Governments vs Activists
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.