precedent for our future resource management.

Why Australia does not have a good result in terms of the land clearing issue even with the presence of the integrated model? Well, serious negligence by the government and even the environmentalists account for the situations today. The historical record shows that this crisis, which has taken half a century to fully materialise, was largely foreseen by contemporary agricultural scientists. … It locates the schemes to open up the area for agriculture in the period 1900-1980s within the ideology of developmentalism which became the major plank in the policy of successive governments.’ Science was separated from policy and the institutionalisation of the developmentalist ethos in the administrative arms of government was put in the forefront. (Beresford 2001)

Under these situations, not government is dealing the environment with a very reactive approach, but also the environmentalists are dealing with the environment very reactively. Nonetheless, environment does benefit from this. Imagine if there is not any environmentalist to push forward and monitor the agenda in this regard, this large critical area of land clearing may still be left unchecked.

Perhaps with more environmental activism, more of us would be aware of the catastrophic impact on the ozone layer caused by the mass clearing of forests in developing countries.

Real Life Situtations

25 February 2006

In Mainland China, demonstrations and protests are not allowed. The government can put you into jail if you overtly oppose any policies from the Central Government. Therefore, in the 1989 Beijing Tiananmen Square Incident, thousands of people died just because they tried to voice out their discontents and opinions about the Government. Almost at the same time, Dai Qing, a former journalist, overtly opposed the building of the Three Gorges Dam in Yangtze River by publishing a book, was arrested, accused of being an "instigator" of the "turmoil." These prosecutions are frequently vague and ambiguous but the Chinese Government does use such to control the society. These situations do make me believe that democracy is the major factor for any Conflict Model to run smoothly. I would not say the Conflict Model can only work in democratic societies as China does change a lot a lot since the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident. However, the price was far too high for the changes! Therefore, a democratic society that tolerates oppositions would enhance reforms of the society.

Hong Kong is a very unique place. It was under the British colonisation for more than one and a half century. Hong Kong was/is a quasi-democratic society which allowed/(s) demonstrations and protests and comments on the Government. The 1989 Beijing Tiananmen Square Incident induced millions of people demonstrating on the street before and after the Massacre. This phenomenon has seldom happened in the history of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong was not a country, it was a colony. Even after the returning back to China in 1997, Hong Kong is still not a country. It is a part of China with an identity of Special Administrative Regions. Hong Kong people are smart and fast learners, their efficiency is of world class famous. However, Hong Kong people do not care about much but profit-seeking. For older generations who were under the British colonisation, people were not educated to be critical. For these people, the concept of ‘Country’ is very vague and ‘unrealistic’. For the new generations who were born after 1997, people are not critical either as the educational system is monitored by the Chinese Central Government. Therefore, people in Hong Kong were not usually trained to be analytical and fault-finding.

The 1989 Incident provoked the altruism of the Hong Kong people because of the deaths of numerous people. Also, people did concern that similar plight would happen to them after the returning of Hong Kong to China. Sadly to say, not many people care about that anymore today especially Hong Kong is facing economic hardships. Apart from political impotence, a lack of good social welfare system is the reason behind. For many people in Hong Kong, they have to earn every cent in order to secure their future. The inadequate social welfare system pushes people to be money-oriented. Therefore, many people are having attitudes of ‘Not-My-Back-Yard’ towards environmental issues. Unless and until the environmental issues affect their livelihoods, standard of livings, etc. they would voice out their discontent. However, with the quasi-democratic political system, there are always a series of long battles for anyone who wants to push environmental agendas forward!

In sum, factors of democracy, analytical skills among people in a society and a good social welfare system will help run a Conflict Model smoothly thus contribute to sustainable development of a society.

Having lived in Central Africa and travelled overseas, I can see how easy it is to take Australia for granted. We don't know how lucky we are. In places like Africa, Afghanistan or China like you mentioned, activists or groups who speak out are often not tolerated by the controlling government and sadly may be jailed, tortured or killed (which to us is unthinkable). It is interesting like you noted, that this often occurs in situations of non-democratic government, poor social structures and high corruption. Thus, the conflict model appears to be non-existent, however, I don't think that means it doesn't exist? I feel it does exist, and is reflected in the way people feel and think, but sadly is perhaps less effective in forcing sustainable change due to their particular institutions.

In our democratic society, we don't have war or civil war etc, and we are free to voice our opinions and generally do so peacefully (peaceful protests) which is acceptable. Here, the conflict model is very operational and highly effective (without going to the extremes of war or rebellion) and has proven to be valuable in steering government legislation towards environmental sustainability. This perhaps is due to our democracy, our welfare and social systems. I therefore agree that there is a correlation between the effectiveness of the conflict model and the type of government and social structure a country has as to how it will progress environmentally. I do however believe, whether suppressed or not, the conflict model exists in all societies.

