When American, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and South Korean representatives sat down with their Australian counterparts in Sydney in January at the so-called Asia-Pacific climate pact they all represented governments that had made choices. Some of the choices were well known and obvious -- for national selfishness and against international cooperation; for coal and oil and against renewable energy; for profligate energy use and against energy conservation; for extreme laissez faire capitalism and against any business regulation; for the old and against the young; for their group which represents half the CO2 output of the world and against Kyoto. But there was another choice they were making which has been barely discussed -- a conscious choice in favour of mining (coal and oil) workers, mining towns and mining businesses, and against farmers, rural communities, and agricultural businesses. It is a particularly strange choice for America and Australia, both of whose governments pride themselves on their links to the land and to farming people. It is also a strange choice because when its implications are understood, and begin to take effect, there will be outrage among the rural voters, whether in Kansas or Queensland, who up until now have supported George Bush and John Howard so faithfully.
These two neoconservative governments have got away with this so far because they have pretended they were making quite a different choice -- between the economy and the environment; between radical greenies and working people; between national interest and evil UN. As long as environmentalists have talked about habitat loss, and species extinction, of drowning polar bears and early nesting birds, they have put the issue right into the frame created by the Bush Administration and Howard government for their energy company clients. The general public, guided by the mainstream media, thinks 'the environment' is something 'over there,' perhaps on a small Pacific Island, or an African mountain, and involves species like spotted owls and corroboree frogs, so if there is a 'choice between jobs and the environment,' the choice appears clear.
If I turn my head from my computer and look out of my window to the north I could almost see in the distance, if there weren't hills in the way, the small country town of Goulburn. It was one of the first country towns established in Australia, and it is perhaps the first to feel the effects of global warming up close and personal. Goulburn's water supply, which comes from a very large new dam, has been frequently almost dry in recent years. Severe water restrictions are in place, and plans are underway for large scale recycling of waste water for drinking.
The experience of Goulburn in the last couple of years is a taste, a small taste, of what is to come to country towns all over Australia and America. The drying up of water supplies leads to a halt to town development and population growth, swimming pools and sports fields are affected, as well as private and public gardens. The quality of life declines as a result, and the businesses (such as nurseries) which support leisure activities are affected. As droughts and heat take a grip on farmers there will be less and less opportunity for cropping, less livestock selling, and farm incomes will go down and farmers will sell up or amalgamate. As they do the businesses selling farm equipment and the like, as well as agricultural service institutions, will decline. In addition there will be more wildfires, more farms destroyed, more forest razed. The combined effects of drought, heat and fire are going to seriously impact on the plant and animal life that is the basis for tourist interest in so many regions, and tourist numbers will fall. All of that decline in activity will affect shops and garages, cafes and restaurants, transport, banks, schools, hospitals and all the rest of the operations that make up a town. What are now thriving local communities in rich farming areas are going to become like the tiny ghost towns of the desert and semi-desert areas of both countries.
While all of that is going on, the few towns that are involved in digging up coal, or drilling for oil will thrive even as they make the problem worse, much worse. Funny way to run an economy eh?
Bush and Howard have always said that our countries couldn't afford Kyoto. What they meant was that their corporate friends couldn't afford it. Now their friends in country towns are going to pay the price for that misjudgement. The environment isn't over there, it is here, in our main streets, and small business, in our farmhouses, and the cost of rising CO2 levels will be too high for us to bear.