Tag: Climate Change

Bridging the Generational Gap: How to Talk to Your Grandparents About Climate Change
April 30, 2024 2:42 pm Comments Off on Bridging the Generational Gap: How to Talk to Your Grandparents About Climate Change
Okay, maybe it’s not your grandparents. But Grandma sharing climate misinformation plastered over a deep-fried minion meme or pixelated sunset picture on Facebook has a certain je-ne-sais-quoi, don’t you think?
In our ever-evolving world, climate change stands out as one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Engaging in dialogue about it can be daunting and potentially very stressful for many of us – especially with our families.
Science hesitancy exists in all demographics, but its zeitgeist is often considered older individuals. Griffith University’s Climate Action Survey from 2022 supports this, showing that individuals of higher age and lower education are more likely to deny climate change. We can’t control the environment we mature in or the quality of education available to us; these are not value statements about someone’s character or intelligence.
And these aren’t the only factors that contribute to this over-representation. Further aspects include media bias, personal values, religious beliefs, and political affiliations. Understanding every nuance of climate scepticism is impossible, but recognising potentially contributing elements can help us better engage with others.
The Acceleration of Change
Bias is everywhere. Many of us who grew up in the digital age expect media bias and seek multiple perspectives on a topic to form our opinions. However, the same magnitude of information was not readily available before the internet and the information age.
Ray Kurzweil wrote in 2001 about the accelerating rate of change: “An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense ‘intuitive linear’ view. So, we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate).”
Keeping up with increasingly rapid changes around us is difficult, if not impossible. Now, imagine that you’ve seen the first man on the moon and the invention of the computer, internet, car, phone, cell phone, and smartphone all within your lifetime. It’s hard to identify legitimacy when the world whizzes past so quickly.
Granddad might be adapting well to having a smartphone, but that doesn’t automatically give him the skills to sift the wheat from the chaff in the internet age. And that’s okay. He probably showed you how to use a spoon; perhaps it’s time to return the favour of patience.
Differences in experiences between generations can cause canyons between our worlds. Here are three facets where generational gaps may contribute to perspective differences.

Information sources

Research by market research company Flamingo for Reuters indicates that news habits vary significantly between generations, with older generations demonstrating far more loyalty to specific media corporations than younger generations.
Older generations typically stick to specific platforms of traditional news sources, such as newspapers and television. Before the rise of the internet, these sources were often trusted as primary channels for information dissemination.
As with all forms of information delivery, traditional news sources may be heavily politically or ideologically biased. A news source’s editorial stance or political leaning can significantly influence the information presented to the audience. Fidelity to a narrow range of news sources may impact the audience’s own worldview.
By contrast, the reduced loyalty of younger generations to traditional media allows access to a diverse range of perspectives. This does not safeguard younger individuals from misinformation, but varied exposure enables us to deconstruct our biases and construct our worldviews based on sound information. Media literacy and analytical skills are more important than ever when digesting information in the world of politically and ideologically driven interpretation, misinformation and disinformation.

Political or religious identity

Climate change has, unfortunately, become a polarising topic in many political and religious circles. Discussions around climate change often transcend scientific discourse and enter the domain of deeply rooted group affiliations. While political and religious identities are not generation-specific, differences in these values exist between family generations.
Our affiliations with political or religious ideologies profoundly influence how we perceive the world around us. When our identity or group affiliation becomes intertwined with an ideology, it significantly increases the likelihood that we, too, may adopt the same ideology.
Climate change discussions are just one example of how complex interactions between personal beliefs, values, and larger group identities can be. Age aside, it is difficult for people to question deeply held opinions, especially if doing so may risk social ostracism.

Emotional disconnection

The magnitude of climate change can be emotionally overwhelming. Many people have expressed sentiments like: “Well, I won’t be around for that, so I don’t need to worry about it.”
The enormity and complexity of climate change can cause us to disconnect from our emotions. A form of psychological self-preservation, it’s a brilliant coping strategy by our brains.
This detachment, while momentarily shielding us from the emotional weight of crisis, comes at a cost. It closes our eyes to the tangible effects of climate change that we are already experiencing. To protect us from discomfort, our minds hinder the sense of urgency needed for collective action. Recognising and addressing our psychological defence mechanisms is an individual’s responsibility, and we cannot force anyone else to do so. However, we can increase our awareness of such factors and approach conversations with empathy and care toward others’ psychological well being.
Engaging Empathetically
Open dialogue between diverse perspectives is crucial to bridging gaps to address the challenges of climate change. By engaging empathetically, we can create an environment where others are more likely to feel safe to be open and honest. Here are three points to encourage a comfortable space for discussions.

Start with shared values

At the core, who really wants koalas to go extinct, the Maldives to become uninhabitable, and the global economy to be destroyed? Most of us want a better, more secure future for coming generations, but we disagree on how to make that happen.
It’s not just about coal power vs solar power; it’s about livelihoods, homelands, ways of life and extinction events. Suppose we focus on the similarities of what we care about rather than what we disagree on. In that case, we can move on to discussing how to best protect what we all care about: a future to look forward to for ourselves and the coming generations.

Listen actively

People will have their nuanced concerns, but there are plenty of familiar talking points among climate change critics. Stephen R. Covey’s Habit 5 of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People summed up an effective way of establishing rapport well: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”
Listening actively indicates to others that their concerns are worthy of answers, whether they reject them or not. If you set the example of active listening, you might find a more receptive ear when it comes to your turn to speak.

Respect their experiences

It’s easy to assume that education is the key to changing peoples’ minds about climate science, but this isn’t necessarily true.
Understanding climate science is important for engaging in conversations about it, sure. But if someone is sceptical, reiterating something they don’t trust will only make them dig their heels into their pre-established ideas.
Grandparents have a wealth of life experience. Whether or not we share worldviews, they have forged their opinions through many years of experience. Rather than trying to educate them out of their views, seek to understand and respect their experiences. That way, we can pave the way for meaningful conversations that transcend our generational differences.
Conclusion
It is neither realistic nor ethical for us to try to mould the opinions of others to match our own. What we can do, however, is create a place for them to express their concerns without judgement or frustration and encourage them to think critically for themselves. Empathy and understanding are vital in bridging the gaps between us and our loved ones, be it generational, ideological, or something else entirely.
Climate change is a complex, global issue, and every generation’s involvement is essential. By starting these dialogues, we can hopefully share understandings and foster connections to build a better future together.
We may not undo the damage we have already done to the climate in our lifetimes, but our input is essential. As Doctor Minnie Joycelyn Elders, former United States Surgeon General, beautifully put it: “Society grows great when old men plant trees under whose shade they know they’ll never sit.”