Like Dai Qing who I mentioned is still active in China even after repetitive and continuous persecution. She is now world-known and should be under certain protection of the U.S. It is sad to see my country needs a third party to intervene for better future. Yet, it is progressing at least!

The spirit of these activists are vital for reforms in any societies. Even in a stable country like Australia, most people are still having "Not-My-Back-Yard" attitudes towards environmental issues which is rather shocking to me.

As far as I know Australia is having freshwater crisis in 20 years because of the dying of Murray River. It is rather interesting to see how reluctant the Government budgets on this issue, but rather putting loads of money on other issues. Is the sky show last night sponsored by the Government? Also, it is really interesting to see how many people are ignorant on this issues and still wash their cars and do their gardening with running hoses, etc.!

I guess in every society, there needs to have some people with higher ideals seeing the greater good who sacrifice their private time or even their personal safety to point out the inadequacies of the societies!!

Given the current water crisis we are facing (like the Murray River) we are still very reluctant to 'sacrifice' too much of what we are used to like having long showers et cetera, even though I am deeply concerned and want to aid sustainability.

It may take more severe legislation and government intervention to force these changes on us to 'place it IN our back yards' so we can appreciate the consequences of our actions more. This doesn't mean I want my life or anyone else's to be tougher, but unfortunately is that what its going to take for us to change our ways and save our resources? Interestingly, in the Murray River scenario - will it be the Activists or the Government that will instigate this change?

In a democratic society, a Conflict Model pushing for a better environment is triggered by a group of people with environmental insights and adequate analytical skills. These people initiate a series of campaigns which arouse the interest of the public and the attention of the Government. Facing critiques and ressures of the public, government has to address and provide solutions to the issue. At this time, a well-organized and efficient government in a Functional Model will help alleviate the situations.

In the water crisis issue in Australia, even the public may not be aware the urgency of the problem, the government is well-acquainted with the situation. The government knows very well that things have to be done to deal with it. Therefore, a series of measures is currently put on agendas. These measures include water allocations, water rights trading, etc. In South Australia, irrigators are facing the fate of orchard production cut as a result of 20% cutting of water allocation. Yet, many of the measures are still under debate. Unfortunately, all these measures are beyond the control of individuals or even environmentalists.

The issue is on the table now. It is the turn of the government to rectify the situation by speeding up the compensation schemes, better market mechanism of the water trading etc. The interesting point is; democracy in Australia may now become one of the impediments of the Murray River salvage campaign. It is because; any tiny manoeuvre of the government will induce debates and criticisms, thus hindering any possible solutions to the problem. Yet, the democratic atmosphere of this country enhances the public to monitor the government from committing similar mistakes as before, i.e. massive land clearing since European Settlement.

Unfortunately our government does get pulled this way and that a little through the different priorities of different communities. At least in this case it is the government who is pushing measures to correct the Murray River issues and have been actively doing so and are working on it as best they can. They are not the 'original' instigators but tend to believe more that they are actively acting on community pressures from locals etc. in the areas of concern where the problem has become heightened to such levels that is now involving such great areas as to attract commonwealth interest.

I am quite sceptical about the usefulness of green groups. Although they have some extremely valid arguments, I feel as though they “whinge” too much. Personally, if I see activists I think “Oh no, here they go again”, whereas if they were more rational and really considered all the issues, like social benefit, they would get a little further. Maybe if they tried to solve some of their issues and then go to government as say, “we think this is a problem, these are the impacts, this is a possible measure”, they would be taken a little more seriously. To me its just like a continuously whinging kid, you take notice of them the first time, but after you just block them out, until something really does go wrong.

In the end, the government is the ultimate environmental negotiator. They are the ones who must weigh up all aspects (environmental, social, economical etc) to try and do what is best for us all. However on many occasions decisions are made with stronger economical and personal agendas behind them. The greenies are the ones that keep them on track and bring issues to their attention. It really is a gamble for the greenies whether or not the government has the good sense to take their advice.

“I think the bottom line is something like: It will be the environmentalists/activists who push community and pressure governmental change, but then it will be the governmental 'green' legislation (once accepted) that will ensure compliance and force sustainable change.”

Real-life situations certainly have the capacity to draw attention to on-ground examples concerning the roles of environmental activism and government regulation in achieving environmental gains. The issue of tree clearing and vegetation management in Queensland is one such issue, which is both very current and very close to home.

Environmental activism has occurred on a mass scale in an attempt to pressure governments into introducing new legislation regulating the clearing of trees on freehold and leasehold land. As it stands, the issue of vegetation management in Queensland remains unresolved, floundering beneath a whirlpool of ethical, social, cultural, ecological and economic controversy, further inflamed by the widely divergent views of various stakeholder groups.

In light of this discussion topic, it is useful to consider whether government regulation, in the form of Acts, regulations and enforcement mechanisms, or environmental activism, via emotive campaigning and influencing public opinion, are likely to be more effective in halting unsustainable clearing practices.

