Table of Contents
OPINION
For those of you who are either unaware or perhaps forgot, Simon Upton is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Last month he gave an address to the Environmental Defence Society. The substance of his speech was in an article in the Farmers Weekly. I am of the opinion that what he had to say would not have been readily accepted by those in the audience. He pointed out a few home truths that were probably at odds with the majority thinking in the room and a certain party in parliament. Chloë would not have been impressed.
Simon gave his audience a dose of reality that they probably would have preferred not to hear but the tenor of his speech was along the lines with which most of us would agree. It was a measured outlook as to the future implementation of green policies. His opening remarks were that there is a danger environmentalists “get into a bubble of clear-sighted righteous agreement that if only other people had sufficient political will and shared our view, we’d be well on the way to the promised land”. Amen.
He said environmentalists must stop talking across the divides, including urban and rural, and find solutions that work on the ground for everyone. Hear, hear to that. Upton said environmentalism is much harder than a few slogans. Are you listening Chloë? He listed five “inconvenient truths” that need addressing. First, closing down polluting industries will, in most cases, result in imported replacement goods unless there is an equal focus on curbing consumption. “Telling consumers they can’t have stuff is an altogether more difficult conversation to have.” (Not for the left.)
His second inconvenient truth is that society must entertain some environmentally damaging activities like mining or the provision of infrastructure. “The question is how much damage? If we are not prepared to examine trade-offs critically, we will be dismissed as the dog that barks at every passing car.” Again, are you listening Chloë? Doubtful as ‘trade-offs’ is not part of the Greens’ vocabulary. It is something they choose to ignore and never features in their conversations.
Simon states the obvious: that environmentalists oppose extractive industries, but, in the transition-to-zero emissions energy, demand will increase for metals needed for batteries, wind turbines and solar panels. At this point Chloë and her band of fellow nutters probably become NIMBYs. Upton says it’s a case of weighing up the environmental degradation against the value of the minerals gained. He gave the example of mining coking coal, which is needed for making steel.
Upton’s third inconvenient truth is the call for green growth, which he said isn’t the easy economic and environmental win some people imagine. He said while renewable electricity is usually far more efficient, and therefore less damaging than fossil fuels, it will result in ecosystem damage. “The green growth vision of the future will continually trade one environmental issue for the next. We can’t escape that.”
The fourth inconvenient truth is that change is costly and not the win-win it is pitched as. He said, while studies showed on-farm efficiency gains could improve environmental outcomes by 10 to 20 percent, not all farmers have the skills required and they could be forced from the industry. “Environmentalists have to be conscious of the social impacts of these sorts of transitions.” In my view, and no doubt yours, they are absolutely not.
His last inconvenient truth is that arguing for de-growth isn’t an easy sell either. “As a student of human nature, my hunch is that if we tell people they can’t have the stuff they’ve come to expect, they will turn to thinking about how they can take it from others.” (Reminds me of a recent no-longer MP from the Greens). Upton said the list of inconvenient truths might be confronting but are descriptions of the world as it is for many people, rather than the world environmentalists would like it to be. Spot on!
The final nail in the environmentalists coffin from Upton was this – “If we want to avoid the dirty growth on offer from doubling mining or agricultural exports, then we will have to say how else will we maintain our living standards.” Ain’t that the truth?
How refreshing, heartening even, to hear a speech like that from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment of all people. Full of commonsense and realism. The left, particularly the Greens, should take note and National could also benefit from taking his “inconvenient truths” on board. On the basis of the points Upton makes, there is no reason to belong to or waste money on the Paris Accord. It will be interesting to see what moves Trump makes in this regard.
One thing we do know, Trump is going to ‘drill baby, drill’ to not only make America great again but also energy independent again. So along with China, India and elsewhere, the amount of drilling going on will be extensive and that makes a complete joke of Chloë and her band of climate extremists trying to have us believe that what we do can make a difference. Domestically maybe. Globally, certainly not.
