A Sustainable Future for the Tweed - Professor lan Lowe

The evidence is clear. It will be very difficult to sustain the way we are currently living, and the sort
of growth promoted by some is certainly not sustainable.

To be sustainable, our way of life should not be eroding our resource base, should not be causing serious
environmental damage, and should not be producing unacceptable social problems. I believe our present
lifestyle does not satisfy any of those main criteria.

We are using resources future generations will need, damaging environmental systems, and reducing social
stability by widening the gap between rich and poor. It is just irresponsible to claim that we can
continue to increase resource use, accelerate the scale of environmental damage and keep widening the
divisions in today's world.

If civilisation is to survive, the next century will have to be a time of transformation, not just in
technological capacity but also in our approach to the natural world and to each other. I believe we can
achieve a transition to a sustainable future, but it will require fundamental changes to values and social
institutions.

Hope springs from the fact that human systems can change radically very quickly, almost overnight.

There is growing global recognition of the need for change. The serious obstacle is the dominant
mind-set of decisionmakers who don't recognise the problem, or see the possible solutions as
threatening their short-term interests.

Resources

A sustainable society will not be eroding its resource base. Our most serious medium term resource
problem is oil. Our entire transport system is based around petroleum fuels which are cheaper than
any other liquid except tap water.

We pay more per litre for beer, cask wine, milk, orange juice and even bottled water than we do for
petrol.

Optimists think the peak of world oil production may be fifteen years away, while the pessimists
now think it was in the year 2000.

Whether it was a few years ago or is still a few years in front of us, there is no denying the fact tha
 we are nearing the end of the age of plentiful cheap petroleum fuels. There are technical alternatives,
 most obviously fuel cells using hydrogen produced by splitting water with solar electricity, but they
 are sure to be much more expensive. We should be planning now for the post-petroleum age - as the
 forward-looking oil companies like BP are.

There are other resource issues. About half of all the world's available fresh water is now used
directly or indirectly by humans, but 1.2 billion people do not have clean drinking water and about
twice that number don't have sanitation.

Our forests, our fisheries, our agricultural soils and our grazing lands have not been used sustainably.

Taking sustainability seriously means we have to reduce resource use to live off the income of natural
systems, rather than running down the capital. In some cases, that means we need to improve our
scientific knowledge so we know what would be a sustainable rate of use.

Economic issues

Two hundred years ago, the economic fad was global empires for obtaining cheap resources and opening up
markets. A hundred years ago, the fad was protection within each nation. Fifty years ago, it was public
funding of infrastructure projects by government. Today's fad is a return to eighteenth century economic
empires and allowing free rein to global movement of capital.

In local terms, Australia is already what Barry Jones called a post-industrial economy. The traditional
sectors of agriculture, mining and manufacturing now account for less than a quarter of the economy and
fewer than 20 per cent of jobs. Most of us now work in the "services" sector. It is increasingly hard
for Australia to compete in global markets as gullible politicians reduce protection for local produce.

Our relatively high wages and salaries make our production costs high in labour-intensive fields like
textiles, clothing and footwear. Our low level of investment in research and innovation makes us
uncompetitive in value-added manufactures. With few import restrictions, we consume overseas-produced
goods at an everincreasing rate, so we have to keep expanding the production of low-value commodities
from our rural land. The only economic bright spots are our attractiveness as a tourist destination and
the demand for coastal housing, driven by an increasing population, an ageing society and an increasing
leisure preference.

A regional area like the Tweed should be thinking about its economic future. If the economic asset you
will be relying on is the quality of life produced by your natural environment, you should be considering
how that economic asset can be maintained. Southern California is an object lesson.

Thirty years ago, it was attracting people from all other States at such a rate that it was projected the
entire US population would live there by now! The climate and natural environment were causing internal
migration which produced its own economic dynamic. Today, the Los Angeles area is losing population;
socially and environmentally, it is no longer a desirable place to live.