According to Rick Berman, of the United States Centre for Consumer Freedom, activists, buoyed by money, energy and passion, can win. Activists have an ongoing agenda, and as a result, Berman claims, ‘they never lose because there’s no clock, because their objective is an endless pursuit. If it takes five, 10 or 20 years to get results, that’s okay with them’.

It may well take this long to reach a resolution on vegetation management in Queensland that green groups consider acceptable. However, driven by passion, emotion and a steadfast belief in the righteousness of their campaign, activists will continue to fight. While governments may tire of the issue as new, more politically volatile issues arise, activists will push on. This tenacity is where the great strength of activism lies, and why, when pitted against government regulation, it can be viewed as the more effective mechanism in achieving environmental gains.

Collaborated Approach

22 February 2006

We have all heard or maybe even said, 'It is not the outcome or solution that is important it is the process by which took place to arrive to the outcome or solution.' In this case the legislation is the outcome and the activities of the Environmental activists and Government are the process.

Education is essential, we wouldn't be where we are today without education, education in a lot of cases is essential for Socialisation. Education widens our perceptions and raises our perceptions and awareness to different levels. This discussion question is all about perception and how we see what is being asked. We don't all see eye to eye which causes conflict, we all operate within different environments. Environments is in the broadest sense of the word, the government and activist environments. This discussion question is one example, we are all to discuss the same question, most have common areas of study yet we all perceive this question with a difference and express our opinions differently.

If a lot of us are right in saying 'Environmental activists are the driving force behind change', this would mean they have been more effective in achieving gains for the environment? Environmental activists are, by far, more then a small voice within the community, the Government hears this and does what they can to benefit themselves and those they have to please. It is not a situation in who is more effective, it is a cycle relationship that depends on each other for change. It is an integrated approach to an outcome or equilibrium.

The short answer is the Environmental Activist need the Government as much as the Government needs the activists when it comes down to achieving gains in the Environmental sector.

Is Government regulation and the tireless effort of the Activists enough? More than 500,000 ha of bush land is cleared each year in Queensland (over last 4 years), despite the introduction and enforcement of the QLD Vegetation Management Act 1999 and numerous anti-logging/land clearing demonstrates by various environmental activists groups around Australia. The wider community and the government know how much bushland is being logged each year, but is this reducing the rate of land clearing. According to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines it isn't. Maybe something like Environmental cops need to be introduced which represent both government regulations and the views of the community (this could incorporate education to land managers-as mentioned in other responses). A stronger unity between Government, Environmental activists, land managers, non-government environmental groups and the wider community needs to occur. How is this done (a lot easier to say than for it to actually occur), time, money and collaborated efforts of the Australia public as you mentioned in your response. As a nation our priorities toward the environment are changing (more greener and clearer) maybe the key is TIME, which unfortunately we'll just have to wait for. Bring in the environmental cops!

The question is how would the Government be induced to collaborate? Let us have a look at the QLD Vegetation Management Act 1999. Sherwin (2000) summarizes some of the flaws and inadequacies of the Vegetation Management Act 1999 as a means to control land clearing in Queensland as follows. Even labelled as ‘draconian' and `unreasonable', the 1999 Vegetation Management Act only protects areas of bushland that are 70%% cleared from its original context. The extent of the vegetation types from these areas only makes up about 3.5%% of the native vegetation of Queensland. Worse, lots of vegetation types are classified as ‘not of concern’ ecosystems that receive only weak and poorly defined levels of protection under the new controls (Sherwin 2000). Indeed, about one-third of the land clearing problem will be under the control of the Act. However, this protective rate is still not large enough to bring most of the environmental problems associated with land clearing into control. In other words, as a key measure to rectify the environment impacts resulted from land clearing, the Vegetation Management Act 1999 is too weak and inadequate to address the environmental issues. This implies there was a lack of sheer determinations in the government to rectify this issue.

Furthermore, both the Queensland Government and the Federal Government are very reluctant to budget the issue. Thus, the whole campaign has become political rhetoric so far. What are the reasons behind? Is Australia compromising its natural wealth before economic development? So desperate that (sorry to say), Australia does not mind to compromise its international green image!

It is a bit worrying really. Two of the main sources of income in Australia are now from education provided to overseas students and tourism. If things keep going in this way, people would stop to come. In fact, what can tourists see when they come if environmental degradation is becoming severe here. No kidding, your Great Barrier Reef has started to be deteriorated for quite a while. So, is there any more time to wait?

Rangers (EPA) have enforcement powers under legislation. What is so interesting though is how the government is slashing funding to important organizations like the EPA (QPWS) as well as DNR and DPI. This can tend to give the view that these people are not doing their jobs or are not being proactive enough to solve major issues. This simply isn't true - their simply not given the funding to do it! These rangers have an operational budget so measly it doesn't come close to covering costs of travel, fuel, materials to fix fences, amenities or do surveys for rare and threatened species etc,etc.. What is happening here? Here we have a situation of environmental issues increasing and environmental funding decreasing??? Why?

