An address to the Victorian Farmers Federation 24th Annual Conference,
Melbourne, 22-23 July, 2003
History is replete with examples of societies allowing narrowly based interest groups to latch onto a valid issue, to present a distorted prognosis that eventually become mainstream, and in the process do great harm not only to society at large, but to the initial issue.
Society has allowed these groups to claim, and to be given the status of "representatives" of the environment on a false basis.
This process has unfolded in the Western world over the last thirty years with respect to the environment. Activists, often with a hatred of commerce and modernity, have captured the institutions, the prognosis and the communication of environmental issues.
Many of their initial campaigns were valid and have had significant and positive impacts, for example, the move to clean waterways through the treatment of effluent.
Conservation of the environment is a growing mainstream value. As people become wealthier and more easily satisfy the necessities of life, they naturally seek more aspirational values, such as preserving the environment.
Despite the validity of the earlier environmental actions, and the fact that environmentalism has become a mainstream value, far too few Green groups have changed. Instead, too many remain radical, seeking to exploit environmental concerns as a means of revolutionising society and controlling commerce. Too many have become watermelons.
Despite being fundamentally at odds with the broader interests of society, the deep Greens have gained significant influence and are doing great damage to the environment, to society and to civil society.
For evidence one need look no further than the three million hectares of forest burnt this last summer in Eastern Australia. There is no doubt that the accumulative influence of the Greens -- closing down state forests, stopping logging of native forests, creating additional national parks, reducing controlled burning, closing access roads -- contributed greatly to this disaster. They have now shifted their focus from forestry to farming, and are busily spinning their destructive web.
How did it get this way?
Well, society has failed to impose accepted standards of representativeness, and deep Greens have exploited our tolerance. Society has allowed these groups to claim, and to be given the status of "representatives" of the environment on a false basis.
Greenpeace regularly makes such claims, and it is given this status in the media, the bureaucracy, with advisory bodies and in the community. Yet Greenpeace Australia has a membership of just 51 people -- that is, only 51 people have a direct say in the policies of the organisation. While Greenpeace welcomes donations, the activists that "own" it keep tight control over its policies and values. WWF has a similar structure. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is a much more open and democratic organisation, due to its conservative roots. However, it has, over the years, become dominated by deep Green activists.
Green groups eschew institutional democracy, because democracy is slow and tedious in decision-making, forces compromise and trade-offs, and limits the power of extremists. The ability of Green groups to be undemocratic gives them a great advantage in their dealings with democratic organisations such as VFF and our political parties.
Our society gives standing to institutions and people because they bring specialised knowledge and skills to bear on an issue. Most Green groups have no such expertise other than political advocacy. Few undertake research and few have scientific expertise. For example, when Greenpeace recently employed three biotechnology campaigners -- the job description made no reference to knowledge of the science or technology, or even to the industries affected, but rather to experience in campaigning. WWF's lead campaigner to protect the Great Barrier Reef against sugarcane farmers has a degree in opera. The ACF's chief water campaigner has an arts degree. And we regular see Peter Garrett -- a rock singer with a law degree -- lecturing against biotechnology.
The Green groups' sole expertise lies with political action and communication -- they are, in effect, Saatchi and Saatchi with a cause.
Yet we have allowed the spin merchants to present themselves as experts, summarising the "received" research on biotechnology, diagnosing the state of the Murray River and lecturing farmers on improving farm management. We have allowed the spin to masquerade as science. As outlined in detail by Bjorn Lomborg in his book The Sceptical Environmentalist, this has not only led to a gross perversion of policy priorities, but it is starting to pollute the pursuit of science itself.
We can only preserve the environment, improve our farming sector and continue to make a living on the land with rigorous, robust science. For evidence, one need look no further than the latest big environmental campaign, the campaign to save the mighty Murray from you, the farmers.
Over the last four weeks there have been four TV "docu-dramas" about the Murray. All had the same message, the same sources and the same actors. My fellow panellist today, Tim Fisher of the ACF, was one of the main actors. The ACF claims that
The mighty Murray is in crisis, and this poses a real threat to water supplies, tourism, fishing industries, regional economies and plant and animal life.
One of the main indicators was the closing of the mighty Murray mouth. ACF states
The mouth of the Murray River closed recently for only the second time in the last 8000 years.
Well, CSIRO is on record as predicting that in a one-in-a-hundred-year drought, such we are now experiencing, the river would be dry at Albury.
But there is no need for projection. All one would need to do is talk to a few established families on the river, such as Doug McDonald of Murrabit, who can provide conclusive evidence that the river has not always flowed steadily to the sea.