Those whose skills are in demand are moving out, leaving behind an area of increasing social and economic
disadvantage. Land speculation can drive a short-lived boom, but responsible people should be thinking
about the long term economic issues.

Social cohesion

Fifty years ago, Australia was one of the most equal societies in the world.

The legal framework of the basic wage set a minimum standard, while the highest salaries were only
five to ten times that minimum. A strong commitment to public education gave opportunities to bright
children from a range of disadvantaged backgrounds.

Most people used public transport to get around, while the health system made provision on the basis of
need. Today, we are one of the most unequal of all the industrialised nations.

Executives are given salary packages hundreds of times the average household income, often with
arrangements for tax avoidance built in. Public health care and education have been steadily run down,
and Commonwealth ministers now openly tell those who are miss out on hospital beds or university places
that they should be paying for private options. This is a particularly bitter pill for the increasing
fraction of the adult workforce that is unemployed, under-employed or doing poorly paid casual work.

While the links are not simple, it is logical to expect that widening divisions between rich and poor
cause increasing resentment and growing social tensions.

While regions can do little about national policies that might have been designed to produce an unequal
society, local communities can take actions to improve public transport, public education and community
services.

This is a wise investment in the social cohesion of the future. Everyone should be a winner in the human
race. It should be our goal to ensure that every child growing up in the region has the opportunity to
realise their potential in all ways - physically, intellectually and emotionally.

Environmental issues

A series of publications have documented the scale and seriousness of environmental problems.

At the national level, two State of the Environment reports have now been published. The 1996 report
showed that we have a beautiful and unique environment, with many aspects in good condition by
international standards, but we have very serious problems, most obviously loss of biological diversity,
degradation of inland waterways and destruction of the productive capacity of rural land.

Its final section linked the environmental problems to lifestyle choices, showing that a sustainable
future will require integrating environmental awareness into all social and economic decisions.

The second report, released in 2002, noted an improvement in urban air quality but found that all the
other critical environmental problems are getting worse, because the pressures on natural systems are
still increasing.

Each year the Australian population grows by about 200 000, as the excess of births over deaths
[about 120 0001 is augmented by net inwards migration. The material expectations of people also
increase each year; we use more energy, travel further in larger and less efficient cars, live in
larger houses, consume more resources and produce more waste. The compounding effect of more people,
each on average demanding more, is putting greater and greater pressure on our natural systems.

The decline was confirmed from an unlikely source in 2002 when the Australian Bureau of Statistics
released its report Measuring Australia's Progress. It supplemented the standard economic data
collected by the bureau with indicators of social and environmental conditions for the decade 1990-2000.

During that period all of the usual economic indicators showed positive trends.

The social indicators were mixed, with some serious negative trends. Of the environmental indicators
chosen, only urban air quality improved.

The report showed more land being cleared, more species threatened, declining river health, more degraded
land and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The obvious conclusion is that the increasing economic
production from the natural systems of Australia is coming at an environmental cost.

Tim Flannery made this point about the unsustainable use being made of Australia's natural resources
in The Future Eaters, arguing that we are consuming the opportunities of future generations by our
lifestyle choices.

Global studies draw the same conclusion. UNEP has now produced three reports in its Global Environmental
Outlook series.

They show some successes, such as the concerted international effort to stop releasing the chemicals
that deplete the ozone layer and "encouraging reductions in many countries" of urban air pollution.

They also document what the third report called "environmental challenges" - increasing emissions of
greenhouse gases, over-exploitation of water, 1200 million people without clean drinking water and
twice that number without sanitation, species being lost at an increasing rate, fisheries in decline,
land degradation, and problems caused by increasing release of nitrogen into natural systems.

A new report by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Global Change and the Earth System:  A
Planet Under Pressure, paints a disturbing picture.

It says human activities are affecting global systems "in complex, interactive and apparently
accelerating ways", so that we now have the capacity to alter those natural systems in ways "that
threaten the very processes and components ... on which the human species depends".