Hayley Pineda
To the Soil We Go
August 17, 2023 3:27 pm Comments Off on To the Soil We Go
I want to see a tree.
They say that trees used to grow everywhere, and they would sprout from the ground with green leaves and they would die each year and come back to life and they would crack and worm their way through concrete. That trees owned the land where cities now stand and where skyscrapers and malls now stretch endlessly. I do not believe them.
But, all the same, I want to see a tree.
There was a woman once. Someone important to me, but I do not know who. When I was young, the sky seemed far away and the lights did not hurt my eyes. She would talk about trees. Always in the plural, but they grew one at a time, I’m told. With her hungry face and soft eyes, she would tell me about their hard skin, wrinkled and cracked but whole, and I would ask if they looked like her wrinkles which had dust in them, and she answered yes. Because all living things are connected and trees are old and although she was not old, she was near the end and her body knew it. I did not believe her then and I don’t now. The wolf does not resemble the sheep, after all. I cannot remember who she was.
Stepping into an oily puddle that splashes and stains my sodden pants, I think about this idea of connection. I do not really believe in it, because the chains between things are made and built, forged by humans, and I do not understand this idea of a tree that grows without a fight. The concrete underfoot only grows if us humans make it. The sickly-sweet smell of petrol and smoke comes from the cars we build. The building that looms over me does not look like me — although maybe we are both grey, with scars and holes — but it too only grows when a hand works it. And for us to grow, it is always a fight, a struggle; I cannot believe this tree rises up without pulling something else down. I do not think about this for long. I am tired and hungry and tired again. So very tired.
This morning, the water of the shower dribbled over my face and although I stood there and could feel my heartbeat through my ribcage, which rattled like train tracks, I could not open my eyes again and I could not tell up from down. Stumbling back, my mind was alert and thinking, but my body simply could not. In the end, I had to turn the water to an icy cold and pull my eyelids up. It might have been yesterday.
However, I cannot be tired now because I walk the street and neon lights shine down on me and even when I blink the world is still bright. I can tell that my body is failing – I am wrinkled and grey like the woman and the skin of trees, and I am young too. My body’s usual smell of dust has been replaced with the odour of rotting fruit, my armpits are sickly sweet, and I fear that I attract flies. I need food. That is something I can understand; it is a simple thought of input and output. Maybe it is chartable. Maybe if I were smarter, I could think of a formula to describe it.
I have tucked a lump of knobbly bread under my coat, and it is raining. The bread I stole at work. It is half-eaten because whoever works in the booth next to me did not think I would hear them nibbling at it like a mouse. It has sat on the only table in my apartment and I have whittled away at it each day. Its brown crust nearly shone in the dull, greyed plastic of my apartment and under the single overhead light I have quietly scraped off any mould that grew. Today, I am too hungry and I have caved, I cannot make it through the day without something.
Trees ate rain from the ground like dogs eat trash, but they sucked it up like a straw. Looking at the puddles of water on the pavement, with their rainbow sheens and wavery imitations of the buildings above and my face, small in the corner, I cannot imagine drinking that.
As I descend into the subway and feel its stale breath wash over me, I wonder how much a tree now costs. Everything can be bought, and everything is sold somewhere, so a market for trees must exist. Whatever it costs, I know I could not afford it. I know I should be working hard, but I am tired now on the train to work and I will be tired at work and exhausted on the train home from work. My desire to see a tree is not my desire to purchase one, it is something more. I do not know what.
Load-shedding means the train starts in darkness. We bump and jostle as we file on and I guard my bread jealously. Its crust is hard and stale and my shirt thin, so I feel it grate against my skin as I am pushed and squeezed and shoved and at one point pulled, until I end up pressed against the window. The wheels scream and wail and I think maybe the train will not start, but it does, and we slide forward.
The darkness and warmth are comforting; maybe this is how a seed felt in the soil. If that woman was right, maybe it would have been like this, acutely aware of other things around it, but yet unseeing. I am not unseeing though, because in the darkness cigarettes glow faintly here and there, flickering an orange light onto the stubbled and dirty chins of their owners. Their dry smoke washes over me, and I inhale them. Maybe there is a cigarette forgotten in my pocket. I do not know, and I cannot check because I am clutching my bread without trying to look like I am, and if I move my hands, my bread will fall, and everyone will know, and I already cannot move, let alone fight for my bread. Instead, I lean forward and breathe deeply whenever the nearest smoker exhales. Too many of us do this, and so no one gets any and we just bump heads.
I am not sure why I want to see a tree. I like the idea of roots in the ground, drinking water and pushing forth. I wonder if trees ever fought each other, if their roots ever brushed up against each other and if, like dogs, did they bite and tear at each other? They say trees are harmonious creatures, peaceful beings, but I do not know about that. Everything struggles to survive, so everything must fight to survive.
When our train launches out of the tunnel, I am blinded by the sunlight. It is bright and orange and its rays are perfectly parallel, and for a moment I panic, not sure if it is morning or afternoon. It blazes like fire, wobbling in the smog, but its heat cannot pierce the clouds and the glass and so it is just a cleansing light, with no warmth. I stare forward because just as soon as we are out in the day we are back in the safety of the tunnel, hurtling along in darkness.
The station is a forest of people, and I am struck by how alike they all are this morning. With skin and ashy hair and mute clothes. And that same stench of rats and mould in the corners of our clothes. Everyone here lives in a similar-sized apartment, and I wonder what actual difference there is in the work we do.
Someone pushes me and I trip forward. My shoes are wet and slick with oil and my face stings when it smashes rudely into the concrete. But I do not care because the concrete is cold and almost soft compared to my bone, and I am watching the bread roll along, curving across the perfectly flat ground.
My bread.
I reach out for it and someone steps onto my hand, cracking it but not breaking it. Soon, I can feel several bodies on top of me, pushing me further and further into the ground. I am cocooned and warm beneath my colleagues but each of my bones is being crushed. The bread is brown and the world is grey but we can all spot food from a mile away.
Everyone scrambles now and the platform shakes, from the ruckus or a train I do not know. I try to explain to people that it is my bread, that I bought it this morning because I am so tired and I must eat, but they cannot hear me. They shove and jostle and swear and tear at each other and the concrete is so cold and smooth. The weight above me lifts off and then I am one of the many, in the fray, shoving and jostling and swearing and tearing just like everyone else. I forget that it is my bread, because it is bread and that is what matters.
A hand grabs my collar and pulls me back. Maybe they did not mean it, but I am so light and slippery that I slide backwards, backwards onto the tracks which are only a foot beneath the platform. Backwards onto the gravel. Backwards with my hands empty, my skull hits the rusted metal railing that does not ding, but thuds gently and then becomes quite wet. It is warm and reminds me of the shower. I can smell the wet metal and not even my hunger keeps me awake now.
I will never see a tree, and I am too tired to dream of one now. More than tired, simply fading away, crumb by crumb, like dirt on skin, washed away and purified into nothing. But I still do not understand why the rain would fall onto the trees, I do not understand why it would give like that. It does not matter; the trains scream for me, and I am falling asleep.

They say that trees used to grow everywhere, and they would sprout from the ground with green leaves and they would die each year and come back to life and they would crack and worm their way through concrete. I do not believe them.

Alexander Lane
When Nihilism Sets in, the Corporations Win
3:25 pm Comments Off on When Nihilism Sets in, the Corporations Win
I sat outside the School of Art Library a few weeks ago chatting with two friends. Somehow, as is commonplace in most of our conversations, we got onto the topic of that pesky existential friend of ours, climate change.
After a brief discussion, I made the offhand remark, “Oh well, we’re all fucked anyway.” Usually, we reach this conclusion unanimously, then move on. But this time, my friend stopped me. “No, you can’t think that,” they said. “Climate nihilism is how they win.”
This got me thinking. On the one hand, who would blame us as young people for thinking everything is doomed and there’s no point anymore? The evidence of the climate crisis and its rapidly intensifying damage to humankind, especially the world’s most vulnerable, is staggering to behold. It can all feel like too much to bear when we think about it for too long. Embracing some form of nihilism becomes a coping mechanism. Accepting that everything is fucked and that anything we can do is inconsequential anyway is how many of us seem to get by each day.
But on the other hand, perhaps the way many of us have begun to think and speak about the climate crisis is actually just enabling an even greater victory for billionaires and fossil fuel corporations and the corrupt governments (like our own) that are in their pockets. This has led me to think there is a balance that we all must find, which couples our acknowledgement of the serious challenges we face with a belief in the ultimate goodness of humanity. We actually do need some form of hope, and we need to believe that people power means something. Hope is what keeps us going.
We need to believe in a future and each other. Nihilism might be a form of self-preservation but hope is too. Even if the struggle we face seems insurmountable – and with good reason – the best chance we have is to keep believing in the goodness and power of our movement when we all come together.
We can take inspiration from grassroots communities and the wins we continue to achieve. The Stop Adani movement crushed mine development plans, reducing the scale from eleven coal mines to one. Communities in the Northern Territory stopped Origin from fracking on sacred land. The Torres Strait 8 recently won a landmark case where the United Nations found Australia’s climate inaction is in violation of the human rights of Torres Strait Islanders.
These wins are not enough. It takes years of work and hundreds, if not thousands, of people to stop just one fossil fuel project in this country. New proposals and new companies looking to take the reins pop up in their place. It is important that we maintain a strong sense of reality and recognise that we cannot trust politicians, that corporations are indeed evil and that incremental change will not solve this crisis.
But these wins are also not inconsequential. They are a reminder that people really are powerful. Corporations want us to lose hope and accept defeat, to surrender to them. But there is a strength we have in each other and knowing that there are people out there who do care. Picturing our world without a climate and environmental movement is a terrifying prospect; we would all be living under the shadow of smoke stacks as far as the eye could see. If we are nihilists, corporations will continue to plunder and exploit our beautiful planet even more, without resistance. The fact is that if we gave up, it would all be worse than we could ever imagine.
Climate nihilism won’t help us, but we must not confuse optimism with blind faith in policymakers. Placing all hope and trust in our new government is a dangerous route many are taking. I am fearful of our movement giving up as a result of climate nihilism, but I must admit, I am equally fearful of our movement giving up by thinking a lot of the work is done. I am frequently shocked to hear well-meaning, progressive people praising our new government and their climate policies.
The Albanese government is willingly and knowingly worsening the climate crisis, allowing the development of new fossil fuel projects. It is attempting to deceive us into thinking everything is fine now that we have a legislated emissions reduction target, reached with an outrageously weak ‘safeguard mechanism’. Merely electing a government that is “at least better than the last one” is not the solution to all our problems. Complacency is a dangerous force. We must confront the realities of the world we live in, we must not be blasé about the impacts the climate crisis has already begun to have, and we must criticise our government and call on them to do so much better.
But hope in humanity is not the same as blind trust in government. Trusting our government to fix all of our problems is the easy route. It is hard to maintain hope. Many would say it takes either naivety or, worse, stupidity, but I think it takes strength. And we need it.
Accepting that there’s nothing we can do and the fight is lost means that we’ve given in to the evil, greedy forces of corporations seeking profit at the expense of our people and planet. We are tired, we are angry and we might feel like there’s no point anymore. But I am desperately trying to say no to climate nihilism and yes to believing that there is still hope. We can be simultaneously realistic, critical, cynical, furious and hopeful. We owe this to ourselves and all that we hold dear that we do not give up hope and in doing so, let them win.

After a brief discussion, I made the offhand remark, “Oh well, we’re all fucked anyway.” Usually, we reach this conclusion unanimously, then move on. But this time, my friend stopped me. “No, you can’t think that,” they said. “Climate nihilism is how they win.”

Anonymous
Greenwashing Our Drowning Futures: A Call to Action from the South to the North
October 27, 2022 10:34 am Comments Off on Greenwashing Our Drowning Futures: A Call to Action from the South to the North
We are not facing a climate crisis that is imminent in the distant future. But we are in the middle of a climate catastrophe as we speak. While here in Australia, much as in the rest of the Global North, we convene in siloed conferences and policy forums; discuss climate resilience and mitigation in hallowed halls and ivory towers; deliberate on what the future may hold in a still distant 2050 – a future with a projected global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius – for millions of people across the world, 2050 is already upon them.
One-third of Pakistan has been submerged in the recent catastrophic floods. Between June to August this year, Pakistan’s southernmost provinces faced a 400 percent increase in their average monsoon rainfall. In addition to this, Pakistan is home to 7200 glaciers, the largest number in the world outside of the polar regions. Rising temperatures due to global warming are accelerating the Himalayan glacial melt in Pakistan at a much faster rate than previously anticipated by scientists.
Just in the recent catastrophe alone, 33 million lives were affected – more than the total population of Australia. This includes 16 million children, and 650,000 pregnant women without access to proper health services, with much of the infrastructure devastated. Four million acres of farmland has been destroyed, causing an acute crisis of food insecurity, and large swathes of the country are still underwater. While it has been estimated that the waters will take six more months to recede, the flood-ravaged lands are becoming breeding grounds for water-borne diseases – cholera, malaria, dengue – while experts warn the coming of a “second wave of death and destruction.”

