Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Climate change, carbon sequestration and Tasmania

By Fred Gale - posted Thursday, 28 August 2008


  • “forest degradation” should refer to “any impacts of any human land-use activity that reduces the carbon stocks of a forested landscape relative to its natural carbon carrying capacity”; and
  • “forest” should be redefined “to recognise the differences between the ecological characteristics of natural forests and industrialised forests, especially plantations. These differences include the higher biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, and carbon residence time of natural forests”.

These authors are building on ecological and conservation literature that better grasps the full range of forests ecological and social values. Nevertheless, they are possibly optimistic about the resilience of natural forests to wildfires, pests, drought and extreme climate events in an era of climate change. Thus, they play down the degree to which climate change raises questions concerning the adequacy of a hands-off approach to maintaining intact natural forests.

Overestimating liberal democratic institutions

In some academic, and much popular, literature a schizophrenic view of liberal democracy is in evidence.

Advertisement

On the one hand, many believe that liberal democratic governments should be, and are in fact, capable of acting in the general public interest. Thus, the argument goes, the policies we get are optimal because governments have consulted all relevant interests, enlisted expert advice, considered available data, and conducted cost-benefit and/or other analyses to reach an appropriate, informed policy decision.

This belief in the autonomous power of governments to make policy in the public interest sits in stark contrast to our awareness of the powerful forces in society that seek to have their own interests met and that threaten trouble, behind closed doors as well as publicly, if they are not.

Our ideal conception of an autonomous state capable of expressing the public interest conflicts markedly with our experience of the state as acting at the behest of powerful societal interests.

Evidence for both conceptions of the state exists. The extent to which one encounters the autonomous or compromised state depends on the country, the sector and the period being studied.

As Lindblom (1982) and others have noted, however, it is a fundamental feature of our capitalist market economy that business is in a privileged position to influence public policy deliberations.

Under capitalist market economies, government has devolved responsibility onto business to invest in production, creating profits for companies, jobs for workers and taxes for governments. These benefits also legitimise governments, enabling them to run strong campaigns for re-election.

Advertisement

The general dependence of governments on business is especially evident in natural resource industries like agriculture, forestry, mining and fisheries. In these sectors, well-organised special interests can bend the public policy agenda in their own direction.

Liberal democracy is permissive with regard to this type of natural resource politics.

As currently structured, liberal democracy cannot deliver sustainable development because governments are incapable over time and across sectors of performing the neutral, impartial role assigned to them in liberal democratic theory.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

First published in the Tasmanian Times on August 25, 2008. This article is adapted from a speech given by the author to the Environment Tasmania Forum to Address Gunns’ Pulp Mill and Climate Issues on August 20, 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Fred Gale is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Government, University of Tasmania, Launceston.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Fred Gale
Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy