you're reading...
Australian Politics

Environmental Elitism and the Inconsequential Worker

people need jobs

Bolman and Deal’s “Reframing Organisations” encourages leaders to look through various ‘windows’ to reframe and solve problems.  The Author argues that climate change activism is led from a position of privilege. To counter this, the worker must be central to the climate change debate.

The Rise of Climate Change Activism

Climate Change Activism is not a passing phase. Warnings about climate change have progressed since the 1980’s. Aerosols and cows expelling gas would destroy the earth. Climate change activism has become increasingly more prevalent in politics, media, and society.

The current phase, post-Paris Agreement, is a particularly strong phase of climate change activism. This is globally pushing leaders to implement legislation and regulations to mitigate the impact of climate change.

The Force of Change on the working class

The vocal aim of activists to shut down entire industries, such as coal (and some say beef is on their radar as well), places climate change as a (negative) force of change on the working class.

We are no longer in an era where we are debating the reality of climate change. The majority of people accept that climate change is real and we must act on climate change.

Many activists still operate in the mindset that any question about jobs equals denialism. They do not try to understand if the other person believes in climate change. Lectures about the merits of climate change stream forth in abundance, regardless.

Abuse and ridicule are common responses to the jobs issue. A strong position is jobs do not matter in the end. They argue fiercely if mining destroys the earth, there will be no jobs at all. This is particularly exacerbated by the current anti-Adani movement at present.

Activists who do try to engage only have one solution – all the coal workers will now work in renewables.  There is no vision to reinvent communities or truly see the human factor and offer diversity and true renewal.

Other activists are quite discriminatory about who deserves jobs. They will respond with the notion that Great Barrier Reef jobs are more important than coal jobs. The notion of job losses in the coal sector is sometimes even celebrated by activists as an achievement.

Rebuttals are in the form of industry that is not yet prevalent.

Oh! They can just go get jobs in the renewabls industry!

The conversation around jobs and regional communities towards a post-coal world is extremely difficult to get off the ground.

Concern for Jobs isn’t Climate Change Denial

Environmental activists must cease the perverse accusation that one is a “climate change denier” if displaced workers are a major concern

(And Malcolm Roberts, by some weird turn of events you read this; despite what you may have read from Climate Change activists yelling at me on Twitter – I am not in love with you).

To achieve positive progress we need to reframe the debate with the worker as the centre. This will highlight the negative impact climate change action has on workers.

Environmentalists must question if their position is so pure that negative consequences, such as mass layoffs are inconsequential.  If mass layoffs are inconsequential, and workers can’t put food on the table, then does one’s activism come from a position of privilege?

The Negative Consequence of Positive Action

Activists generally sincerely value their actions and advocacy as a positive effect on society. I do not disagree that this is the intent with climate change activists.

However, I would strongly argue to value the intent of activism is not enough. I would also argue it is ignorant.  Activists must also value the consequences of their actions, not just the intent. Sometimes a positive action can result in negative consequences.

An environmental lens ensures the following remain silent:

Displaced workers, economic loss, increased welfare, homelessness, poverty, despair, an increase in psychosomatic symptoms and even suicide.

Reframing the debate with the worker as central to the climate change debate is essential. This places climate change action as an externality that is a force of change on industry and work. This shifts the worker from an irrelevant byproduct of change to the central focus.

This should serve as the impetus to mitigate harm to the working class co-existent with positive action on climate change.

What does Feminism have to do with this?

I am using this example to demonstrate activism and privilege. Often the negative consequences of positive action, are not recognised. The activist does not have a desire to reframe the debate. It is not until voices push for reframing that the negative consequences of activism are realised.

As a white liberal/radical feminist in the 1980’s, I was oblivious that the activism I participated in had negative consequences. This activism had a negative affect on women of colour and also misrepresented men of colour.

It has been through women of colour persisting with their voices, who created this change. This forced white liberal feminists to reframe their activism and recognise specific feminist issues for women of colour.  Many white liberal feminists now follow women of colour as allies in support of their activism.

Through reframing by women of colour, white liberal feminists could then identify the negative consequences. They recognise their activism was from a position of privilege.

A united and stronger feminist wave was born.

Stop Lecturing and Start Uniting

Activism that spares no thought about how to alleviate harm on the worker is from a position of privilege.