Pakistan merits our attention for the sheer injustice of its people facing the worst brunt of climate catastrophe, while the country’s global share of carbon emissions is only less than 1 percent. An injustice that is compounded by a severe debt burden of $130 billion and crippling International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionalities, including taxes on oil and electricity, at a time of an unprecedented disaster. Or the entrenched effects of colonial and imperial entanglements that relegate the country to a ‘no man’s land’ – whose worth is dictated merely by imperial interests and ‘strategic’ relevance to the Global North; and whose calls for immediate debt relief, as demanded by the Pakistani activist community, are drowned out by racialised tropes of ‘violence’ and ‘danger’. But Pakistan is also a glimpse into our collective future – a symbolic front for our advocacy as a country that is already ‘ground zero’ for the climate catastrophe and exhibiting the impact of the dreaded mark of 1.5 degree Celsius.
In this context, we are fast approaching the 27th Annual UN Climate Change Conference of Parties, or COP27. Previous conferences settled upon emissions reduction agreements as outlined in the Kyoto protocols or the Paris Agreement. Not only have these agreements been inadequate but they have also allowed governments to perpetuate climate vandalism through an ostensible facade of seeking climate solutions. Greta Thunberg called last year’s COP26 conference in Glasgow more of the same “blah blah blah”. She called for protests around the conference to reject the same old greenwashing, saying that “our hopes and ambitions drown in their empty promises.” The nature of the current climate catastrophes, if anything, expose the hollowness of such initiatives. Even if governments fully adhered to their emissions reductions as agreed upon in the Paris Agreement, the world would still reach apocalyptic levels of climate catastrophe everywhere in the coming decades. A worsening of the disastrous effects is already being felt.
The upcoming conference is set to be held in Egypt this year, even as Egyptian climate activists are protesting this charade of greenwashing and demanding more. The Sisi dictatorship has enforced draconian laws to limit access to information, including their country’s net carbon emissions and is continuing to warehouse hundreds of political prisoners in state prison cells. Recently, Alaa Abd El-Fattah, a high-profile democracy activist on a hunger strike, wrote a letter “about global warming because of the news from Pakistan” and raised concerns about the impending climate catastrophe that will reach us all. Highlighting the 33 million lives affected by the floods in Pakistan, he questioned the (in)adequacy of state responses as global warming continues. This letter, too, has been suppressed by the Egyptian authorities. Other democracy activists in Egypt have also called on climate activists around the world to not allow the Egyptian government to greenwash the dictatorship through the upcoming COP conference.
In Australia, we have a particular responsibility to answer these calls of solidarity from Egypt and Pakistan. Australia is one of the largest contributors to global fossil fuel emissions per capita, particularly from coal export emissions. These emissions are conveniently not counted in the Australian Labor Party’s latest climate bill. Such creative elisions and the absence of any enforceable targets have allowed the Labor party to plan a significant escalation of fossil fuel emission exports, by greenlighting the opening up of 106 new coal and gas projects whilst posturing to address the issue of emission reductions.
There is no lack of academic seminars on the impending climate crisis at the ANU. But beyond these siloed academic engagements, it is pertinent to ask where the university – as an institution – stands on climate change. It is imperative to move from knowledge production to action. The ANU itself has been the subject of a nearly decade-long divestment campaign. Students have overwhelmingly called for full divestment from fossil fuels in two referendums run by the student union ANUSA, first in 2014 and then again last year. The most recent data available to students indicates that our university still has large-scale investments in fossil fuel companies. There is also a shroud of opacity on the specificities of their investments. Without a clear breakdown of companies that ANU invests in, such as what they provided in 2016, we can’t be sure if ANU still invests in companies like Woodside Petroleum or big banks that finance coal projects as they did in that year. What we do know is that ANU’s infrastructure portfolio, which includes millions of dollars invested in the Kwinana gas-fired power station, actually increased its total carbon emissions by almost 23 percent last year. There are no enforceable targets in ANU’s investment portfolio as part of its ‘Below Zero’ campaign and its reports rely heavily on the discredited ESG exposure scores to demonstrate how environmentally sustainable they are.
That is why we have organised a speak-out for climate justice this Friday, the 28th of November to maintain the pressure. We cannot allow for the green-washing and climate vandalism carried out in our name. Or turn the demands for climate justice and debt relief from the Global South into “feel good” opportunities for the Global North to give paltry sums in “charity.” Despite the platitudes offered by elite institutions and state actors (be it ANU’s Socially Responsible Investment reporting, the Australian Labor Party, or those convening COP27) to set out tentative and non-enforceable targets, we are witnessing an unchecked expansion of fossil fuel extraction. Meanwhile millions of lives are already in the throes of disaster, their homes washed away, their farmlands and infrastructure devastated, with no return to normalcy in sight. This is only just the beginning. It is no longer tenable to discuss the climate crisis in terms of a projected future – when this future is already upon us.
Heba is a Pakistani student at ANU and Nick is a member of Socialist Alternative.
This article was written on the stolen land of the Ngunawal, Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. We pay our respect to Elders past, present and emerging and acknowledge that sovereignty has not been ceded. There is no climate justice without Indigenous justice.

