Shallow Thinking

Poor journalism has become a cover for hatred of environmentalists

The lead editorial of The Weekend Australian December 13-14 2008 takes my prize for the most illogical and inane editorial of 2008. Some failed hack has written a piece that attempts to revive the anti-Marxist debates of the 1960s and 70s and apply them to environmental and climate change policy in the year 2008.

Rather than carefully examine what is happening in the contemporary real world of personal, social and political responses to the enormous environmental and climatic changes that are taking place, the editorial retreats into a cold war rhetoric that should not be left unchallenged.

In the 60s and 70s many scholars of the legacy of Marx critically evaluated the idea that only a form of false consciousness prevented the proletariat from realising its historical mission to overthrow Capitalism. According to the theory, the working class had become diverted by increasing wealth and consumer goodies that prevented them from seeing their true destiny. Good scholarship showed that rather than false consciousness, false theory within the legacy of Marx was at the core of the explanation of why the working class was not revolting against its oppressors, the greedy Capitalists. The idea that iron laws of history (historicism) were working their way out towards an inevitable collapse of Capitalism and the classless society was debunked not only by good scholarship, but also by the terror of totalitarianism in the former Soviet Union and Maoist China. If terror and dictatorship were needed to create a socialist, classless society, then clearly Marx was mistaken.

However, rather than leaving this debate in the 1970s where it belongs, the author of the editorial regurgitates it into the present context of climate change policy. Lets carefully examine the way this is undertaken.

December 13, 2008

Article from: The Australian (editorial is in red)

Environmentalism has become a cover for class hatred

THE on-again, off-again relationship between the progressives and the proletariat has hit a rough patch, this time over saving the planet. The moral middle class has barely forgiven the outer-suburban battlers for propping up John Howard's conservative regime for more than a decade. Now, in what seems to be another infuriating act of false consciousness, the McMansion-dwelling classes appear reluctant to embrace the deep-green agenda on climate change.

For those not in the know, “progressives” in this article means anybody whose politics is vaguely left-leaning. You are likely to be left-leaning if you do not believe that free market Capitalism is the superior way to allocate resources and benefits and burdens in society. If you have a commitment to the common good, social safety nets for the unfortunate and the need for planning and regulation of essential public services such as ‘the market’, hospitals, transport and education, then you are probably “progressive”.

The “proletariat” or working class is not defined in the editorial but presumably, they are the “true believers”, those who still adhere to the idea that revolution is destiny and that the revolution is just around the corner. Traditionally, they opposed the Bourgeoise or the ruling class, those who owned capital. Despite being a critically endangered conceptual species in the contemporary world, the editorial seems to need the proletarian presence to make the whole story line work.

The “moral middle class” (another term for progressives) are introduced as the natural opponents of the proletariat or “outer-suburban battlers”. It is claimed that these battlers not only supported John Howard and his Conservative rule for a decade, they now refuse to take on board the progressive green agenda.

We are told that the green agenda is both “environmentalism” and “deep-green”. Environmentalism is a term that is used by serious academics of green politics to describe a reform movement designed to bring the excesses of rampant economic growth and development into line with a broad stewardship ethic. Environmentalism represents a shift from gross environmental despotism to good management or environmental stewardship. This is a position many leading global corporations have taken into their corporate philosophy in the last 3 decades.

Deep Green positions are more radical than environmentalism in that rather than reform, they proposed radical transformation of society to one that exists within biophysical reality and the limits to growth. Such limits are material flows (eg Peak Oil) and the ability of waste sinks to assimilate our wastes (eg the atmosphere and CO2). Deep ecological positions also advocate values that are life affirming (life is intrinsically valuable), biocentric (the variety of life has value) and egalitarian (all life is of equal value). These values are diametrically opposed to the anthropocentric or human values implied in stewardship.

While the progressives might have an environmentalist stance on climate change, they are unlikely to embrace deep green positions. If they are, then some evidence would be needed to support such a claim.

The rift widened this week when Paul Howes, the Australian Workers Union national secretary, argued persuasively in The Australian against emission restrictions that would drive trade-exposed, energy-intensive industries overseas. "My members and their wives, husbands and children are getting pretty tired of being told their jobs are dirty and polluting, particularly by bankers relentlessly pocketing their money and frittering away superannuation," he wrote.

The editorial uses material from AWU secretary, Paul Howes as evidence to support its claim that the battlers in the McMansions (the new proletariat) are actively opposing the progressive deep green agenda on emissions restrictions (what ever that is) on climate change. Howes, however, targets greedy bankers, not progressive environmentalists as the ‘enemy’ (I have yet to come across a deep green banker). Despite the argument from Howes, there are many in the trade union movement who see climate change as a direct threat to their future job security and a future threat to their children and grandchildren. The views of one trade unionist does not make for a sound argument in rejecting the need for emissions restrictions.

For the tertiary-educated greens, it felt like a knife in the back. Didn't the bourgeoisie stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers to defeat Mr Howard's extreme workplace laws? And this is how they are rewarded! Class treachery of the highest order.

The implication now is that tertiary education is a likely cause of this mess. The suppressed premise is that academics in universities are all socialists and deep greens and that their graduates, progressive tertiary educated greens, are likely to see the workers as traitors to the glorious cause of the failure of global capitalism and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The progressives (now the equivalent of the Bourgeoisie) supported the workers on reform of Work Choices, but they are now being denied support from the workers over green issues such as emissions restrictions.