Activism that is not involved in ideas and discussions to mitigate harm to the worker, is a position of privilege.

Persisting with ‘lecturing and convincing others’ and shouting down concerns about jobs is regressive and obstructive.

If this continues, unlike feminism – a stronger united movement will not be born.

Privilege and Elitism

Privilege is a term commonly used in sociology and feminist literature and it is described as:

As a concept, privilege is defined in relational terms and in reference to social groups, and involves unearned benefits afforded to powerful social groups within systems of oppression (Kendall, 2006; McIntosh, 1988).

Within Environmental Literature this concept is defined as “Elitism” (Dunlap, 1986). There are three types of environmental elitism.

  • Compositional Elitism: The suggestion that environmentalists are generally more upper-class and financially well off.
  • Ideological Elitism: The suggestion that environmentalists protect their own interests at the cost of the poor – i.e. Preventing a power plant on land that is beneficial to their own interests.

The third type of elitism is the most relevant for the purpose of this article:

  • Impact Elitism: The suggestion that environmental reform measures that have (intended or not) regressive, distributional impacts on society. (ie job losses, economic loss).

Some examples of impact elitism are:

  • The cost of reducing energy costs benefits the wealthy and excludes the poor. (Older cheaper cars versus newer Tesla cars).
  • Solar panelling and insulation benefits wealthier home buyers and excludes those who rent
  • People from poorer countries live in unhealthy environments. This is because they cannot afford the infrastructure or cost of electricity for a healthier, cleaner environment.
  • Purchasing a set of environmentally friendly shopping bags as a choice between an inedible bag or much-needed food.
  • Wealthier advanced countries advocating against poorer countries accessing fossil fuel energy. Although this may be a step enable fuelling, farming, agriculture and new industry.
  • Activism to shut down an energy intensive plant, even though its closure will result in mass layoffs.

Reframing the Debate

The Climate Change debate would look much different if activists, politicians and media reframed this to a worker-centred debate.

Decisions around budget measures, domestic and foreign affairs, industrial relations, training and the distribution of revenue would look much different.

The continual lecturing and ridicule from activists who are stuck in the view that the majority of people still need convincing are stifling the debate.

The leader of the Labor Party, Bill Shorten, is also guilty of this. Shorten’s narrative concentrates too much on the environmental, rather than the working class.

It is up to the Australian Labor party to lead serious reform in this area. Leave the environmentalism to the Greens.  Australian Labor should be working to mitigate the effects of climate change whilst simultaneously loudly advocating for national reform. Championing the new way we look at jobs, industry and the economy in a post-coal world.

A Serious Transition is Urgent

The Labor party has a transition document available.  However, in my view, it does not go far enough.  The legacy of Labor is about national progressive reform. I welcome a transition plan. However, one that responds within an environmental framework is not enough. The answer is not just about renewables.

We urgently need a visionary set of serious reforms for regional communities.

  • How will revenue be redistributed?
  • How will the loss of coal revenue impact regions?
  • What are the impacts on specific communities, rather than nationally?
  • Should we focus on regional unemployment or a national average?
  • Do education and training need greater investment?
  • Should renewables training colleges be set up in regional universities?
  • Do we fully fund TAFE to secure the necessary training required to reskill for the future?
  • How do we attract a range of non-energy related industry investment to regional communities?
  • Is funded redeployment for displaced workers to existing and new industry an option?
  • Should regionally focused apprenticeship quotas be funded on a national scale?
  • Will redistribution of centralised public services to regions relieve the burden?

These are some questions to be asked.

The Labor Party’s narrative about the world of work in a world of serious climate change action is also non-existent.

Unless we fight and win a region-focused jobs and economic transition plan, the resultant high unemployment, filled with skilled heavy industry unemployed, only risks tipping the balance of power to the employer. This is a huge risk for further erosion of job security, safety and fair wages and conditions.

I have renewed hope now that Australian Unions are speaking up.

Food on the table, rewarding and permanent secure work should be an inherent value we ALL fight for.

A Synergistic Policy Framework

This cyclical fight does not have to continue to be the case.  The “left” appears to be fighting itself to champion one social cause (environmentalism) at the expense of another (the worker).

Mass layoffs and closures will become a prevalent and a visible acknowledgement of successful climate change activism. Without a serious region-focused economic and jobs transition plan, this divide will deepen. It will hurt.

