How Many Trees?

[Stephen Whiteside]

Since nobody has replied to my earlier post, I'll reply to it myself. (I'm laid up with the flu at the moment, and have to do something to pass the time...)

As I see it, the Green Movement more or less kicked off in the 70s, in the wake of the anti-nuclear movement of the 60s. For the first time in human history it appeared that Mankind actually possessed the ability to destroy their own world. The most graphic example of this was, of course, the atomic bomb, but there was also a growing awareness that natural resources, such as oceans and forests, were not infinite. The collapse of populations of various species of great whale had already occurred, together with a number of fisheries.

So there was a move towards 'sustainable' harvesting of fish, logs, whales, etc. (It was actually a bit more complicated than that in the case of the whales. Firstly, many scientists believed there was no sustainable level of harvesting for them. Secondly, considerations of animal cruelty came to the fore.)

Alongside all of this, though, was another thread. For most of the course of human history, the 'wild' has been seen as something to be tamed. It is essentially hostile, and needs to be tamed. But such was human domination over their environment, there was a real possibility that all the 'wild' places would be removed. And this raised a very interesting question - do the 'wild' places have an intrinsic value all of their own? And the answer, at least in the minds of many people, was 'yes'. This was not, of course, an entirely new idea - think of Thoreau and 'Walden' - but it accelerated rapidly.

What, then, is the value of the 'wild'? At an intellectual level, it can be seen to be a critical reminder to Humanity that they are animals, too, after all - a reminder of their origins. At an emotional level, many people talk of the 'beauty' of wild places, and of the peaceful feelings they encounter when they visit them. Of course, none of this is to ignore the dangers of the wild, also - from the bush walk where the tent got flooded to an encounter with a tiger snake.

Of course, none of this is to say that the Green Movement does not make mistakes. Do they display gross ignorance at times? Yes. What about arrogance? Most certainly. Are they internally consistent? No, not always. Are they reasonable? Often not, though some would argue their very unreasonableness is one of their strengths. Do they behave like an unruly mob? Again, at times, certainly. But all of these flaws are common in all 'movements' - they are not restricted to the Green Movement alone.

Things are poised at a very interesting conjunction right now. Will the Greens be able to repeat the success of the last election without their highly charismatic leader, Bob Brown? My guess is probably not. Would they have been able to if he had not resigned? That is something we will never know.

Fortunately, we live in a democracy - not a perfect democracy, but a pretty good one. If the aspirations of the Green Movement fail to continue to resonate with the general public, their support at the ballot box will fade away.

[Stephen Whiteside]

Snap!

I think my last post addresses most of the issues you raised. I was quite active in environmental politics for a while in the 80s, and sometimes our friends alarmed me as much as our opponents!

As you imply, the city is where the Green Movement is at its most strong, but also at its most ignorant. It's the city people who miss the 'bush' the most, I guess, and it's also this lack of exposure that leads to the silly things they say sometimes. So all of that makes sense - not that it's easy to listen to at times, I know.

I know what you mean about 'unnatural, man-made' structures that acquire a conservation value. The World War Two aircraft that sits on the ocean floor and becomes a haven for marine life. The list is endless. I guess all you can say about these is that they are against the general trend - and people will still support the preservation of a threatened species even if it is being protected - occasionally - in an 'unnatural' way. To my mind, this is quite reasonable.

[william williams]

HI Stephen, I like Ross have no wish to belittle you about the removal of small and large wild life through out Australia there has been many useless plans about that problem
I have lived on the land for more than 50 years of my life. Man, they are the biggest destroyer of habitats for the benefit of the human population though in some cases it has not been for the better.
BUT he has also been the greatest benefactor of wild life but alas it also has a great down side involved with it and people are the greatest problem.
By letting their cats run free to breed and to kill and maim our wild birds and small marsupials.
Doggers that allowing their dogs to roam free and join with the local Dingoes creating havoc with properties domestic stock.
The fishery’s and the CSIRO have documented proof that the Eastern Gray Kangaroo is in greater numbers than when Captain Cook arrived.
But small marsupial and birds have been slaughtered by the cat and the fox and domestic dogs that have gone wild.
The ACT motor insurance known cost for repairs to motor cars has topped $3.5 million all caused by Kangaroo accidents because they will not reduce the numbers in the area.
In my own back yard native birds finches, willywag tails, five species of small parrots and three families of blue wrens and bronze wing pigeon and topknot pigeons has now all gone owing to the cats that run wild if you wish to do good, remove the wild cats dogs and foxes and re educate the population, but I am afraid you will not succeed mate.

[Stephen Whiteside]

Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement, Bill.