Only one recent book has tried to portray a different picture, and its simple message was seized
gleefully by economists and conservative commentators.

Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist claimed that rapid economic growth would solve the world's
environmental problems. The book is so seriously flawed that 1 say Lomborg is neither sceptical nor
an environmentalist.

He correctly points out that some activists exaggerate environmental problems. This is true, but no
more surprising than the observation that John Howard misleads the public. Those involved in political
debates try to win their arguments, sometimes by actually lying, but more often by making statements
that are true but deliberately misleading.

Lomborg lists the most serious environmental problems, shows that some of the comments made about some
of them are not supported by evidence, and then concludes that the problems are not serious.

For example, he shows that some of the claimed rates of species loss are much higher than others and
that there is no hard evidence for these higher estimates. This leaves the comforting impression that loss of biodiversity is not a serious problem.

In fact, the lower estimates accepted by Lomborg are comparable with those during the five major extinction
events in the Earth's history. Similarly, after making the undeniable point that poverty is a serious
pressure on the environment in poor countries, he goes on to assert that economic growth will solve
environmental problems generally.

The Brundtland report Our Common Future showed that the main causes of environmental degradation are
extreme poverty in poor countries and unsustainable consumption in wealthier countries.

The first of these problems might be reduced by economic growth in those countries, but the second is
being made worse by growth.

Lomborg and his followers claim that global climate change is not a serious problem, while the world's
scientists warn that it is probably the most serious problem facing us.

The politicians of the developed world accepted the scientific arguments when they negotiated the
Kyoto agreement to slow down release of greenhouse gases. Only the Bush regime in Washington and
the Howard government in Canberra have refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement.

The followers of Lomborg base their arguments on half-truths and claims that are just wrong.

For example, "the Environmental Optimist" claimed recently that the "global warming scare" has been
exposed, just like "other environmental scares such as acid rain, de-forestation, resource depletion,
the hole in the ozone layer...".

While resource depletion is not an environmental issue but a resource question, it is silly to say that
it is not a serious issue when the peak of world oil production is upon us and when billions do not have
clean drinking water.

Acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer were not exposed as groundless scares, they were attacked by
policy changes to slow down the release of sulphur dioxide, in the case of acid rain, and CFCs in the
case of the ozone layer.

These examples show that science has warned us about serious problems and provided the tools to tackle them. The same applies to climate change.

The Earth as a whole has warmed about 0.6 degrees in the last hundred years, with Australia warming
about 0. 1 more than the global average.

That is one of the few facts that the "environmental optimist" got right in his recent column.

Most of the warming has happened in the last twenty years, as predicted by the science.

The Earth is now warmer than at any time since credible records began.

As predicted by climate scientists, there have been other changes associated with the warming: shrinking
of glaciers, thinning of polar ice, rising sea levels, changing rainfall patterns and more frequent
extreme events like droughts and severe storms.

While we only have solid information about the southern hemisphere for the last 200 years, the record for
the northern hemisphere suggests it is now warmer than at any time in the last 2000 years.

Analysis of ice cores shows the present rate of increase is probably greater than at any time in the
last quarter of a million years.

The world body of scientific expertise, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change [1PCC], has not
revised its estimates of likely temperature increase downward.

It estimated in 1990 that the average increase in the next 100 years might be 3.2 degrees.

The mathematical models of climate have been continually refined since and constantly compared with the
actual records. They now take into account the different possible future patterns of fuel use as well as the uncertainties in the science.

At one extreme, the most optimistic estimate assumes that we take climate change seriously and rapidly
phase out fossil fuels, as well as taking the most cheerful view of the uncertainties in the science,
to give a lowest possible increase of about 1.4 degrees [on top of the increase we have already seen].

The pessimistic view of the science gives an increase of about 2.4 degrees, even with a concerted global
campaign to reduce fuel use.