Arguments that the worker is secondary give fuel to the ONLY argument that the actual climate change deniers have left. That is pretending to care about the working class as the reason to block change.  We saw that in abundance this week with the Liberal and National Party’s rejection of the Finkel Review.

The absence of narrative about jobs is also partly attributed to the rise of Trump and Hanson. I do not want that to continue. Do you?

Reframing and placing the worker at the centre of the policy debate and self-identifying privilege is the first step. A step towards a synergistic policy framework of positive climate change action united in positive progress for the worker.

About trishcorry

I love to discuss Australian Politics. My key areas of interest are Welfare, Disadvantage, emotions in the workplace, organisational behaviour, stigma, leadership, women, unionism. I am pro-worker and anti-conservativism/Liberalism. You will find my blog posts written from a Laborist / Progressive Slant.


53 thoughts on “Environmental Elitism and the Inconsequential Worker

  1. You are taking one small section of the concerned population and blanket all with their cloak. It is not elitism. Ex-miners do not have to work in renewables – they can work in rehabilitating mines if they wish (the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for that anyway because mining company shenanigans are not covered by law). Mining jobs are increasingly being lost to robotics, as are abattoir jobs, farming jobs, manufacturing jobs, accounting jobs – even writing jobs – and anything else you want to name, so your argument is somewhat erratic. Governments now are at the beck and call of corporations so necessary jobs such as reaforestation, environmental repair, public housing and the like will be neither funded nor done. Society must change and present conservative thinking and economic rationalism must be overthrown along with the governments that espouse them.


    Posted by frankpovah | June 15, 2017, 5:39 pm
    • Frank you have missed the entire point of the article. Sorry. Nowhere in this article an I championing coal. After immersing myself intensely amongst environmentalists on social media trying to raise the issue of jobs, I strongly argue this is a strong observable phenomena, not a small segment misrepresented. Thank you for alternative jobs ideas. It is what we need to move forward.


      Posted by trishcorry | June 15, 2017, 5:44 pm
      • I didn’t say you were championing coal – I criticised (kindly) your blanket view of environmental campaigners annd commentators.


        Posted by frankpovah | June 15, 2017, 5:46 pm
        • Thanks Frank. As I said, for about two months now, I have immersed myself quite deeply amongst climate change activists, anti-Adani activists and I have attempted to engage in conversations about jobs. This is not a misrepresented segment. This is an extremely prevalent opinion, that renewables will magically just replace coal. The amount of abuse I have copped, just trying to raise the point of jobs has at times been too much and I’ve had to just shut it down and walk away. If you don’t belong to this prevalent group and you are putting the worker first and thinking about real solutions that are not just about renewables, thank you.

          Liked by 1 person

          Posted by trishcorry | June 15, 2017, 5:49 pm
          • Well renewables have already replaced coal in most of the ‘developed’ world including China and India. It is only rearguard action by purposely fearmongering, corrupt and/or ignorant politicians in countries like Australia and the USA that are keeping it alive. Have you any idea of the magnitude of orders being placed with China by Indian interests, both commercial and government? Australia could have been benefitting from this boom if it had not been for short-sighted (and industry influenced) politicians from both major parties – and now most of the minor parties and one-issue politicians in Canberra and most state governments.


            Posted by frankpovah | June 15, 2017, 6:03 pm
            • I am not sure if that is a general comment, or you are trying to convince me of the value of renewables China has engaged in.


              Posted by trishcorry | June 15, 2017, 6:10 pm
              • A general comment I suppose, but India is placing orders by the gigawatt – and that is fact. With its “enemy” no less.


                Posted by frankpovah | June 15, 2017, 6:12 pm
                • Thanks. I thought I had made it pretty clear in the article, I am not Pro Coal, nor deny the existence of climate change but seek a series of reforms for a way forward in terms of jobs.


                  Posted by trishcorry | June 15, 2017, 6:13 pm
                  • Trish, robotics is a far bigger threat to jobs in all sectors than the shutting down of coal mines anyway. As an aside, back in the 80s, the then mining union in the Hunter Valley was providing post coal training for its members. I don’t know what happened to that. And as another one: it is a source of much wry amusement to me that La Rinehart is now seen as the champion and saviour of the rangeland beef industry when she, and before her, her equally rapacious father, destroyed the industry in the Pilbara.