Now this doesn't make any sense! We are all very aware of the multitude of environmental issues that surround us and also of the government becoming more and more active in at least acknowledging these issues through legislative change. Why then, every year are they cutting budgets to these departments that are so crucial in correcting and addressing these environmental problems? The exception is, there are some large grants/funding provided to some particular issues or projects (which is great) but I think this glorifies the government just a little by making them appear to be 'doing so much' while at the same time they are cutting the throat of the environmental agencies behind our backs!

Maybe there are no environmental solutions, only economic, political and social ones?

A future where a policing force dedicated to environment issues are formed who are totally dedicated to enforcing environmental legislation full-time. Think that will happen?

The government and green groups are not enough of a driving force to enforce environmental change. You used the example of vegetation clearing in Queensland and the associated Vegetation Management Act. There are many reasons why this Act is not working and a lot of that has to do with the government and green groups. The construction of the Vegetation Management Act was not handled correctly. There was little or no consultation with landholders. This instilled fear into the landholders as those that did the right thing and had not cleared all of their land were going to be disadvantaged. This encouraged broad scale clearing in Queensland, exacerbating the current situation.

Green groups and the government can be blamed for this situation. The government was seeking green votes and the greenies were in a non compromising position. The majority of landholders realize the benefits of retaining vegetation on their properties and it is an insult to landholders that they are not able to manage their properties accordingly. Another point is the fact that compensation was initially not going to be paid for people to retain trees on their property. Why should landholders retain trees at the expense of potential profits for the “betterment” of the community, especially when we live in huge resource wasting cities!

However, there was some reconciliation between the government, greenies and the landholders with the establishment of the regional vegetation management plans. This was a collaborative approach, where all parties had to compromise. However, the landholders were once again disadvantaged. Every other party involved in this process apart from landholders was paid for their time. On top of this, Premier Beattie put a memorandum of tree clearing which effectively meant that these plans were null and void.

With all of these points in mind it is no wonder that clearing is still continuing and all faith in the government (and even the green groups) has been lost.

For commercial quality wholesale hospitality products view this great resource.

A vital Component of Functional Model

16 February 2006

An important component of the Functional Model is the Educational Sector in a society. Education is very important that helps shape a society in great extent. Education builds up our values, attitudes and affects our behaviours. It is not that socialisation is not important, but education is far more important. It enables one to see the world with a very different perspective compare with before.

Education is a very important element to the promotion of sustainable development no matter under a functional or a conflict model. Think about it, if there is a lack of environmental insight in a society, neither of the model will focus on environmental issues. Without these insights, how would a society aware the importance of environmental protection?

Return to the issue of water crisis in Australia, how many people around you are alarmed by the issue? How many people around you have an attitude that the Australian Government will be able to fix all the problems? Is the imminence of the water crisis properly channelled to the mass? Therefore, environmental education and proper environmental information dissemination by educational sector, activists and communities are very important to any societies to be aware of the reality thus pushing environmental agendas forward.

Education is necessary for the conflict model, and it vital to ensure it is holistic education, where all views can be understood to allow informed decisions to be made. Basically, you need to be sure and understand exactly what you are fighting for. If this not achieved, peoples perceptions of the activists would be idealised for the education they are given.

Activists are often seen as “tree hugging hippies” with tunnel vision, due to the fact that they only display one side of every story. This could be due the passion and fight for their values. As others have mentioned, it is important for activist to raise public awareness about environmental issues, however, without proper education, their fight is virtually worthless, and as it has no solid backbone. The entire community often does not always back environmental activist polices and stances, because of the “tree hugging hippy” stereotypes. Although activist sometimes ‘go too far’, they fight for a worthy cause in saving the environment, often with good outcomes.

Structural-Functional vs Conflict Model

10 February 2006

The structural-functional model of society emphasises the process of socialisation, or learning to follow rules established through stable social institutions. On the other hand, the conflict model proposes a more dynamic society, whereby a society moves forward through power struggles over rights and beliefs. (See Edgar, Earle & Fopp (1993) for a more detailed discussion of these models).

These two models, while admittedly only presenting a simplified and somewhat abstract view of real-life societies, provide a good starting point for analysing the roles and comparative effectiveness of government regulation and environmental activism in achieving progress towards a sustainable environment. In the context of this question, proponents of the structural-functional model point towards the positive role of government regulation in addressing environmental concerns within the established framework of societal institutions. In stark contrast, the conflict model stresses the progress made towards sustainability through the actions of environmental groups, and highlights the role of conflict as the driving force behind positive environmental outcomes.

While arguments exist for and against both models in terms of their contribution to environmental sustainability, the conflict model has to date played the far greater role. It is only through environmental activism and conflict that environmental concerns have become embedded in the structural-functional fabric of society. If the conflict model had not come into play in the environmental arena, it is likely that socialisation (a la the structural-functional model) would still be teaching us, through the social institutions of family, education and religion, to be ‘good little consumers’, and to exploit and subdue nature for our own ends. (Lines (1991) provides a detailed history of this school of thought in an Australian context).