Nick Reich
Sapiens to Systems
April 11, 2022 4:25 pm Comments Off on Sapiens to Systems
Evolution occurs when animals adapt to better live in their environment. Climate change and the Anthropocene are changes to our environment. However, because they are happening so fast, we cannot evolve through our usual means of mutation. To survive, and, in many ways, to thrive, in a new era, we will have to evolve deliberately and collectively.
Often, when we talk about our Anthropocenic future, we speak with cynicism. We talk about how doomed we are, about how much we and the planet will lose. The signposts of our times seem to point in only two directions: what needs to be done by 2050, and the hellscape that awaits us afterwards. Fundamentally, a good portion of us seem to have lost a lot of hope. This is understandable. In many ways, it is a logical viewpoint. We are one of the most individualistic societies to ever exist, having to confront a problem caused by our collective actions and which can only be solved by our collective actions. If we were not living it, it would be fantastically ironic.
Increasingly though, people are understanding that this fatalism and odd schadenfreude is what hamstrings us. Proposals like the Green New Deal are solutions-orientated, but, in their wholesale view and in their intersectionality, they give us a better vision of the future. They give a third way of looking forward. The debate now is moving away from questions of needing to evolve, to the question of how do we evolve? What traits do we need to better suit the coming century?
In a word, systems. In two words, systems thinking. Just as individualism plagues us, so too does an obsession with taking ecological and economic cycles and processes and trying to make a graph out of them. The four lines required to make a supply and demand diagram are some of the most damaging you can draw. Not because they are inaccurate, but because of how much they leave out. If we’re trapped in Plato’s cave, then these bivariate models are the shadows on the wall. The fire is approaching the market as embedded in a broader social and environmental context. Oxford economist, Kate Ratworth, has attempted to create another way of visualising a single market: wherein the market is taken as a system, with supply and demand being feedback loops, not linear processes. This market also has a clear limit – environmental sustainability.
What we should evolve into is an understanding of our world as composed of systems. These systems have multiple components which replace the traditional independent variable, but each component is a keystone – if removed, the system teeters dangerously. The classic example we’d be familiar with is an ecosystem. Remove a producer organism, like plants, and the system crumbles, but remove also apex predators and herbivore populations explode unsustainably. When we attempt to break down the world into phenomenon Y as a cause of X, we stress the dependence of Y on X, but in doing so, we lose the interdependence of these two variables within a broader system.
When we reduce the world into models, choices are made about what to exclude and include. We exclude what we deem irrelevant which, as history warns us, is a dangerous game to play. Climate change challenges economics because it pushes and prods for putting the environment front and centre of these models. Otherwise, reality and economics will flee into the distance growing further and further apart, a phenomenon seen today in the celebration of economic growth built off future environmental collapse.
Systems thinking doesn’t stop with the economy. Just as we fail to embed the economy into other systems like the environment and society, so too do we fail to view ourselves as agents in a larger, broader system. This is not simply a criticism of the neoliberal “There are individual men and women and there are families…” It is about reworking the conception of humans as distinct from their natural environment. The West has long sat on this principle of othering; creating binaries and hierarchies of value. Race, gender and sexuality have all been catalogued and reduced to the accepted ‘status quo’ and the rejected other, to either be feared, patronised, or forced out. We do the same thing with the environment. We erect picket fences to distinguish between where we and our lawns end, and where the ‘wild’ begins. But we cannot be separated from our ecosystem; the idea of a human is meaningless without the global and local environment in which they live. Understanding this irrevocable connection is one of the most crucial steps in evolving into the Anthropocene and the reality of climate change.
Much of this is nothing new. It is the West that struggles with this. Many other cultures incorporate eco-centrism into their views, especially First Nations people and other Indigenous cultures around the world. For once, the West needs to take a backseat. Successful climate action will be paired with justice and sovereignty for Indigenous peoples.
One of the most dangerous myths of climate change is that we have no choices left. Whatever happens in the next two decades, it will be a series of decisions made by our society. Some will be undemocratic, made by elites in backrooms, while others may not even be presented as choices, only as unfortunate necessities. But with every step, through action or inaction, we will be choosing what we evolve into, we will force ourselves to adapt to the new landscape. To paraphrase Chomsky, it is better to choose optimism over despair, to choose through the ballot, but also to choose by approaching life as complex and vulnerable systems, needing to be comprehensively understood, with no factor excluded. By evolving towards a system outlook, we take a step to evolving into not just the new era, but into something better.

Originally published in Woroni Vol.72 Issue 1 ‘Evolution’

Alexander Lane
Universal Truths and Another Way
March 17, 2021 6:56 pm Comments Off on Universal Truths and Another Way
When I reflect on truth, I think of the Netflix sensation Resurrection: Ertugrul. It has had seismic influence in Muslim countries, Pakistan, India and parts of Africa. I found out about it when a local Grandmother, from a small Australian country town, told me of her and her husband’s despair that the almost 500 episode series was coming to an end.
In it, you see three civilisations on the verge of war: the Mongols, the Turks and the Byzantine Empire. A proxy for China, the East and the West. It’s the story of how people, sickened by the deceit and corruption of their world, dreamed of creating a Just State, leading to the Ottoman Empire’s establishment.
It’s Islamic, associated with Turkish nationalism and soft-power and provides a chance to see how The Rest view The West – which can be uncomfortable! However, its themes are universal: justice, truth, resisting tyranny and stopping ‘the cruel.’ Its vision has appealed to global citizens the world over, and that, I believe may be something of great significance.
Concern about ‘truth and justice’ issues infused my PhD research, leading to a concept called the Creative State. This is the idea of re-imagining governance and society – what the State could be like – in an era of climate, ecological and other security crises. The Creative State sees more voices contributing to the shaping of their worlds and new institutional design. Of course, this reinvention process needs to include universities, or rather, the entire system of knowledge management and what we think of as ‘knowledge.’ The current model of statehood must change for two main reasons.

Hyperthreat
The biggest reason is to do with what I call the ‘hyperthreat of climate and environmental change’. The hyperthreat notion spotlights the violence, destruction, killing, harm, and loss of freedoms that are imposed by unravelling ecological and climate systems. It draws from eco-philosopher Timothy Morton’s concept of global warming as a hyperobject – something beyond human’s capacity to perceive or understand, which utterly defies our current ‘systems.’ Morton argues that, in the face of the hyperobject, humanity’s new existential truth is that we are now “weak, lame and vulnerable.”
In contrast, the hyperthreat notion, views that humans have still got a chance. It applies military strategy, re-imagined for the Anthropocene, to the problem and devises a hyper-response, (PLAN E). To contain the worst of the hyperthreat’s destructive power, (or avoid dangerous climate change), this diagram shows the path that we must be on:

Pathway to limit global warming to 1.5°C, IPCC 2018 Fig SPM.3a

To support such a trajectory, research, learning and knowledge sharing must be in fast-track mode, as occurred during COVID19. Yet there is no such system for the #ClimateEmergency.

Truth and universities
The second reason relates to whether universities are serving the public well or not. When you talk to so-called ‘working people’ – those without a university degree, some say universities are a waste of taxpayers’ money. “What are they doing over there?” they say, “I have no idea what they do.”
Increasingly, to find information and make sense of a world in crisis, people are turning to social media. Disillusionment with official ‘experts’ is an issue of great significance to universities. What’s gone wrong? How could universities better meet their citizens’ knowledge and sense-making needs? It’s time for some blue-sky thinking.