                    Posted by frankpovah | June 15, 2017, 6:22 pm
                    • Thanks Frank. Automation of jobs is constantly used by online activists to point out we do not need to talk about jobs displaced by climate action, as they are going anyway.


                      Posted by trishcorry | June 15, 2017, 6:27 pm
                    • We need to talk about the future of all jobs for all reasons. Forgive me, Trish, because I like you and agree with much of what I have read of yours. However, I think you are tinged with more than a little elitism yourself when it comes to this issue.


                      Posted by frankpovah | June 15, 2017, 6:39 pm
                    • Ok that is an interesting point. How is pushing for politicians esp Labor and pro climate change people to put workers first elitist?


                      Posted by trishcorry | June 15, 2017, 6:41 pm
      • Emissions from coal burning will condemn this planet to extinction we must use the 21st century renewable energy sources to survive, many people underestimate the damage being done by coal. There are many more jobs in solar than coal, and Australia is badly in need of jobs with 2.6 million people either unemployed or underemployed currently.


        Posted by townsvilleblog | June 16, 2017, 11:00 am
  2. Without dramatic and urgent action on climate change it really won’t matter. I gave society as we know it four generations a little less than a generation ago – I think I was being optimistic – counting a generation the old way at 30 years.


    Posted by frankpovah | June 15, 2017, 6:45 pm
    • Thanks Frank. Your argument is another point constantly made by online activists about why we can’t talk about jobs. That is why my article calls for the ALP to deliver an urgent set of national reforms towards a post coal world. It should have been done years ago. To shut down a convo about jobs because climate change is above everything else, is not helpful. It is a strong point I make in my article.


      Posted by trishcorry | June 15, 2017, 6:48 pm
      • But can’t you see it really won’t matter unless we act and act now? And the ALP is a lost cause. They are as beholden to the rulers of the world as their so called opposites. I had better make that my last word, lest I become angry at the wrong people. I have been watching this develop since I was 15 years old and living in WA – four decades ago now. The real rot set in in that state with the Ord River scheme and its spores have infected the rest of the country. We shall have to agree to disagree.


        Posted by frankpovah | June 15, 2017, 6:53 pm
  3. the whole structure of Australia needs looking at…
    renewable energy systems represent significant structural changes:

    jobs for construction, minimal jobs for maintenance, no infrastructure for fuel supply
    small scale can be distributed anywhere, rooftops, communities
    bigger scale connects to transmission lines to cities (eg sited near existing generation but no fuel infrastructure needed)

    so initial jobs near where people already live, then min jobs
    if we have a real NBN people then jobs can be distributed just like wind/solar

    transport, sewerage/potable water supply, social, cultural … still reasons/excuses for bigger cities towns?

    what will we do when everyone gets paid a basic universal wage (its coming provided we can get rid of the wealthy dictatorships…)?

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by David Brown | June 15, 2017, 10:17 pm
  4. filed under Workers’ Rights, next to Unemployed Workers Union


    Posted by David Brown | June 15, 2017, 10:51 pm
  5. Totally a differing argument to the one you put forward Trish { I agree with the majority of points in your treatise}

    However in saying this my argument is a companion one to yours
    It`s an argument that can be implemented immediately by State governments and Federal
    My argument is rehabilitation of over 60,000 abandoned mines in Australia http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/australia-institute-report-raises-concerns-on-mine-rehab/8270558

    State govs have taken Bonds for rehabilitation yet no work is done
    These bonds are that miniscule that miners just forfeit their leases when grades become too low,or economic pressures beckon

    The whole system is wrong/broken/corrupt and dyslexic
    Yes we need jobs and rehabilitation could easily employ a half million people in the short term

    We need another Kevin 07,a man of foresight&courage who would see the need to directly stimulate what I`ve written

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Bighead1883 | June 16, 2017, 4:25 pm
  6. Kevin won`t be back,yet he was the man for his time,ending 12 years of Howard
    I also would not like to see Julia back,but either are preferable to this lot
    We have Shorten

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Bighead1883 | June 16, 2017, 4:30 pm
  7. Not going to happen Trish.
    What is required is going to happen and that is, most will spend the rest of their lives on the dole and will have to subsist on diminishing quotas and rations. If it is any consolation, the fortunes of the less than 1% will vanish and they will be in the same life boat as the rest of us. It is easy to guess who will be tossed overboard first.
    Rather than creating jobs, we should be destroying them. Until we do, our environment will continue to be sacrificed for the sake of economic growth.

