Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Language as a tool for culture change in agriculture
Pennie Scott, CSIRO Sustainability Network newsletter #63
Elizabeth Heij writes:
The main feature in this Update introduces a new theme, linking language to mental paradigms in the agricultural sector. Language, which most of us take so much for granted, may be a vital tool for creating and instilling a new and different culture with a reverence for natural resources and the ecosystems on which we depend. While, at first glance, the theme may seem peripheral to other areas such as science, technology, economics and social systems, it would be a mistake to dismiss it as such. The language we use is fundamental to culture in these areas as well. If we are genuine about building a “more humane, sustainable society” this feature provides new clues for fresh, creative thinking, even as it highlights the magnitude of the challenge.
The language of words is the most commonly used tool in person to person communication and also profoundly reflects and creates an individual’s belief systems and behaviours. Although copious information flows out of organisations dedicated to researching and communicating new land-use methods for farmers to implement, uptake to date has been frustratingly low. Exploitive farming practices continue to be widely applied resulting in on-going degradation of Australia’s fragile landscapes. Is the language of current policies appropriate to shift the belief systems of decision makers in exploitative agriculture towards more sustainable and regenerative outcomes? Early-stage research to distinguish the ‘languages’ of Australian culture, especially ‘agri-culture’, reveals that the dominant language is economic rationalism (‘eco-rat’) arising from neo-liberal economic policies. ‘Eco-rat’ is characterised by ‘masculinity’ – competitiveness, control, reductionism, power and domination – and is counter-productive to sustainable production practices. Conversely, the language of sustainability and regeneration is ‘feminine’ – nurturing, holistic, supportive and nature-cyclical. In our research, we are exploring the concept that exploitive and regenerative farming are associated with different intrinsic belief systems that are, in turn, reflected in the language of their proponents, as in Wittgenstein’s notion that “the limits of my language are the limits of my mind’. If this is so, a successful widespread shift to regenerative farming will involve a subtle interplay between policy and information on the one hand and language, metaphor and belief systems on the other.
(18 Dec 2006)
Also in this newsletter: Biomimicry in design (p. 8); Australia’s water future (p. 9); The ‘green’ / ‘consumerist’ culture clash (p. 10); Backyard billabongs (p. 11); Debate over aviation impacts (p. 12); Population (p. 14); Wind power (p. 15); and A new ‘green’ revolution in Indian agriculture (p. 16).
[ Direct link to PDF (440kb) ]
Flannery: Make the polluter pay
Tim Flannery, The Age
Peter Coates, chief executive of Xstrata Coal, will play an important role in the Howard Government’s taskforce on carbon trading, so his views are worth listening to. Recently, he said that Australian industries would be at risk from introducing an emissions trading scheme unless it was part of “a level playing field on a worldwide basis”. I don’t think he’s arguing about impacts on the economy overall. After all, Nicholas Stern’s report, as well as Peter Cosier’s projections on the likely economic impact on Australia, make it clear that it’s highly cost-effective to tackle climate change now. And almost everyone agrees that carbon trading (or carbon taxes) is the best tool available to do that. Coates’ concern, it seems to me, is about coal.
Given the divisions between governments worldwide, achieving Coates’ goal of global unanimity on carbon trading in time to avert disastrous climate change is impossible. So in effect what he is saying is that the future of the Australian coal industry is more important than the fate of the planet. This philosophy of putting self-interest before overall human welfare reflects precisely the Howard Government’s philosophy in regard to climate change: the Prime Minister has said on several occasions that he will do nothing that might hurt Australia’s natural advantage in fossil fuels.
Were climate change a small and slow-moving threat, such a philosophy might be understandable, if not acceptable. But it’s been apparent for several years now that the threat of climate change is enormous, and moving exceedingly swiftly. The world’s foremost experts such as NASA’s James Hanson, argue that we have only a decade to avert disaster. And that was a year ago.
(18 Dec 2006)
10 days without fossil fuels
Norris Thomlinson, Farmer Scrub’s Blog
I’m fresh off my stint of experimental fossil-fuel-free living, and here’s a report-back on what it involved. I’m adding footnotes throughout for certain products or concepts with URLs for more info.
My basic premise was to eliminate active use of fossil fuels, meaning no electricity, petroleum, or natural gas use. As this was an excercise in preparation for rising energy costs and potential disruption of energy supplies, I did not attempt the impossible feat of living without using anything made of fossil fuels or manufactured & transported by fossil fuel energy.
(17 Aug 2005)
Despite the name, Farmer Scrub follows Norris’ “preparations for a more sustainable post-carbon life” on a suburban block, rather than a farm on the scale we’ve come to think of it.
-AF
Can Weird Al Yankovic Save The World?
Randy White, Lawns to Gardens
When it comes to trying to educate and prepare Americans for the imminent collapse of society as we know it, the task is certainly not going to be accomplished with a “Peak Oil” brochure.
Americans are exposed to over $75 Billion a year in advertising. We are pummeled with a daily barrage of messages promoting consumption through direct mail, E-mail messages, print advertisements, billboards, radio commercials, television commercials, telemarketing, banner ads, you name it. The list of advertising methods is nearing infinity.
But because our earth has set her limitations, we are pretty much the end of our ability to continue living in a fantasy world that runs on wishful thinking. The question now is, “how painful will our death of excess be”? And how can we make people pay attention to a message they don’t want to hear, believe, or act on?
It should be evident by now that the mainstream media are in no hurry to break the bad news to the masses. According to them, sports scores and celebrity outfit changes are much more important for Americans to know.
Which is why it is up to culture jammers like Weird Al to create entertainment that informs, convinces, and get’s people to act. Yep, you heard me right. Weird Al. I’m convinced he has deciphered the exact formula needed to succeed in communicating the dangers of Peak Oil.
(17 Dec 2006)
Randy wants a mere million dollars to finance the Weird Al wildcard for saving the human race. I’m yet to be convinced that Weird Al’s style has the kind of deep resonant power to catalyze a spiritual and cultural transformation, but surely, with so much at stake, some wealthy person thinks we should at least employ the precautionary principle and employ Weird Al just in case.
So go on… send him the money. Randy has another post The Role of Comedians On Communicating Energy Realities
-AF