Through the conflict model, environmental activists have propelled environmental issues into the collective public consciousness. In terms of its role as an agent of social change, the conflict model appears to be far more responsible for enacting a shift from our traditionally anthropocentric society to a more biocentric, environmentally aware viewpoint. Thus, when pitted against the structural-functional model, the conflict model can be viewed as the more effective in terms of achieving environmental gains.

While the contribution of the structural-functional model (represented in this scenario by the government) is worthy of some credit in relation to its contribution to the environment, the role of the activist is by far the most effective. If it weren’t for the work of environmental activists and their supporters, dams would have destroyed Tasmania’s unique Franklin River wilderness, toxic waste would still be incinerated at sea and nuclear waste dumped there and mines would probably be operating in the Antarctic and Kimberly regions – to name just a few of the campaign successes of the last decades.

While these successes have not been solely the work of activists, without their relentless lobbying such issues would continue to fester and manifest into environmental catastrophes. The public relies on, and needs activists to bring these such issues to light. While a generalisation most governments, be they local or federal, will not act to correct an environmental problem unless there exists public commotion among the voting majority. While action is usually taken by governments it is all too often reactionary and only rarely preventative.

Governments vs Activists

07 February 2006

The bottom line and dearest concern of all governments is ensuring they get returned to office. This one goal colours all policy and all legislation. A government will not make a decision unless they feel it will aid their cause, unless it will increase their votes at the next election. Therefore we cannot rely upon them to act in an unpopular manner.

Who do we rely on?? We rely on activists. Activism raises public awareness, increases the level of environmental knowledge, gets people thinking about an issue that does not confront them every day. This facilitates the popularity of environmental issues amongst the public and leads to a government more ready to act. Activists are crucial.

Activism has come a long way from the days of chaining yourself to trees during the Franklin Dam episode. Thanks to these early pioneers, activists are now from all public spheres, they are organised, passionate and make a difference. As an example, think of the WWF Australia's Great Barrier Reef Campaign, which has lead (forced) the government to consider re-zoning the reef finally. This would not have happened without WWF's public education and support rallying. Activism at its best.

A quote that sums up activism being crucial to force a government to act. This quote is from Lester Brown who founded the World Watch Institute which produces the State of the World Report. "Three decades ago, only environmental activists were speaking out on the need for change. Now the ranks of activists have broadened to include CEO's of major corporations, government ministers, prominent scientists and intelligence agencies..."

Activism or a conflict model society compels governments to act to protect the environment. If we were to rely on a structural/functional community model, governments would not act until the environment had broken down to a level in which it could not support our current luxurious standard of living.

We have acknowledged to some degree that we need both activists and government to achieve effective environmental sustainability, and/or at least until such time as our government is made up of a majority of conservationists. It will remain that one will not succeed without the other under present conditions.

Both Gregor Edeson and myself acknowledged earlier on in the conversation that it is the votes and drive for re-election that push government decisions, and that it is the pressure applied on them by activists and community that forces them. We are in a position where we are dependent on activists and community rallying enough support to force government to take notice – if they want those votes! How reliable is the government? - At least at this stage, it is the Activists we need and can rely on to instigate sustainable change in our society.

In Australia understandings about what should be done to the environment seems to have reached quite polarised views. By this I mean the general understanding of environmental issues by governments and environmentalists are at completely different ends of the spectrum. This is a very general observation because every single issue is different. Activist groups vary in their motivations, strategies and attempts. So do different government bodies. Effective integration is needed to address the reasons why people have to protest to communicate to the government. It may help open the issue up further. This is slowly happening in some places, for example committees that employ Environment Liaison Officers. Nevertheless successful social movements will often instigate policy anyway.

Why is there such surprise at governments providing such varied views to those of conservationist standing? The realisation of the matter entails far reaching circumstances where by conservationists activists) look out for only one certain idea and policy where as governments have to include the whole economy, environment and indeed social aspects of Australian life.

To undoubtedly justify the actions of activists is in my mind taking a very biased and unrepresented view of the bigger picture. An example of such a biased opinion is seen from the sea cages project (as stated in 'Environmental Activists - A Different Role') in Moreton Bay.

The 'activists' in this situation based their argument upon environmental degradation, in terms of water, fish stocks and the entire Bay as an ecosystem. The government on the other hand, realised what environmental impact the sea cages would have but they also have to way up the economic loss, unemployment, commercial and private fish industry, etc for not going ahead with the project, while still considering environmental degradation and the plans to better the situation.

Instead of protesting against the situation that will go ahead, regardless of activists, with further research, funding and commercial backing there should be a concerted effort to properly sustain such aquacultural practices. An activists that funds, researches and aids the government in environmentally sustainable fishing practices is a much more useful 'tool' than an resistant annoyance. To not work with is to turn against and to turn against the government means that your view and your actions become less and less impressionable upon the decision makers within the government.