    “Only the tyrannical state, with its monopoly on violence, its enormous bureaucracies, its tentacles reaching into every facet of life, will have the power to save us from the stupidity that we called the freedom to grow forever.”

    And the tyrannical state has no intention of doing so.

    “There is no point in saving the planet if we ruin the economy doing it.” — former NSW Premier Morris Iemma


    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Harquebus | June 17, 2017, 9:44 am
    • That’s a unique perspective that martyrs humans by pushing them into poverty for a better planet. I think we can do both.


      Posted by trishcorry | June 17, 2017, 9:51 am
      • Humans love martyrs, and love being them. Judaeism, C hristianity, Islam, Buddhism, all thrive on sadomasochistic concepts of sacrifice and blood letting – not for the planet but for some merciful god. Medicine is based on it. Economics is based on it. Conservative followers of free market capitalism (rape, pillage and looting for the hipster) are based on it. It’s THAT which must be turned around.

        Liked by 1 person

        Posted by frankpovah | June 17, 2017, 10:17 am
        • Ok so you think a jobless society that increases poverty is a great future? I certainly do not. Unless the Government owns all means of production then there is some element of capitalism for people to have the right to work. I support a mixed market with a welfare state. I don’t support your vision Frank.

          Liked by 1 person

          Posted by trishcorry | June 17, 2017, 10:25 am
          • It’s a lot better than no future.
            All that sustains us is in terminal decline. The welfare states will not survive this.

            Liked by 1 person

            Posted by Harquebus | June 17, 2017, 11:11 am
            • Ok I understand you have expressed we need to kill off people to survive as well? Is that right?


              Posted by trishcorry | June 17, 2017, 11:16 am
              • I have never said any such thing. To kill people. We have politicians that do that already. I prefer a more collaborative and humane approach.
                Please don’t put words in my mouth. That is a lefty tactic that I am getting very weary of.


                Posted by Harquebus | June 17, 2017, 11:26 am
                • Ok I thought your position was on weeding out the population. It might have been someone else. Sorry about that.


                  Posted by trishcorry | June 17, 2017, 11:47 am
                  • My position hasn’t changed. Population reduction and control is the only viable solution for avoiding total collapse. That doesn’t mean that I endorse outright “killing people”. Nature has that process in hand and there is a good possibility that warfare will also contribute.
                    Jobs are of secondary importance when contemplating the preservation of the natural world upon which, our very survival depends.

                    “our situation is already so serious, and so many self-reinforcing feedback loops are already in play, that we are in the process of causing our own extinction. Worse yet, some are convinced that it could happen far more quickly than generally believed possible”

                    Another problem we are about to face is the decline of agriculture because of changing climate and the fact that the whole industry is totally dependent on petroleum based machinery, transport and fertilizers. Economic collapse or even a severe recession will severely limit this essential resource.

                    Apologies for hijacking your blog. It was not my intention. I just wanted to point out to you why unemployment will increase and there is nothing that you or anyone else can do about it.



                    Posted by Harquebus | June 17, 2017, 3:14 pm
                    • H you are not hijacking my blog. I don’t agree it will just increase. There are plenty of options not used including Govt funded positions. Proper Paid work, never work for the dole. I don’t support that. Ok so you are about population reduction which I have huge concerns with and will never agree. You are not alone in the research I have done for this piece H. Plenty of others I spoke to expressed the environment comes before humans. It’s a doomsday tactic that makes me feel sick. However it is important for me to understand people’s positions as this line of thinking plays a huge part in what I propose in this article. Meaning in the attempt to take action on climate change, the position you and others take is a life if poverty and even death from poverty and abject depression is of no concern as the environment must come first. I understand we don’t agree and this is not an argument. I’m simply reflecting back trying to construct meaning. Is my interpretation correct?


                      Posted by trishcorry | June 17, 2017, 3:23 pm
      • Your thinking is wrong and is typical of that which is delaying us from doing what is required.
        No offense.


        Posted by Harquebus | June 17, 2017, 11:07 am
        • Explain why it is wrong instead of dropping an ambiguous accusation.