The claim that concern about job security in the energy intensive sector represents “class treachery” to the green progressives is interesting, but totally unsubstantiated. Again, there are many in the trade union movement who talk about a just transition to more sustainable forms of production and are willing to see transformation from an energy intensive scenario to one that is based on renewable energy and carbon neutrality.

It is easy being green in the leafy inner city, where public transport is available, the tofu co-op is around the corner and the local cafe serves a decent fair-trade soy cappuccino. It is much harder in the outer suburbs, where two cars are a necessity, not a choice. Much of what passes for green commentary is a thinly disguised attack on the suburbs and the people who choose to live there. Flat-screen televisions, V8 utes and lawns that must be mown and watered are evidence of their environmental depravity.

The paragraph above stereotypes inner city people who are green as having it easy. By contrast people in the outer burbs find it impossible to be anything other than environmentally despotic. Inner city greens then see the outer despots as depraved. Thus a new class war is set up between the inner pro-greens (cappuccino set) and the outer anti-greens (Flat-screen watchers) ... the modern equivalent of the old war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Nice plot for a modern rock opera, however, it is not serious journalism, nor should it be taken seriously.

Every now and then a proxy-war breaks out, the latest being a proposal to bring V8 Supercar racing to Sydney's Olympic Park at Homebush, a suburb that lies on the geographical fault-line between environmentally conscious inner-western enclaves and the western suburbs. The arguments about trees, noise and air pollution will be familiar to Melburnians who followed the debate about Formula One Grand Prix racing at Albert Park and the environmental subtext is the same: shouldn't Lewis Hamilton drive a Prius?

As evidence for the claim that a new class and culture war is being created by the progressives, the plot is thickened with an argument that the V8 supercar event proposed for Homebush in Sydney highlights the great green divide between the inner and the outer burbs. The idea that Lewis Hamilton or Garth Tander should drive a Hybrid is supposed to represent the values implicit in the progressive “environmental subtext” while all outer suburban folk are anti-green V8 ute driving revheads is just plain absurd. Loss of trees, excessive noise and air pollution are all serious issues for all those affected by them ... it does The Australian no service to trivialise them.

Kevin Rudd is acutely aware of the mood in the suburbs, where voters would take a dim view of any government that pushed deep-green policies at the expense of jobs or prosperity. We confidently predict, therefore, that the emissions targets the Government will announce on Monday will not be deep enough to mollify the tree-hugging Left. Once again, the green movement has positioned itself at the extremity of debate, a long way from the pragmatic centre ground defined by popular sentiment and occupied by both major parties. But that, we suspect, is where the moral minority feels at home, recycling the bathwater and looking smugly down their noses at the rest of us.

The editorial claims to know the “mood in the suburbs” and that the mood is a pragmatic one far removed from the views of the “tree-hugging Left”, deep greens. This position, supposedly co-extensive with “the green movement”, is characterised as being extreme and out of touch with “popular sentiment”.

However, it is the author of the editorial who seems to be totally out of touch with basic ideological positions in the C21. To be Left is still to embrace (albeit in a socialist form) the super-ideology of industrialism with its attendant commitment to constant economic growth and technological progress (eg China). To be deep green is to reject that super ideology for a ‘limits to growth’ and eco-technology position. To be a tree-hugger is to conserve or preserve something (possibly a tree or trees) that are deemed to be valuable for some reason. To be a part of the green movement is to occupy some part of the environmental spectrum from light green (shallow) to dark green (deep). To mash up all these positions into a crude editorial blender is to embrace ignorance and perpetuate falsehoods. Not a good move for Australia’s only national newspaper, one that presumably can afford to pay professional journalists to write their editorials.

As for the last couple of lines, the real motivation of the editorial is finally revealed. Reference is now made to the “moral minority” (as opposed to the moral majority?) that recycles its bathwater and negatively evaluates all other people and positions. People who are concerned about green issues such as climate change, water recycling and pollution are portrayed as smug and out of touch with political reality.

However, worldwide, it is clear that far from being a minority position occupied by extremists, environmentalism (especially in its stewardship form) has been universally embraced as vital for a sustainable future in both ecological and economic senses.

Extreme green positions have been advocated by a small minority of theorists but their influence remains marginal at best. However, given delay on addressing the causes of climate change (greenhouse gas emissions) and a runaway greenhouse disaster scenario a serious possibility, extreme green positions are likely to become more mainstream as people of good will realise that only rapid and deep cuts to our greenhouse gases will stop disaster unfolding.

Where this editor appears to feel at home is with a role that invents false conflict (wedging) with the hope that such conflict will prevent consolidated and cooperative action to implement carbon reduction targets that will make a difference to the problems we face. Recycling stale cold war rhetoric is a lot worse than recycling bathwater. The motivation for such ‘bad faith’ can only be extreme scepticism or denialism in the cause of inaction on the whole climate change issue.

The Australian and its owners should be ashamed that journalism has now been reduced to slack use of slogans and the portrayal of complex social and climatic reality via crude stereotyping that says more about the values of the author than those he/she is trying to portray. It is time that The Australian ditched such ignorant extremism ... even Rupert Murdoch (in 2007) has publically uttered a position that is far more mainstream:

“Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.”