The McDonald family crosses the mighty Murray, December 1914
Another alleged indicator of the River's decline is rising salinity.
Salinity is the new sign of Satan. While rising salinity is the chant heard from every urban barbecue in Kew, its existence in the Murray (up to the SA border) is based on spin rather than science.
Salinity Levels at Morgan
Salinity levels at Morgan in SA have not shown any upward trend since 1938 and if anything they have declined since 1982. Indeed the MDBC admitted to this in a recent interview reported in The Australian.
Turbidity Levels, 1978-2002
(Yearly averages based on available daily means)
Another ACF claim is that the river is becoming polluted with sediment and agricultural pollutants. Again, the evidence on suspended solids does not back up the claims.
What does the ACF recommend? Well at least the extraction of 1,500 gigalitres, or 20 per cent of irrigators' maximum water take. This, they say, will only deliver a "moderate" probability of restoring the river to health. This is code for the first tranche of extraction.
As with their diagnosis of the river's ailments, their diagnosis of its cure is not supported by the evidence. Two separate scientific panels have examined the issues on behalf of the MDBC and both concluded that "there is limited information upon which to make quantitative links between hydrology and the ecological health of the river and floodplain".
On its Website, the ACF expresses no concern or consideration for the impact its policies will have on communities and on the families of irrigators. While they proudly advocate a precautionary approach to the environment, they express no caution with respect to the economy and the community.
What is the basis for the ACF claims? Clearly, it is not the science, nor is it the interests of farmers. I suspect it is a belief in the inevitable destructiveness of commerce and modernity and that the ends justify their means.
One thing is clear: the farming community must confront the Green movement. The Greens are developing a "victim versus villain" scenario, where they play the role of saviour. In the latest version of this drama, farmers are the villains and the victim is Mother Nature. They, the Greens, are going to save the environment from you, the farmers. Already, according to the Ethical Investor magazine, farming is now our country's most environmentally destructive industry.
In short, the focus of the Green movement has shifted from forests and mining to agriculture. It is not just the Murray River, however. They have a comprehensive set of campaigns against the sector including,
- Biotechnology;
- Land management;
- Native vegetation;
- Biodiversity;
- Pesticides; and
- Salinity.
The Greens have convinced large sections of the public that you -- the farmers -- are the villains raping mother-earth.
They have direct links with the fast-growing, urban-based Green parties which offer the intoxicating option to voters of being radical, but without the responsibility. They have sway over the mainstream parties. Simon Crean, for example, recently committed to the ACF demand of removing 20 per cent of irrigators' water.
The Greens have become ensconced in positions of influence in the bureaucracy, research institutes, advisory bodies, and regulatory agencies, and are getting paid to do it.
These organisations have become wealthy, sometimes in the extreme. In Australia, Greenpeace, WWF and ACF alone have a combined annual revenue in excess of $30 million. On a global scale, the combined budgets of the Greenpeace and WWF networks exceeds $1 billion. An increasing proportion of their funding is coming from governments, corporations, international agencies and private foundations. This means that they are even more independent of the community.
Worse, they have seduced the media and our children into believing that they are the true spokesmen for the bush.
What to do?
Develop links with real environmental groups, preferably those made up of people who understand, and who come from, the land. Environmentalists and farmers are natural allies. Indeed, farmers are natural environmentalists. Many environmental groups seek to preserve the environment through modern agriculture. These groups are often small and under funded and in the business of doing practical things rather than politics. They get shouted out by the watermelons. They should be fostered and supported.
When a group comes foreword demanding to be "community stakeholders", make sure that they are. That is, require institutional democracy for the community. This is particularly important for the many advisory boards through which government polices now impact on the agricultural sector.
Demand transparency in their dealings with corporations, with governments and, most importantly, with political parties. Green NGOs increasingly offer political services of a non-kosher type to institutions in exchange for money and influence.
Much of their funding is coming from overseas. For example, the funding for WWF's anti-sugarcane campaign was funded fully by US sources, particularly the World Bank and large multinational corporations. These funders' interests lie not in saving the GBR but in securing friendly voices in the NGO movement.
If groups claim expertise, ensure they have it. Most importantly, when they lie or distort, treat them like pariahs. Enforce a "no lie" rule.
Be vigilant and counter them all. Support the VFF and other groups to respond to every lie, every distortion, every campaign, and every lobbying effort.
Defend your property rights and reclaim the science.
No comments:
Post a Comment