          Posted by trishcorry | June 17, 2017, 11:08 am
          • The pursuit of population and economic growth is required to pay off debts. The diminishing returns on resources and energy are physical limitations that are bringing this economic absurdity an end and there is nothing that anyone can do about it except, get ready.
            When the credit cards stop working, everything stops.
            Attempting to preserve or even worse, create jobs, worsens our predicament. I think that we would be better off working out how we can survive such a scenario rather than continue with the same policies that created it.

            I do not want us to go down the same path as we have done before. I have stated my opinion. We can argue all day and neither of us will change our minds.
            If you want clarification or additional information, I am happy to comply.

            Liked by 1 person

            Posted by Harquebus | June 17, 2017, 11:24 am
  8. Communism and freed market capitalism both have within them the seeds of their own destruction. And they are the seeds of human greed,

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by frankpovah | June 17, 2017, 10:31 am
    • I’m sorry Frank. This just sounds like an excuse to not put workers central. In my article I said that some activists do not believe that is important because CC comes before anything else. I’m trying to understand if that is your position here


      Posted by trishcorry | June 17, 2017, 10:33 am
      • Okay Trish: Of course we must put people at the centre of this, but while ever people (including the pseudo battlers) act against their own best interests, we are fighting a losing battle. Governments and other pollies have them convinced that the “green terrorists” are out to destroy them, when in fact it is the people the “battlers” support that are killing the. In the USA when I was living there, the main funders of the Tea Party were people like the Waltons and the Kochs who exported “all the jobs to China and Mexico” and paid protesters to campaign against that very thing.

        Liked by 1 person

        Posted by frankpovah | June 17, 2017, 12:15 pm
        • Frank please read the last section of my article again. I am calling for unity. The argument of the Green Terrorist is only exacerbated by Greens activists not caring about the worker and making a case for those who oppose climate change that jobs don’t matter. You are defeating your own cause.


          Posted by trishcorry | June 17, 2017, 12:26 pm
  9. Trish
    A humble existence does not have to mean poverty stricken.
    If we continue with our growth dependent consumer economy, the resulting destruction of our environment and loss of agricultural production will produce results far worse than poverty.
    A static global population of a billion living frugally would consume and pollute far less than we do now and provide a much greater share of resources for all with no need to create new jobs. Living frugally would have to include the wealthy who, are doing all they can to avoid this at our and our environment’s expense.

    As I said, most will just just have to stay idle. The natural world, already in terminal decline, can not absorb any new jobs let alone maintain the ones we have now without an ecological and subsequent economic and civil collapse.
    The growth economy has outgrown our ability to sustain it.

    We really need people like you who, have some influence on those on the left, to realize our the true nature of our predicament and advocate alternative solutions and not the same old same old that got us into this mess in the first place. Those on the right and at theAIMN are in complete denial and are a lost cause. I have been banned from theAIMN by the way, again.

    “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” — Albert Einstein

    “Population overshoot. Two of the most undesirable words one could ever utter in a globalized consumer culture predicated on buying ever more stuff and having ever more babies to plug in to the hyperconsumption matrix and perpetually restart the cycle. (closely followed by two other most undesirable words; ecological overshoot.) These conditions are unsustainable and omnicidal.”
    “In my view, the economics of 7.5 billion people on one planet point to one outcome, 2 more undesirable words; population dieback.”
    “Virtually every major problem, from climate change and wars to mass migrations and resource scarcity has its root in too many people.”

    “Despite the accumulating evidence of impending crisis, the world community seems incapable of responding effectively.”
    “The proximate drivers are excess economic production and consumption, and over-population – human impact on the ecosphere is a product of population multiplied by average per capita consumption”
    “Failure to implement a global sustainability plan that addresses excess consumption and over-population while ensuring greater social equity may well be fatal to the human prospect.”

    “The growing human population – which has increased by 130 per cent in the last 50 years and is set to rise to more than 10 billion by 2060 – and our increasing demand for resources as we become wealthier is ramping up the pressure on the natural world.”

    “Mass migration, starvation, civil unrest: Overpopulation unites all of these.”
    “Decades of United Nations projections for the year 2000 came within 3 percent of the actual total”
    “Current growth adds the population equivalent of a new Iran or Germany every year.”