Undoubtedly economic factors (profit, unemployment etc.) are the primary concern of government representatives involved in the project appraisal. The proposed solution to direct lobbyist involvement in the project toward assisting the government through funding, research and aid is highly unrealistic. Proposing against generally “unimpressionable” green group involvement that the government should fulfil a communistic like role in regard to environmental decision-making? It was my impression that the focus of this discussion was to determine whether activism or governmental regulation has been more effective in achieving environmental gains, it is highly unlikely that aggregating the two bodies in to a single decision-making body would be successful. By doing this you would effectively eliminate the concept of the two societal models the structural / functional model and the conflict model as well as any avenue for public based regulation of government action. Despite this activism often causes undue social disruption because of the emotional nature of those involved.

Activists play a fundamental role in the regulation of environmentally related government decision-making through active political pressure and representation of public opinion. Greenies may often be scientifically in reputable, but should not be considered a “resistant annoyance”, rather unprofessional stakeholders who require active consultation in decision-making.

The whole concept of 'not in my backyard' seems is reflective in most attitudes of Australians. But really is that a product of our way of thinking or, rather, a result of the 'education'/awareness of environmental issues highlighted by environmental activists?

From the various case studies out there in the literature, it came to my attention that the focus of environmental issues is generally narrow. By this I mean that the immediate affect or direct influence on individuals to the wider community, Australia as a nation, is often not developed or inferred in arguments of environmental activists. Hence the attitude of - 'if it doesn't really affect me, then it doesn't concern me'.

Ultimately is we are to become passive activists by relying on the more vocal activists and therefore relinquish the right to be individual and take the initiative, and then have the majority ultimately outspeak the minority, then a more comprehensive form of education is to be adopted in the messages of these activists. These activists are ironically like our politicians for environmental issues of state. By choosing to be passive we are therefore electing the more vocal (not necessarily more passionate) environmentalists, to represent us: a collective bunch of individuals with, as the conflict model acknowledges, a diversity of values, beliefs and opinions.

In this case, rather than relying on activists to generate some sort of awareness or education of issues, knowledge and understanding of these problems should be implemented by institutions of thought in the form of Ethology or Deep Ecology as Miriam Noon discussed. Activists highlight but don't always educate.

The government will not make a decision unless it will benefit them. A prime example is in Thornton National Park, west of Rockhampton. Even though the on ground government officers for a long period of time have tried to get a realistic and necessary solution happening (which is to start cell-grazing with a few cattle on the place) to save the nail tail wallabies, the upper level of government cannot let this happen because it is not popular from the broader public to put cattle in a National Park. Little do these policy makers know about the situation in this place. Even if the endangered species go extinct they would probably rather that happening than losing votes. This is where people need to be educated. And this is also where I cannot help but be critical to activists.

By learning about sustainability etc at a very early age I believe one can develop a healthy and more realistic attitude towards the environment we live in. By working on properties in far west QLD for some years I came to see a constant conflict between landholders and conservationists. It is important for them to strike a balance, however these activists should go out and live in these areas for a while to get a better understanding before they raise their voices.

Neither governments or activists alone can solve the problems we have regarding the environment. To achieve a more sustainable development education is the key. With more education, the attitude amongst the public may change to the better, hence better decisions will hopefully be made.

Rarely has there been a government in office that has acted in a way that they thought would decrease their chances at the next election- unless the situation has been forced on them of is likely to make them huge amounts of money.

On the other hand when it comes to the Greenies (for want of a better name) they are good at bringing an issue into the public spotlight but as with all good stories there are two sides to the argument and people of this type tend to only represent one very extreme version of the view which in my opinions is not the best of scenarios when you are tying to generate informed opinion forming in the public arena.

The greenies are one very good example of trying to use conflict to resolve a problem which in many cases is a good idea because at least it get people thinking outside their little square of the earth but is firmly opinion that we need some general level-headed and impartial decision making to go with the people who chain themselves to bulldozers and hijack whaling ships otherwise we simply move from conflict to conflict without making progress into the thinking of either side of the argument.

Green Governing Our Future?

02 February 2006

Throughout History, individuals have appeared who made environmental stewardship their life work. For example, overseas, treasures like Yosemite and the Grand Canyon became national parks because of activists. Here in Australia, the Tasmanian Dam Case disaster (for example) was averted due to the efforts of a handful of passionate conservationists.

It has been through the relentless efforts of devoted activists, conservationists and greater public awareness and concern for our environment that our Government has become more "green". Whether pressured for votes sake or otherwise, government has been forced to take notice. As a result we now have a variety of legislation and policies governing environmental management - for example: The "Environmental Protection Act 1994" and the "Nature Conservation Regulation 1994" indicating a general trend or change towards environmental sustainability and our government will gradually lean more and more towards "green legislation" as society becomes more concerned with environmental issues.