How things could change
To return to the Ertugrul series, the reason its popularity matters is that it points to larger social-cultural forces and ‘universal truths’ that are sweeping the world. Widespread mass protests, from #ArabSpring, #YellowVests, #MeToo, #BLM, #ExtinctionRebellion, #StopTheSteal to the recent Russian protests, tell a similar story. Many crave new, ethics-based, leadership. The larger truth may be that population groups are tiring of a leadership body that is perceived as having failed the majority.
Yet while global citizens may be aligning in their aspirations for a fairer world, in other ways, we are being pitched against each other. In real terms, over the 2009 to 2018 decade, global military spending grew 5.4 per cent; the 2018 annual spend was $1.822 trillion. This spending reflects expectations of greater conflict over the next decade; the exact period in which the war against the hyperthreat must be waged. It’s lose-lose. What if the people of the world said:
“We’ve got a better idea… Let’s redirect our efforts to containing the hyperthreat – our mutual foe. We’ll also rescue our major important and beloved ally – nature.”

Truth and the hyperthreat
Here is a vision of a different future: The time of fake news, spin and deceit is rejected. The capacity to confront the truth is now understood as critical to human survival.
As the 21st Century progresses, the hyperthreat will increasingly speak in a form which transcends all languages and is heard loudly, across the globe. Climate and ecological issues emerge as a unifying and irrefutable truth that resets dialogue and sense-making through the sheer force of its physical presence. In this world of harsh realities, there is no tolerance for ineffective institutions.
As the Turks overcame widespread corruption to open the door to a magnificent chapter in human history, perhaps the current generation of global citizens can do the same. A global ‘army’ could be raised against the hyperthreat. Alliances between East, West, North and South could be made.
Woke up this morning
From the strangest dream
I was in the biggest army
The world has ever seen
We were marching as one
On the road to the holy grail…
There’s nowhere else to go…”
            Lyrics, Hunters and Collectors, “Holy Grail”

Humans. Earth. We’ve got nowhere else to go. For my part, I hope to progress a concept called #Research2Public. In general, we must find a new way.

Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.

Dr Elizabeth Boulton
Radicalism and Excuses in the Climate Movement
April 29, 2020 7:31 pm Comments Off on Radicalism and Excuses in the Climate Movement
What is too often missed in the ‘climate debate’ is the peculiar fact that it is already settled. Just after the 2019 federal election, the Australia Talks national survey recorded the country’s views on climate policy. Even among coalition voters, support for government action was simply overwhelming. 75 percent wanted accelerated development of industries powered by renewable energy, 56 percent supported net zero emissions by 2050, while an impatient 47 percent were for net zero emissions by 2030.
Australia, however, is still one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters. When the historic Paris agreement was signed in 2016, Australia’s CO2 emissions were greater than that of either the United Kingdom, Italy or France. If current policies continued, Australian emissions would well exceed the treaty’s requirements.
On the issue of climate policy, Australian governments have so far had more reasons to be afraid of established interests than they have had reasons to be afraid of their own constituents. The climate movement can only find success by reversing that relationship.
Australia’s history with action on climate change is inseparable from the power and intervention of special interest groups. The three big climate policies Australian governments have wished to enact – Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), Gillard’s Clean Energy Act (Carbon Tax), and Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee (NEG) – all either won consensus or became enacted, before swiftly being rejected.
Punishment for daring to take action was most severe following the Gillard government’s Clean Energy Act. Inspired by the 22-million-dollar anti-mining tax scheme that brought down Kevin Rudd, in 2011 an industry campaign was launched that would deride the Clean Energy Act as ‘the carbon tax’. The national rhetoric subsequently devolved into sexism and misinformation. On March 23 2011, in a moment that Julia Gillard later said “should have killed Tony Abbott’s career”, posters plastered with offensive slogans including “Ditch the Witch” and “Juliar… Bob…. Brown’s Bitch” were used as a backdrop to a speech Abbott gave at an anti-carbon tax rally.
Radical socialists may be off-putting, but those on the other extreme are already in parliament.
For both the ETS and NEG, bipartisan support was reached before the Liberal party would rearrange itself in favour of factions tilted against taking action. In 2009, after then leader of the opposition Malcolm Turnbull had agreed to the Rudd government’s ETS, a leadership spill was called that saw climate sceptic Tony Abbott take the reins. On his first day as leader of the Liberal party, Abbott had his party vote against the ETS in the senate causing the legislation to fail. When Malcolm Turnbull proposed the NEG in 2018, Coalition MPs who were threatening to cross the floor ignited the leadership spill that brought him down. This was at a time when 54 percent of Australians felt tackling climate change was justified even if it involved “significant costs”, while only nine percent were unsure if it really were a problem. Going into the 2019 election, Labor went so far as to adopt the NEG into its own energy policy.
For the Liberal Party, avoiding action on climate change has caused immense internal instability while alienating most Australians. Despite this, the rewards to the party’s climate sceptic wing have been lucrative. Take the support of think tanks such as the Institute of Public Affairs. With its $2 million annual budget, it has “supported just about all” of the “serious sceptics in Australia”, according to its executive director John Roskam. Its funding doubled leading into the 2013 election where climate change was a key issue, and the organisation has received at least $4.5 million from Gina Rinehart, a mining magnate with $14.5 billion in assets.
This money translates to reach throughout the media. The IPA’s former chairman (as she prefers to be called) Janet Albrechtsen has a prominent column in Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian. Sky News hosts, Murdoch columnists, and senior members of the Liberal party have been closely affiliated. Sky News host Paul Murray has used his show to call for joining the organisation, while fellow Sky News host, writer for the Herald Sun and breacher of the Racial Discrimination Act Andrew Bolt MC’d the organisation’s 70th anniversary. It works to turn cold cash into political influence. Its publications muddy the waters around climate change, providing cover to the hard-line wings of the Liberal party.
As young people, we are faced with a political system that is more scared of the few that stand to benefit than the many that stand to lose. Given the circumstances, we are forced to ask what we can do to try to make a difference.
Firstly, we must realise the need to act has nothing to do with our like or dislike of some political group or philosophy. The need to act comes fully formed from our own self-interest, while the temptation to sit back comes either from a distrust in the scientific method or a disinterest in our own wellbeing. Asserting anything short of anthropogenic climate change causing a painful inconvenience to humanity for centuries to come would require proving a monumental conspiracy between all the world’s major scientific organisations. A conspiracy to stage the moon landings would be easier to pull off by a few orders of magnitude. On this issue, we are all united, whether we like each other or not.
Action will involve coming together to find ways to make us, the constituents and members of this democracy, more frightening a force than the established interests that oppose us.
Protests are critical as they put a physical presence behind the movement, eliciting wider sympathy. The more diverse and united a protest, the more identification and support from the public is obtained. Mass protests provide a means to counter the media advantage of established interests. Furthermore, protests make constituents more threatening by causing an honest inconvenience. Activities such as walking through city centres, blocking major roads and organising further action lays the groundwork for governments to pay more attention to the political views of their constituents.
Alternatively, established interests can be weakened by using our time, talents and platforms to counter narratives targeting action on climate change. For progressives, this may mean aiming for internships at think tanks instead of big four corporations, researching the environmental records of companies that wish to present on campus, or creating concise pamphlets that explain scientific concepts such as the greenhouse effect. For conservatives, this may mean refusing to accept material that proliferates pseudoscience.
The movement is not helped by suggesting inaction would cease if only someone had the bravery to present a ‘pragmatic’ solution. From Rudd’s ETS to Gillard’s Clean Energy Act to Turnbull’s NEG, Australia has had plenty of ‘pragmatic solutions’ to climate action fail, not due to lack of consensus, but often because of explicit involvement by groups tied to industry or purchased media.
It does not help to believe in a supposed powerlessness that justifies inaction. If us university students posed no threat, there would be no need for organisations such as the IPA to run programs targeted at sowing doubt over climate action among young people. Free pamphlets, brochures, media contacts and organisational support through groups such as Generation Liberty would not be available if what happened on campus did not matter. As young people we form the next generation of leaders, and have the power to define what it means to be seen as visionary or future-focused.
There is merit in saying that a coherent message from young people is prevented by a movement seen only as the radical ravings of revolutionary reds. The trope of the excessively bombastic and deficiently self-aware Marxist is nothing new. George Orwell, while advocating for socialism in The Road to Wigan Pier, described a stereotype of bearded, sandal-wearing, fruit juice-drinking, yoga-practicing, vegetarian, middle-class socialists “of the cocksure Marx quoting-type” being a major impediment to the movement gaining wider sympathy. Yet, he felt “for the present one must just set one’s teeth and ignore them” as “they will loom much smaller when the movement has been humanized.”
The existence of fringe groups is not to blame for the lack of action on climate change. If the rest of us faced the alienating air of protests not with resignation, but perseverance, the problems presented by the fringes would disappear by dilution alone. It is not their radicalism, but the excuses of the rest of us that has allowed them to define the movement.

