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