The bottom line is something like: It will be the environmentalists/activists who push community and pressure governmental change, but then it will be the governmental 'green' legislation (once accepted) that will ensure compliance and force sustainable change.

Edgar, Earle & Fopp (1993) contend that with the changing social context of Australian society, a number of environmental concerns have become major issues as social agitation has demanded changes through government action. In other words, government regulation for the environment has often been the culmination of intense protests by environmental activists. This is an interesting point, and is in line with Margaret Juke’s statement that while it will be the environmental activists that pressure government regulation, it will be the government legislation that will ensure citizen compliance and force sustainable change.

These statements suggest that neither government regulation nor environmental activism can work effectively as solitary agents of positive environmental change. Each has a role to play in achieving gains for the environment, as has been shown repeatedly throughout history, notably in the Tasmanian Dams saga of the 1980s. In this case, the passionate and emotive activism of green groups within the community elevated the proposed damming of the Franklin River to the status of a major political issue. While this devoted environmental activism brought the issue into the national political spotlight and provided the impetus for government action, it was government regulation which ultimately put a stop to the proposed hydroelectric development.

In summary, both environmental activism and government regulation have important roles to play in achieving environmental gains, as exemplified in the Tasmanian Dams case. However, the question remains – which is MORE effective in generating change? Is it environmental activism, which influences community beliefs and often prompts government action on environmental issues, or is it government regulation, which ultimately provides the enforceable mechanisms for achieving positive environmental outcomes?

“It will be the environmentalists/activists, who push community and pressure governmental change.” In today’s society, governments exist to represent ‘the people.’ It is these people and their voices that keep where they are today. But ‘these people,’ (the communities) also need the governments just as much, as these governments are the ones that can governing policy that ‘officially’ and ‘legally’ protect the environment.

A Dance Between Two Models

29 January 2006

The Functional Model is found in a harmonious and stable society in which each component of the society functions properly. Components of a society include government sector, commercial sector, etc. Each component is supposed to contribute to the stability of the societies social order in pursuing a common goal.

In a progress towards a sustainable environment, the Functional Model is applicable only when the society has the same common goal. Under this situation, consumers and suppliers will try to consume and produce in a sustainable way. In situations where market mechanism cannot address the problems of environmental externalities, government interventions like tax, subsidies, code of practice, etc. can help to rectify market failures as far as possible. However, when a society is in a lack of this common goal, the functional model would no longer help to pursue sustainable environment. Instead, a conflict model will be helpful.

The Conflict model is found when someone in a society suffers from the existing social structures and social processes. These sufferings result into conflicts in the society that push changes. Power, wealth and prestige, etc. in the society are emphasized in Conflict model. Thus, when a society is lacking a common goal to pursue a sustainable environment, people who are discontented with the existing situations will stand up and voice out. These people will eventually start a series of campaigns, lobbying the public and the government to focus the issue and rectify the situation.

Society adopts facets of both the foundational functional model and the more fluid conflict model. The functional model, while acknowledging its inadequacies provides stability, organization, common values and structures/institutions to maintain a stable and harmonious community - kind of like a necessary foundation. However, the conflict model delicately overlays the functional model in that 'conflict' leads to constructive change, progress and perhaps, eventually, greater equity, prosperity and sustainability for the better good of the community.

"The conflict model believes in confrontation by those who are disadvantaged or who lack political power to gain what they believe is right". These conflicts are often born through the principles and values of individuals or community groups such as social movements or activist groups. It is the efforts of these groups who inform and educate the general community about issues that we might otherwise be unbeknown to (for example whale killing or the like).

They represent the views of at least part of the community, and through their support, pressure government into shaping or reshaping environmental policies and decisions (and the government does want those votes!). The conflict model has been extremely important in allowing the concerns of activists to be voiced and in the development of sustainable development and environmental management and protection.

I hope the greenies keep on keeping the government on their toes and us informed! I am very sceptical of green groups “keeping us informed”. Green groups are based on emotionalism and I think this is very true in majority of cases. In many instances, green groups sensationalize issues in an effort to win our sympathy. But in many cases this may actually hinder environmental management or change. An example of this is the culling of elephants in Kruger National Park (South Africa). Due to international pressures from green groups it is not longer acceptable for Kruger National Park management to cull the elephant population. As a result, the elephants are doing more damage than good further damaging the environment.

Yes, there are other ways to deal with the elephant population such as contraception methods and translocation. The contraception method was tried but abandoned due to the amount of stress place on the animal. Translocation is a very costly operation and in many cases the elephants simply return to the point of origin. The elephant population could be effectively controlled through culling but international green groups will not allow this to occur. Now who is wrecking the environment?