More realistic assumptions about fuel use lead to estimated temperature increases between 2 degrees and
about 4.5, while the extreme inaction advocated by "the environmental optimist" could cause increases as
high as about 6 degrees.

Climate change is having many effects, not all of them negative.  For example, some types of plants are
growing better because of the combined impact of more carbon dioxide, higher temperatures and changing
rainfall patterns.

But the changes are having a wide range of effects on crops and on natural systems.

It is not sensible to ignore the problem and hope it will go away. Just as other serious environmental
problems have been tackled at the international level, we need a concerted global response to climate
change, not a "head in the sand" approach of denial.

A sustainable future?

So how can we achieve a sustainable future?

We certainly need to move beyond the simplistic view that economic growth will solve our problems.

As Clive Hamilton showed in his recent book The Growth Fetish, the ABS indicators were no surprise.

In societies like ours where most people have all the essentials of a decent life and more, economic
growth does not make people happier or more fulfilled, but comes at social and environmental costs.

The 1996 State of the Environment report said that successful remedies for environmental problems took
a comprehensive and systematic approach, whereas failures were usually piecemeal efforts that attacked
symptoms rather than underlying causes. Since some of the underlying causes are related to lifestyle
choices, the systematic approach must include those aspects of lifestyle.

In Resetting the Compass, Yencken and Wilkinson suggest a guide for "Australia's Journey Towards
Sustainability".

After summarising the environmental problems we face, they argue that existing policies will not achieve
a transition to sustainability because they do not address the growing pressures of increasing population
and rising material demands per person.

So, they conclude, we need to aim to stabilise the population as well as being committed to "dematerialisation"; a German study argued that Europe needs to reduce energy use by a factor of
four and materials use by a factor of ten - since when several European nations have adopted those
targets!

They call for a Real Progress Indicator, rather than the delusion that the Gross Domestic Product measures well-being.

More generally, Yencken and Wilkinson argue that sustainability has four dimensions - economic, social,
cultural and ecological - which deserve equal attention. Along similar lines to Clive Hamilton's recent
book, they note that growth has costs as well as benefits, and argue that we should be more concerned
about the quality of growth than the rate. 1 agree with those views, but 1 add a fifth dimension:
resources. In the medium term, access to petroleum may be a crucial barrier to sustainability.

So thinking about a sustainable future for the Tweed involves moving to sustainable resource use,
maintaining the ecological values of natural systems, developing social cohesion, nurturing your
cultural traditions and finding durable economic activities.

Balancing those dimensions is a complex task that defies simple approaches, like trusting the market or
trying to keep everything the way it is today. Difficult decisions have to be taken, about which things have to change and which should be preserved.

Such difficult decisions can only be taken and implemented if there is an open and transparent process
which involves the entire community and allows time to work through the costs and benefits of alternatives.

Changing one thing in a complex system always produces other changes, so no change is ever universally
beneficial; there are always losers as well as winners. In a fair world, those who lose out from a change
which benefits the community as a whole should be compensated by the rest of the community.

We accepted that principle when we decided that those using Sydney airport should pay a noise levy to
compensate those under the flight path. It is a good general principle.

Broader issues

At the international level, there has been a growing awareness that a sustainable future will involve
significant change. Our Common Future said that the world's economic and environmental futures are intertwined and should be seen as complementary, rather than in competition.

The UNEP report GE02000 said that the present course is unsustainable, so doing nothing is no longer
an option. GE03 then set out some of the principles for change by exploring four possible scenarios.

In Markets First, globalisation and a liberal trade agenda promote rapid economic growth, but the cost
is increasing environmental damage. In Security First, the wealthy use force to suppress growing protest
against ecological problems and a widening gap between rich and poor, creating a divided and violent world.

In Policy First, governments take decisive action to curb environmental excesses, but it proves difficult
to bring the material living standards of the poorer countries up to an acceptable level.

