Rugby or the environment?

As you may or may not be aware, the National-led government's recent budget signalled yet another hit for the environment in this country - across-the-board funding cuts. All under the guise of 'tightening our economic belt' as a result of the recession, the following programmes have all been cut:
* Funding for the the Enviroschools Foundation national team who coordinate the Enviroschools programme in 670 schools throughout the country;

* Education for Sustainability Advisory Services (EfS Advisors who provide curriculum support for teachers wanting to integrate EfS into their classes);

* Matauranga Taiao (EfS support for Kura Kaupapa Maori);

* The Environmental Education Guidelines Review Project (technical Environmental Education/EfS support for teachers in schools);

* Adult Community Education (provision of community-based life-long learning classes - ie "night schools" - which fund sustainable living skills courses);

* Householder Sustainability Programme "What's your next step?" (coordinated by the Ministry for the Environment);

* Public Place Recycling Programme (funded by the Ministry for the Environment);

* Govt3 Programme (coordinated by the Ministry for the Environment to deliver leadership in sustainability practices by government agencies);

* The Sustainable Business Network (part-funded by the Ministry for the Environment).

While I am unsure of the economic 'savings' made by such cuts, it is worth remembering that just last week (15 June) John Key made an executive decision to contribute $20 million towards buying two warehouses at the Auckland port to be renovated to house and entertain rich, drunken rugby supporters in the 2011 world cup. While funding of the abolished programmes surely amounts to much more than the $20 million being spent on Auckland's waterfront, my question is what the long term cost will be for our environment, economy, culture and society in losing such progressive and future thinking projects as those Mr Key and his mates have slashed?

Environmental ethics - has secularism gone too far?

I have always been sceptical about the link that environmentalism seems to have with a form of spitirtuality that manifests itself in worship of "Earth mother". I have always thought that this connection has done more damage than good to the environmental movement. My line has been that environmentalism needs to be taken seriously, and that for this to happen, we need a movement based on a rationality that has no place for anthropomorphism.

However, after reading and listening to the late Australian environmental philosopher Val Plumwood, I have to admit that I am increasingly sympathetic to a (note the singular - I remain hesitant!) spiritual aspect of the movement.

While I cannot do justice to Plumwood's argument - indeed I would recommend that you listen
to one of her lectures yourself - I will briefly try to relay her point.

In line with the theory of deep ecology Plumwood argues that we have allowed what she terms a 'hyper-separation' of humanity from nature. This is not only anthropocentric, but potentially catastrophic. The problem is that environmental 'management' has been captured by a scientific ethos that champions quantitative ways of 'knowing' and 'managing' the environment. This elevation of science, both a cause and consequence of the formation of the secular state, have not only made religion or spiritualism in the Western world unnecessary, but laughable.

Plumwood's point is that despite our ever-increasing understanding and knowledge of Earth's awe-inspiring ecosystems (much of which has come through science), we continue to exploit and degrade nature at more and more alarming rates (indeed at rates that ignore the science).

Plumwood's suggestion therefore, is a return to animist forms of belief. She proposes that through giving the environment 'human-like' qualities, we may take more care of it. This argument is certainly not new. Proponents of the Fourth World movement and indigenous rights activists have long argued that this form of belief system is inherent to their environmental management/guardianship. There are, of course, endless references to this school of thought.

What is new for me at least, is the persuasiveness of this argument. Perhaps it is due to the National-led government's systematic trashing, repealing and cutting of any and all budget or project that has even a suggestion of environmentalism that has led to my increased sympathy for the spiritual path? I must admit that I am at a point of despair.

However, on a less melodramatic note, I would argue that there is room for a way of thinking that engenders more care for the environment while not necessarily undermining the progress we have made in deconstructing the power and control of religion. I am all for secularism, but I am also all for the environment. In saying this I do not mean to imply that secularism (and therefore science) equates to environmental destruction. Of course science has done a lot for the environment and it will play an increasingly important role in how we negotiate our way through the future environmental problems that we face.

My suggestion, therefore, is that perhaps secularism has gone too far. Perhaps the crusade against any and all religious belief has resulted in a worldview that baulks at the idea of myths and stories - both of which are important tools for learning about protection of- and respect for- the environment.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I think its time we re-enchanted our idea of nature. While I am wary that this may sound like yet another form of anthropocentrism - we control nature and create stories about nature - I would stress, like Plumwood, that it is about intention. If our intention is to live in partnership with nature, then our stories will be doting, not domineering.