Models are "a simplified description of a system etc. to assist calculations and predictions" (Concise Oxford dictionary) or "a representation of reality in which main features of some aspect of the real world are presented in simplified terms in order to make that aspect easier to comprehend and to facilitate making predictions" (Oxford Dictionary of Earth Science). So models simplify to facilitate understanding, calculation and prediction. They do not, of their nature, describe the whole, all that exists in reality. That's O.K. – they aren't meant to. Problems arise when the model is applied to the real world without respect to the inbuilt limitations. It can be argued interminably and pointlessly as to which is right; they probably all have their grain of truth - their particular focus, or 'aspect of the real world'. As I see it, this real world works on a fusion of the two (structural/functional and conflict) models. In any given situation, the current paradigm is followed until some form of conflict brings a different viewpoint to the public's attention. Whether this viewpoint is accepted or rejected, the existing paradigm responds by changing - either to suppress or incorporate (to some degree) the conflicting view. While the terminology here is general, I believe this applies to the situation under discussion.

Problems with Central Governance

25 January 2006

Centralised governance has seldom led to changes in the behaviour of individuals and communities toward more sustainable resource use and development. Problems have been identified by various writers in various literatures thus I found such are quite thorough. Problems identified are as follows:

Over-simplistic solutions and linear cause-and-effect assumptions that fail to deal with the uncertainty, complexity, and multi-dimensionality of the problems,
Fail to address the distribution of costs and benefits of policy impacts,
Frequent flawed policy responses that de-emphasise the consideration of affected interests in favour of “objective” analyses and suffer from a lack of popular acceptance,
An almost exclusive reliance on systematic observations and general theories that tends to ignore the local and anecdotal knowledge of the people most familiar with the problem and risk producing outcomes that are socially and economically unworkable
Uncoordinated, comparmentalised or sectorally-based implementation of policy, programs and planning initiatives
The lack of appropriate institutional arrangements to facilitate participation that is inclusive of all interests in the community
The weaknesses of the strategies adopted to resolve conflict; and
The failure to move beyond the development of management plans to on-ground implementation (extracts from Bellamy and Robinson 2000)

Above ideas further confirm my point of views towards the inadequacies of Functional Model in pushing better environmental agendas. Yet a functional model is necessary to maintain the stability and harmony of a society. Otherwise, if a society is full of social unrest, the future of environmental improvement is not optimistic either. Therefore, a complementary use of the Functional Model and the Conflict Model will be more ideal.

Gumbiment and Greenies

20 January 2006

Does government always make the best and most effective decisions for the environment? After all they have to please a cross section of world views.. and which view will keep them in power? Which position, and in whose opinion is the "right" one? On the other hand the environmental movement is often coloured with emotionalism. I am not willing to make a definitive decision on whether govt or environmentalists are doing the most/best for the environment just yet. I have to read a bit more and weigh it all up, rationally and objectively (attempting to put aside my 'gumbiment' biases!!). "Resisting the discourse: Rationality versus emotion..." by Welcomer et al 2000. They present an interesting case study.

The government provides a strong structured base that never lets its emotions get in the way of tough decisions. Hopefully, activists can take a leaf out of the ruling governments books and stand firm on a more argumentative base rather than playing on emotional upheaval, ethical value and environmental sovereignty.

The government as an institution has always, in my opinion functioned with some sort of structure. This structure however has been reinforced in more recent years with the recognition of a need for and implementation of environmental legislation and regulation in response to environmental issues raised by concerned environmental activists. This is an example of how once activism has occurred; the government has positively gained something for the environment. This is illustrated in the Functional Model.

However, I would suggest that in order for the government to be established in the Functional Model, some sort of conflict must have taken place between activists and regulators initially. Thus the Functional Model in relation to how government regulates environmental legislation is a progression from the Conflict Model.

Having said this, environmentalist should perhaps no longer maintain their defensive role in society against governmental actions or as some would argue lack thereof. Instead, as Healy for the Conservation Foundation suggests (1977) activists achieve their greatest environmental gains for the environment within the legislation, as opposed to contradicting its 'procedures'. Although they (activists) are still party to disagreement, any conflict would then eventually become productive in regard to producing gains for the environment.

Conflict or Compliance?

14 January 2006

It is extremely unlikely that awareness of environmental issues (and therefore pressure on the government to act) would have reached current levels without environmental activists. Governments, especially in plutoctratic capitalist societies such as our own, are traditionally unwilling to bring about change in areas that may limit/slow GDP growth and it is only through exercising our limited democratic rights that any change or progress has been achieved. Having said this, the government is in the best position to enforce policies once they are decided upon.

Throughout history innovation and progressive thought have not exactly been the mainstays of government, so change and 'progress' has had to be brought about by groups of people incensed or outraged enough to act. Governments, especially in apathetic 'democracies' such as our own, are trend followers rather than trend setters, run by politicians chasing votes, rather than following deeply held beliefs or innovative thought. This situation is unlikely to change when politicians are encouraged to pursue the interests of campaign contributors over the interests of their constituents.

Current Topic

Environmental Questions

Environmental Activism