All opinions expressed above are the author’s own.

Anonymous
We’re Burning, Mr. Morrison
November 15, 2019 11:36 am Comments Off on We’re Burning, Mr. Morrison
CONTENT WARNING: New South Wales and Queensland Bushfires, Ableist Language

An open letter to Scott Morrison,
Climate change is bullshit. And not in the way that you want us to believe.
Climate change is unfair. It’s undemocratic. And despite the fact that 64 per cent of Australians believe that climate change is a critical threat demanding direct and immediate action, you do nothing. You and your mining cronies on Capitol Hill, your arsonist allies, still believe that you can get away with dismissing claims that climate change is a significant threat multiplier for the current bushfire crisis.
This makes me so angry.
Aside from being called an “inner-city raving lunatic” by Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, I’m angry that there have been significant warnings about the danger of not addressing the seriousness of the extreme fire event. I’m angry that people on the ground, like the mayor of the recently eviscerated Glen Innes, are standing in ashes where their towns used to be, despite having issued warning after warning to the federal government.
I’m angry that, despite funding the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre, no advice or policy outcomes have followed their research. This is in itself a demonstration of gross negligence towards a population which you are supposedly sworn to protect.
I’m angry that the ones fighting the fires are predominately locals and volunteers. Your thoughts and prayers will never extinguish the fires. You have abandoned us, and left New South Wales and Queensland to fight for themselves.
New South Wales is now in a state of emergency. It’s mid-November, not December or January. There’s still snow on the bloody ski fields, mate! These fires are so catastrophic that they are creating their own storm systems. They are raining embers and shooting out lightning!
Mr. ScoMo, if you could take some time off from the sheer effort of thinking and praying, then I would ask that you please address this issue with all the might of our great nation. No more people need to die. Nationalise a professional and paid fire service, agree to continue funding for the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre, and declare a climate emergency.
I may be a ‘lunatic’ and ‘needlessly anxious’ (I’m not), but you’re unfit to lead this country if you continue to let people die because you’re too proud or too stupid to admit that you’re wrong. Prove me wrong, Mr Morrison.
Regards,
Ruben Steffens

Ruben Steffens
Is ScoMo Taking the PIS-ific?
August 23, 2019 2:27 pm Comments Off on Is ScoMo Taking the PIS-ific?
Let’s get real about climate change – and not Scott Morrison real. Real as in better solutions to climate change than fruit picking. Real as in real accountability for those at risk of losing their livelihood, culture and country due to processes to which they contribute very little. Real as in prioritising the human life of our closest neighbours over the growth of the Australian economy.
Last week Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison joined leaders of the Pacific at the Pacific Islands Forum to talk all things Pacific. Meeting in Funafuti, the capital of Tuvalu, the leaders’ retreat showcased all the good parts of Pacific hospitality: food, song and dance. The purpose being, “to show the world what would be lost, apart from land, if Tuvalu were to disappear”.
This was entirely lost on Morrison, who made himself very unpopular by taking a hard stance on climate change. Or rather, a hard stance on the role of coal and its place on the table. Morrison ensured Australia’s official communiqué watered down commitments to respond to the climate emergency pressed by the others. Morrison’s stance on red-lining some of the language around commitments to coal, limiting warming to under 1.5 degrees Celsius and setting a plan for zero-net emissions by 2050 caused a fierce 12-hour debate which almost broke down twice.
Now you can probably tell by my language so far that I’m not thrilled by the efforts of Mr Morrison. In fact, I’m pretty bloody disappointed. Not only is this bad for our relationship with the Pacific, it’s bad for the people who live there. Not to mention, it demonstrates to the rest of the world how clearly inept we are at any form of regional leadership. The Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Enele Sopoaga, summarised this sentiment perfectly, stating, “You are trying to save your economy, I am trying to save my people.”
The Prime Minister of Fiji, Frank Bainimarama, was so disappointed with Morrison’s performance that despite being a “Wallabies fan from a long way back”, he announced that he would be cheering on the All Blacks in the 2019 Bledisloe Cup.

