American Dream; Global Nightmare

On July 4^th, 1776, the thirteen original American States declared independence from Great Britain, famously expounding the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”.

The document, which became known as the Declaration of Independence, set out grievances against King George III, who had ignored his Prime Minister’s advice and brought in harsh new taxes for the American Colonies and impeded autonomy.

It was written with noble intentions (the original draft even determining to abolish slavery), and ended with these words:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

So the original vision of ‘Happiness’ was a communal one — “All men are created equal” and the wealth of individuals can be pooled to help the whole community. It was the socialist ideal. Within that context, and that of acting honourably, self-determination was paramount, and the limitation of government powers was set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This was an effective formula for happiness. We are happy when we have individual freedom and know we are doing good for the community. We are free to put in the effort to improve our lot, but need never deal with the guilt of abandoning others in need.

1776 also saw the publication of The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, the book that ushered in the age of capitalism. He theorised that private competition free from regulation generated wealth more efficiently than a government-regulated economy, and that self-interest would naturally lead to the best outcome for society, as if by an “invisible hand”; there would be a steady increase in the standard of living.

Capitalism seemed to fit in with the philosophy of the newly formed United States — freedom from State interference; improving your lot; serving the interests of society. It became integrated into the emerging society, replacing the initial socialist model.

But capitalism exists through inequality — for one person to get richer another must become poorer. The richer person also acquires power. Big business wins out over small, driving it bust or taking it over. The masses end up working for big business. They have the vote, but government aims to leave the economy alone, under the principals set out in The Wealth of Nations. Within the corporations, only the shareholders get a vote, and they vote for higher returns. To achieve ever-increasing profit, the corporations pay small wages, require long working hours and lay staff off whenever they can. ‘Homeowners’ quickly discover that it’s actually the bank that owns their home when they fail to keep up the mortgage repayments.

Today, most of the most powerful people in the world run corporations or hold huge share portfolios. George W. Bush is powerful, but his agenda is to push capitalism and Christian values onto the rest of the world.

Capitalism is not sustainable. Firstly, if the biggest businesses continue buying out smaller ones you eventually end up without competition; there are only a small number of huge multinationals and they’re all in cahoots. Secondly, the natural resources of the Earth are finite — you cannot continue manufacturing goods to meet a demand you have carefully created because the materials will run out. And you cannot rely on an ever-increasing world population because the food to feed it will similarly run out.

In Global Warming Q&A we looked at the geophysical reasons for climate change. But it’s a world economy based on an American model of resource-intensive capitalism that is the root cause.

It’s time to start living within our means.

Global Warming Q&A

“Is global warming a storm in a teacup? Isn’t it just part of a cycle of natural variation that’s been going on for hundreds of millions of years? Isn’t the scientific community divided on the causes and what the effects will be? Even if it is manmade, what’s the point of action when India and China are industrialising so fast?”

As ever, The Guru has the answers you seek, so sit back and prepare to be enlightened...


What is global warming?

Global Warming (renamed by the Bush Administration’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ to Climate Change) is the increase in Earth’s average temperature coinciding with the industrial age.


What’s causing it?

The rapid release of huge volumes of greenhouse gases, mainly CO₂, into a finely balanced ecosystem. (The average Australian household produces 14 tonnes of CO₂ per year^[1].)

The greenhouse gases act like the glass of a greenhouse to trap more of the Sun’s heat than normal.


Where does the excess CO₂ come from?

Fossil fuels. The process of photosynthesis trapped CO₂ within the cells of plankton (oil and natural gas) and vegetation (coal) over a long period of time from the Carboniferous (362 million years ago) to late Cretaceous (65 million years ago). (The high plankton levels were towards the end of this period, beginning around 160 million years ago.)


What was the effect of all that CO₂ being removed from the atmosphere?

The CO₂ had been spewing from active volcanoes around the world, producing first a greenhouse effect and then a ‘super greenhouse’ — a period when all the Earth’s oceans were stagnant and oxygen-deprived, there was no permanent ice at the poles and there were deluges of acid rain. The natural sequestration of the CO₂ underground and on the seabed ended this greenhouse effect.


What are the effects of global warming?

Melting of the polar icecaps, rising sea levels, changes in oceanic currents, destabilisation of weather patterns and mass extinction.


Mass ext-what?

Mass extinction. 50 years ago a species was becoming extinct approximately every week. Today, 50 species become extinct every day^[2].

As nutrient-rich ocean currents fail and more of the land turns to desert — the amount of the planet in drought has more than doubled in the last 30 years^[3] — this extinction rate will increase further as many species fail to adapt to the rapid environmental changes.


And what about us?

Our current population of around 6.5 billion is made possible by the large-scale farming of reliable crops. They form the basis of our diet, and animals that supply our meat also graze on them. We supplement our diets with fish.