So go on, make your own myth about your local park or take some time to learn the indigenous peoples' story of your neighbourhood and its natural resources. Its time we fully accepted the magnitude of these issues and that we do all that we can to put us back on the right track. And if that means swallowing your secularist pride, then I say do it!

Freezing for action on climate change

Last Friday, 5 June was World Environment Day. The theme for this year was "Your planet needs you - UNite to combat climate change".

A public freeze was held simultaneously throughout New Zealand in Wellington, Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin and Nelson. The event was organised by Mr Freeze, who put the idea behind the event eloquently:

"It takes courage to freeze in a public place. Freezing on your own is freaky. Freezing with five people is sneaky. Freezing with lots of people is easy. It’s the same with action on climate change. Nobody wants to make the first move, but when we play our parts together, the solutions suddenly become breezy."

You can check out a short video of the freeze here

If we are to fully engage with all sectors of society then I think it is vital that we do more actions like the freeze held on World Environment Day. Its message was clear: that together we can do this. It did not point the finger or lay any blame. It illustrated that the onus is on all of us and that there is a growing number of people wanting collective, collaborative action.

There is power in the people.

Questions of a movement

I am getting the feeling that there is a tendency within the environmental movement to equate 'visibility' with 'efficacy'. What I mean by this is that there seems to be a belief that the more people that know about campaign X or movement Y, the more change said campaign/movement will bring.

I do not believe that this is not necessarily true.

The problem with this attitude is that a lot of time and effort, money and resources are invested into getting 'in the public eye'. But for what true gain? What does high visibility actually do for the environmental problems that we face?

My point is that there are already a lot of groups that have, in the public's eye, the status of 'protecting the environment'. Is the mere existence of such groups - and the increase in their number - giving the rest of society a false sense of security about our environmental predicament?

Does the sheer number of groups purporting to 'protect the environment' lead to increased apathy amongst the wider population? Does it make people think, "I need not change what I am doing because Greenpeace, WWF, 350.org etc. etc are working on it"?

Perhaps the invisible, lo-fi actions are in fact the best. Perhaps it is best that the public do not think and feel that there are a lot of people acting on these critical issues because it may encourage them, as individuals to act. Perhaps the multitude of green groups in fact de-motivates the average person on the street.

The question that I ask, therefore, is whether increased public visibility of 'green-groups' leads to increased public apathy?

While I don't know the answers to these qustions, I think it is vital that the environmental movement ask them of itself. It is essential, that as individuals and as collectives, we ask the hard questions of ourselves and the work that we do. Surely the best campaign / movement is that which is self aware and self-critical. As such, it is imperative that we are aware of the potentially unintended consequences of our action.

WRITING LOUDLY - is your caps lock on?

I have recently been drawn into an email conversation with a person that seems to be intent on writing in capitals, bold and underlined so that they can make their voice heard REALLY LOUDLY. While I have been known to, at times, have a voice like a fog horn - when I was younger my mother used to twist my ear in the hope that it was a volume dial! - I find the use of such techniques in email rather grating.

Yes, I am guilty as well. I confess to using capitals on occassion, but it is almost always to express extreme excitement. What makes my correspondent's use of the technique a little trying is that it was to tell me, and other members of an environmental group with which I am involved, that what we are doing IS NOT ENOUGH.

I find it intriguing that the moment you set yourself up to be working on environmental issues in the public eye there are almost immediately people who feel they can tell you that what you're doing is not enough, not right, or else simply ineffectual.

Of course, it is vital that everyone has their own idea on how to run a campaign or how to bring about the change we need. It is important to voice one's opinion and challenge the way that people work. But, in my view, should you push so hard to get your voice heard, you must be willing to follow through on what it is that you are advocating.

And this is where the use of capitals, bold and underlined becomes a little ridiculous.

I offered this email buddy of mine the opportunity to take the lead on the issue that they were advocating. Funnily enough, this offer was met not with gratitude, but, rather, more bold, capitals and underlined text saying that what we're doing is all wrong. If only this person could realise that their bold, underlined and capitalised text is really mis-directed. They obviously have a lot to say and very loudly. It seems to be wasted effort to be turning in on a movement that they seem to care quite deeply about. Surely this energy would be best directed at the people causing the problem, rather than the ones trying to fix it?

It seems that there are some people who feel that their 'environmentalism' goes as far as telling people what they should be doing rather than doing it themselves.

The sad thing about email is that you can't reach for the writer's volume dial and give it a good twist!