What is more concerning than the Bledisloe affiliations is the message this sends to the rest of the word – namely, China. Before the forum, Australia promised $500 million in aid to the Pacific for the sole purpose of tackling climate change. It is important to note that this was redirected from existing programs and is not new money. However, it was intended to demonstrate a continued effort showing that Australia is on side.
Morrison dislodged this dialogue in one foul swoop.
Data sourced by the Lowy Institute’s Chinese Aid in the Pacific shows that an increasing aid budget of $2.5 billion across 218 projects is being funnelled into the Pacific by China. Projects like the Navua Hospital in Fiji have been welcomed with open arms, which cannot be said for our leader.
“China never insults the Pacific. You say it as if there’s a competition between Australia and China. There’s no competition, except to say the Chinese don’t insult us … They’re good people, definitely better than Morrison, I can tell you that.”
– Quote from Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimaram.
According to another Lowy study, at this point in time 10 per cent of Australians say, “until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs.” Either Mr Morrison is blinded by the surging current of political donations that are given by the Rineharts of Australia, or he’s just straight-up ignorant. And in a situation as critical as climate change, the latter is incredibly dangerous.
Not only does the communiqué pushed by our leader not represent the opinion of the Australian population – 62 per cent of whom believe that climate change is the top ranked threat Australia faces today – but it fundamentally impeaches on the lives of those most vulnerable to the effects of our own greenhouse gas emissions.
In case the importance of all of this hasn’t landed, here it is. Our ScoMo has severely damaged our relationship with our closest neighbours who will now increasingly be looking towards China for support, a situation which could be problematic for Australian security. He is representing a position of blind and wilful incompetence with which only 10 per cent of Australians align. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, he has insulted and compromised our friendship with the nations of the Pacific – nations who shouldn’t have to mop up our mess.
Photo credit: The Guardian (top and bottom), AAP (middle)

Ruben Steffens
Four Simple and Achievable Ways to Eat More Sustainably
July 26, 2019 1:16 pm Comments Off on Four Simple and Achievable Ways to Eat More Sustainably

From school climate rallies, to keep-cups and the movement against straws, young people are championing a more sustainable future. However, amidst all of our sustainable attempts what is often ignored is the enormous impact our diets have on the environment. One-third of total global greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture alone and Australians have one of the largest per capita dietary environmental footprints in the world. But fear not! Although veganism is an ideal solution (I’m patting all the vegans on the back here, especially because you’ve made it very clear who you are), there are many more achievable ways for us mere mortals to help the environment by what we eat. It all starts by what you put in your supermarket basket.

Plan your meals

It’s simple. A well planned supermarket shopping list translates to less food wastage, less impulse spending and more money in your pocket. You won’t have sad and soggy vegetables sitting in the fridge and will also ensure that you have the right ingredients to cook with (rather than opting for another packet of two-minute noodles). Sit down at the start of each week or fortnight and plan your meals. This can be all your meals or just your nightly dinners. Basically just list the ingredients and quantities you will need to buy.

Eg.

MONDAY AND TUESDAY DINNER

Healthy roasted chicken and veggies

2 medium chicken breasts
1 capsicum
1 zucchini
1 clove of garlic
½ an onion
1 cup of broccoli
paprika
BUY
BUY
BUY
BUY
Pantry
Frozen in freezer
In cupboard

2. Moderate your meat intake:
Avoiding meat is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet. Try making Mondays meat-free! Red meat, lamb (if you are feeling particularly boujee) and processed meats such as sausages, salami and ham have particularly high eco-footprints. Eating beef just 1-2 times per week, over an entire year is the equivalent of driving 2482 km in a petrol fuelled car. Attempt to substitute them for lower impact meats such as chicken or pork. In addition, alternatives such as flexitarianism (eating meat more rarely) are feasible for most people. Another great tip is to experiment a bit and learn to cook your favourite recipes a little differently. Why not make a vegetarian lasagne or pork tacos instead of beef! There are also a huge range of legumes, tofu and nuts that can act as meat-like substitutes. Similarly, junk food and most-dairy products have a reasonably large environmental footprint as they are heavily processed. Swap some of your processed snacks for fruit or home baked products (particularly if they are lovingly baked by a parent or grandparent).

3. Eat seasonally
Eating food that is abundant and in season means that produce does not have to be transported internationally from countries such as the US and China to appear on our plates. Buying produce that is seasonal will not only reduce transport emissions but it is often fresher and less expensive. It is easy to tell what is in season based on the fruit and veggies that are the cheapest and most abundant in supply. If in doubt just check the label.
Here are some of my personal Autumn faves in season

Fruit: Most apples are in season, kiwi fruits, avocados, bananas, most oranges, pears
Veggies: beetroot, broccoli, Asian greens, cucumber, carrot, spinach, pumpkin, leek, zucchini
Some ‘treat yourself/I’ve just been paid’ fruits: strawberries, raspberries, grapes, mangos

4. Eat locally
While lowering your environmental dietary footprint can be achieved by shopping at the big two supermarkets, it is even better to support local stores and producers. Right here at ANU, the Food Co-op under Lena Karmel Lodge sells affordable and sustainable local produce. They also sell weekly veggie boxes filled with seasonal fresh fruit and vegetables. Their foods are sold in bulk to reduce excess packaging and plastic.
In addition to places such at the Food Co-op, Canberra is surrounded by quality farms and growers who are passionate about cultivating great produce. The Farmer’s Markets are held every weekend and are a great chance to feel like a prised millennial, walking around in your activewear (with no intention of going to the gym) while holding a bunch of kale. Choku Bai Jo in Lyneham and Curtin also aim to give local farmers another outlet (that’s open during the week) to sell their produce and foods.
Another fantastic thing about shopping at smaller, local sellers is that you are helping to reduce food wastage associated with the big supermarkets. Shockingly, up to 60 per cent of fruit and veggies never even make it to the supermarket shelves because they do not meet the narrow cosmetic standards they set. For example, Woolworths lists an 11,000-word document just describing their standards for bananas. While some stores have introduced ranges such as ‘the odd bunch’ selling ‘ugly’ produce at a discount, local producers will sell you what they grow. They may sell you a slightly bend-ier carrot, or a mysteriously large zucchini, but ultimately it’s what’s on the inside that counts.
The keep-cup revolution and the switch to reusable shopping bags shows us that if small changes are done consistently they can have a huge impact. Planning what you buy, swapping high-carbon footprint foods for lower ones and eating locally and seasonally where possible are some of the easiest ways to ensure that our planet can support future generations. A more sustainable diet is not only healthier for the planet but it is also better for your cash-strapped student wallets and your health.

Jennifer Kerr