Time to Face the Truth

By FRIEDMAN, Andrew

New Zealanders are avoiding dealing with their own environmental impacts by ganging up on minority interests, writes ANDREW FRIEDMAN.

Environmental issues have been particularly prominent in The Press of late: Central Plains Water’s (CPW’s) plans for a vast irrigation scheme drawing from the Rakaia and Waimakariri rivers; the possible degradation of waterways as a result of increased large- scale dairying; and the longer term threat of climatic change.

Despite considerable community concern, seemingly the only groups to take a stand and show leadership are the likes of Fish and Game, the Water Rights Trust and the Malvern Hills Protection Society.

The politics of environmentalism would appear to be a break from the past; it’s not about pandering to, or manipulating, the fears, prejudices and selfish impulses of the masses. These groups are purporting to protect the “commons”, stand up for “Kiwi values”, stop “privatisation” of water, and act as the conscience for rapacious corporates.

At least this is the image presented to the public, and very successfully, too.

At the last ECan elections, a first- time group (WEcan), running on a platform of environmental concern, made a strong showing. The Green Party’s place in the political landscape, despite its minor party status, seems assured. Fish and Game are respected as credible spokespeople for the environment. That is the image, but how accurate is it?

A prime example is Fish and Game, which has been a strident critic of dairying. But despite its image, Fish and Game is no environmental guardian. Salmonids, such as brown trout, which Fish and Game is responsible for, are highly invasive exotic species. Brown trout are on the Invasive Species Specialist Group’s list of the world’s 100 most invasive alien species. They are a highly aggressive predator, at the top of the food chain in our waterways and lakes, with which native fish cannot compete.

New Zealand has only 35 native freshwater fish species, a number of which are under threat of extinction. Native fish and crayfish rarely co- occur with trout. Native crayfish are considered a keystone species. Trout invasions are also commonly associated with increased algal growth (as browsing invertebrates are suppressed) which leads to increased nutrient levels (including nitrates and phosphates) in waterways.

So, trout invasions lead to diminished water quality, algal build- up, increased nitrate levels and localised extinctions of native fish — with cascading effects through the ecosystem. The question is, then, why does Fish and Game choose to publicly castigate dairy farmers for “degradation” while it allows trout to ravage our waterways?

Environmental groups don’t bring issues to prominence, or frame them the way they do, by chance. The burden of the problem is invariably seen to lie with a minority (business) group, which is publicly scapegoated, while the general citizenry is told it needs to make only inconsequential adjustments. Environmental woes are never truly the fault of the majority — telling the urban middle classes they’re an integral part of the problem and that they’re going to have to make the significant changes will not advance one’s political career and agenda very far.

This is why it is dairy farmers, rather than anglers and consumers, who are the cause of degraded waterways. It is far simpler to level the blame at a minority than acknowledge the difficult complexity of the issue. Environmental groups know how to play upon ignorance.

In this way the urban majority can feel good when trifling “eco- friendly” measures such as a reduction in household waste or choosing reusable shopping bags are made, without having to contemplate (let alone make) the major, necessary lifestyle changes, whilst the political stock of the environmental group rises. Nor is there anything principled or selfless here — this is the same old politics of fear and manipulation.

It’s well documented that it is New Zealand’s productive sector that allows the country to enjoy a Western lifestyle; it’s a cliche that agriculture is the country’s backbone because it’s true. At the same time that the primary sector generates our wealth, it is expected to bear the full costs of production (including environmental costs), yet all New Zealanders benefit. Surely then the costs should be borne more equitably? Those whose lifestyles are made possible in this way should pay a more accurate price.

New Zealanders desire the benefits of living in a modern, industrialised country, but are unwilling to pay the true costs of their lifestyle. Political groups such as the Green Party and Fish and Game understand this, regardless of whether they acknowledge it or not, and have been ruthlessly cynical in exploiting it for maximum advantage.

There is little prospect for real solutions when the truth is politically inconvenient. There will be no change to the status quo that has led to our environmental ailments.

So blame dairy farmers and CPW, fret over using plastic bags and worry about your car’s fuel consumption. Just don’t expect it to save anything, except you from some difficult, critical introspection.

* Andrew Friedman is a political science student at the University of Canterbury and a resident of the Waianiwaniwa Valley, which would be flooded if the Central Plains Water scheme goes ahead.

——————–

(c) 2007 Press, The; Christchurch, New Zealand. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.