The most hopeful scenario, Sustainability First, is based on a shift in values, allowing us to reach a
global consensus on satisfaction of basic needs for all within the limits of natural systems.

Couching the problem in those terms makes clear that the present world is a long way from having the
values needed for the transition to sustainability.

We also lack the knowledge base needed to be confident that we are interacting sustainably with natural systems. Great changes can be made, at least in principle, by policy reform to reduce the resource demands
and environmental consequences of our lifestyle.

The problem is that the political will to implement such a strategy is nowhere in sight.  The Hawke
government sponsored an Ecologically Sustainable Development process. Nine working groups developed
approaches which would bring both economic and environmental benefits in the major sectors of the
Australian economy.

Twelve years later, the consensus recommendations in the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable
Development still gather dust.

As Great Transition says, policy reform has to overcome "the resistance of special interests, the
myopia of narrow outlooks and the inertia of complacency". As long as politicians are more concerned
about the next election than the next generation, the necessary reforms probably won't happen.

The Great Transition argues that market-led wealth generation and government-led technological change
need to be supplemented and guided by a values-led move to an alternative global vision, based around
such principles as equity. We can't be secure or comfortable doing property deals from our cars on mobile
phones in a world where the majority of people have never made a telephone call, ridden in a car or owned
any property.

We should see the economy as a means of serving our needs within the limits of natural systems, rather
than an end in itself. We need new technologies based on renewable resources, efficient use and
"industrial ecology" - seeing the waste of one industrial process as the feedstock of another.

Hunger can be eliminated by population stability and improved distribution systems to reduce waste.

Above all, we should aspire to a future of genuine globalisation, rather than the present fad of reducing
the restraints national governments can place on irresponsible corporations.

There is a sense in which the Great Transition is utopian, but that has been said at the time of all the
important reform movements.

Those who opposed slavery two hundred years ago were told that no economy could function without slave
labour, while the suffragettes were persecuted when they demanded the vote for women a hundred years ago.

Closer to our time, twenty years ago it was still utopian to be dreaming of Berlin without the Wall, or
South Africa without apartheid - or good coffee and civilised licensing laws in Queensland!

Most of the social reforms we now take for granted were initially denounced as utopian.

They happened because determined people worked for a better world. All around the globe, individuals and
groups are striving to develop the social and institutional responses that will bring about the transition
to a sustainable future.

There is no hope of it being produced by a naive faith in markets that are anything but free.

We have to change our values in fundamental ways, recognising that we share the Earth with all other
species and hold it in trust for all future generations. That is simply our moral duty to those future
generations, who are our own descendants.

Bibliography

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002, Measuring Australia's Progress, ABS Cat. No. 1370.0,
Commonwealth of Australia Canberra

Council of Australian Governments 1992, National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development,
Commonwealth of Australia Canberra

T. Flannery 1994, The Future Eaters, Reed Books Chatswood

Global Scenarios Group 2002, Great Transition, Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston

C. Hamilton 2003, The Growth Fetish, Allen and Unwin Sydney

B. Lomborg 2001, The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

State of the Environment Advisory Council 1996, State of the Environment Australia 1996,
CSIRO Publishing Collingwood

State of the Environment Advisory Council 2001, Australia State of the Environment 2001,
CSIRO Publishing Collingwood

W. Steffen, J. Jager, P. Matson, B. Moore, F. Oldfield, K. Richardson, A. Sanderson,
J. Schnellnhuber, B.L. Turner, P. Tyson & R. Wasson 2003,
Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure, Springer-Verlag Berlin

United Nations Environment Program 1999, Global Environmental Outlook 2000, Earthscan London

United Nations Environment Program 2002, Global Environmental Outlook 3, Earthscan London

World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our Common Future,
Oxford University Press Oxford

D. Yencken and D. Wilkinson 2000, Resetting the Compass, CSIRO Publishing Collingwood