Large-scale farming sufficient to feed the current population will no longer be possible if weather patterns continue to deteriorate. Fish stocks, already low, will fall away if ocean currents fail.


But that’s as bad as it will get?

No. Failure of the ocean currents will further destabilise weather systems. They have already been found to be weakening, and part of the Gulf Stream shut down altogether for 10 days in late 2004^[4]. Warm surface water at the poles is cooled, and this oxygenated water then drops to the deep sea. Without this oxygen yet more ocean life will be lost. The melting of the icecaps will increase absorption of sunlight, further exacerbating the greenhouse effect, which is a vicious cycle, hard to break once initiated.

If CO₂ levels continue to rise unabated, a second ‘super greenhouse’ will begin, complete with stagnant, hydrogen sulphide -laden seas, in which little other than plankton can survive, severely acid rain and highly volatile weather throughout the world.

It will be life, but not as we know it, Jim.


Are you sure about all this? My mate Martin Durkin reckons it’s all a load of hot air!

Yes. Never mind the broad consensus of 2,500 climatologists, geologists, and so on. It’s common sense. We know CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, and we know we’re releasing huge and ever increasing amounts of the stuff into the atmosphere. We also know that our climate is destabilising — natural disaster insurance claims have gone up by 5 times in the last 20 years^[5]. It’s a no-brainer.

The reasoning a while ago that even if there was only a 1 in 5 chance of catastrophic climate change it was worth acting, was all well and good. It was a ‘stitch in time saves nine’ argument — the financial cost was relatively low and the likelihood of avoiding disaster high if we acted soon, and the reverse if we didn’t. But you reach the point where the evidence is so strong — hottest 3 years on record all within last 9 years^[3]; 15,000 Parisian fatalities during 2003 heatwave^[6]; flooding in China leaves 600,000 homeless^[7]; driest 12-month period Melbourne has seen since records began in 1855^[8] — that you have to revise that 1 in 5 chance to a 19 in 20 one.


OK, but what difference can I make when China and India are industrialising?

Everyone can make a difference — and everyone has a vested interest in doing so. China and India realise the problems and are making plans to lessen the impact of their economic development. China, for instance, says it plans 20% forest coverage, amongst other measures, to offset the CO₂ from new power stations.

As the world’s highest greenhouse emitter per capita^[9] Australia has a moral obligation to do its bit. Otherwise it cannot hold its head high on the world stage.

And it’s not that hard. The six households in the ABC series Carbon Cops found they could each greatly reduce their carbon footprint — and make substantial financial savings — without sacrificing their lifestyles. (The families with pools kept them; the family with high ceilings stayed put).

We could easily reduce our average CO₂ emissions from 14 to 8 tonnes within the next year, and then continue to reduce them as better house design and more efficient appliances became standard. And if we have an ounce of common sense we will!


[1] Carbon Cops, ABC TV, 28/6/07
[2] ABC News, ABC TV, 7/3/06.
[3] Beyond Tomorrow, Network 7, 12/10/05.
[4] Crude (2007)
[5] The End of the World As We Know It (2005)
[6] Cutting Edge, SBS, 26/9/06
[7] thefreedictionary.com, 11/6/07
[8] ABC News, ABC TV, 15/5/07
[9] Four Corners, ABC TV, 28/8/06

Friends Without Benefits

Wanted: Meaningful Overnight Relationship

Meet Trish Young, single mum of seven years and penner of the above dating site tag-line. Trish, who obtained a level of notoriety by reaching the No. 1 spot in the RSVP Top 100, was interviewed for The Age’s Green Guide of 2/8/07:

What’s your dating policy?

I always maintain five men in my life who take on different roles: a man I go to the movies with, a man I have amazing in-depth conversations with, a fun partner who is great with tickle fighting and joking around, one I am intimate with and the last male is on the way out to allow room for another to come.

Classy! Oh to be a fly on the wall as each of her five current cohorts reads the above! Presumably Trish has typically been intimate with No. 5, whom No. 4 is replacing, and No. 3 could more than likely also get a look-in. But it’s Nos. 1 & 2 that are most likely to be vexed by discovering how they’ve been commodified and manipulated. They’re not lovers. And they’re not friends. They’re friends without benefits.

The five roles that Trish ‘maintains’ do not include a father-figure for her child/children. Seems she’s decided to bring them up alone. And you can bet she’s rationalised that decision as being in their best interest. In reality, it’s simply in the best interest of her libido.

Right now Trish is feeling good about her lifestyle choices. The 3,000 ‘kisses’ she’s received on dating sites and high ranking on RSVP have made her feel desired. But she’s setting herself up for a massive fall. As age plays its hand, and the kisses fall off sharply, she’ll have a tangible — literally — sense of loss of desirability. And as her kids approach their teens resentments will mushroom. The life of Trish Young is a house of cards.


Links: Love vs Sex, Susannah’s Regrets