    “One key point that jumps out and captures the overall picture is that the Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures more than 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, has declined by 52 per cent since 1970. Put another way, in less than two human generations, population sizes of vertebrate species have dropped by half. These are the living forms that constitute the fabric of the ecosystems which sustain life on Earth – and the barometer of what we are doing to our own planet, our only home. We ignore their decline at our peril.” – Living Planet Report 2014



    Posted by Harquebus | June 17, 2017, 11:35 pm
  10. Trish I too wonder at the targetting of some forms of protest when living in a global village as we do the elitists manage to hand pick easy targets for protest and the big picture is left to chance.I am continually told to look to China and India and their efforts on CC but with Trump walking away from Obamas gains things look grim on the CC front.
    I hear little alarm from the elitists in general about pollution and air quality in China and India
    OVER the past month, successive waves of thick smog have blanketed northern and central China. With visibility severely reduced, authorities have cancelled flights, shut highways and imposed emergency factory closures. Air quality usually deteriorates during the winter when demand for heating soars and coal-fired power plants rev up. But after the government declared a “war on pollution” in 2014, China had in fact made some headway in improving its environment. With stricter emission standards on power plants, it worked to curb its reliance on coal. Smog, though still too frequent, was at least a bit lighter.
    What explains the reversion to “airpocalypse”? The answer lies in a rebound in heavy industry, according to Greenpeace, an environmental group. China’s steelmaking heartland, just a few hours’ drive south of Beijing, has been the centre of the recent pollution bouts. Output of crude steel, pig iron and cement began to pick up around the spring of 2016, tracking a property-market rally. The concentration of small, dangerous PM2.5 (particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns in diameter) has also increased since then, more or less in tandem with the industrial products.

    But officials are also worried about jobs in China’s steel and coal sectors, and so will try to avert a more serious slowdown. The war against pollution will only go so far.


    Air pollution causes 1.2 million deaths in India annually; Delhi most polluted: Greenpeace report
    The assessment of air pollution levels for Delhi highlighted that PM10 concentrations are 268 g/m3 for the year 2015, which are 4.5 times higher than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) annual limit set by CPCB, and about 13 times the annual limit set by WHO for PM10.
    “India’s pollution trends have been steadily increasing, with India overtaking China in number of deaths due to outdoor air pollution in 2015. India’ s deteriorating air quality demands an urgent robust monitoring system,” the report says.


    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Ned Hockey | June 18, 2017, 10:34 pm
    • Finally some sense. I should just learn to play over here. Sorry, didn’t get much love for this on AIMN. You raise some really important points and I analysed over four weeks of conversations with people and the point you raised was not raised at all. They DO however, continuously provide links to china and India to demonstrate we don’t need to worry about workers, because all the countries are doing renewables anyways. Thanks Ned.


      Posted by trishcorry | June 18, 2017, 10:38 pm
  11. “Sorry, didn’t get much love for this on AIMN” I went to see what you meant and I begin to think you are a masochist 😀 with a permanent terror squad there laying in wait for you.One, Paul an amateur psychiatrist and two women one crazy and one who can’t be wrong leading the hit squad it seems
    I do want to relay one true story to you which blew my socks off and it happened during the last Federal Election.
    An environmental Party, {no names no pack drill} member and I were working on the pre poll booths together and got into a bit of a disagreement on coal mining in general Carmichael in particular and he a Uni Lecturer told me he was an eco warrior and NO coal should be mined as the planet comes before everything and Australia and the developed world should not be exporting coal to China India and 3rd world countries as it just eneabled them to develop too quickly and create more consumerism and energy usage and place too much strain on a struggling planet which to him was the no.1 priority even over humanity.In other words leave the poor poor and the destitute to die.
    I was pissed off but even moreso when I called at his home the next day to return a book he lent me.
    a humble abode, 4 bedroom 2 storey the whole yard concreted to provide space for the 4 that lived in the households 4 cars 2 of which were bloody great 4wds, a boat in the yard and a ride on mower and all the petrol garden stuff imaginable in the garage and from what I could see most of the lights burning in the home .Welcome to the world of the Eco warrior.
    I left there realising I’d spent time with an Environazi

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Ned Hockey | June 19, 2017, 7:55 am
    • That wouldn’t surprise me in the least. We do have some real Greenies here


      Posted by trishcorry | June 19, 2017, 8:01 am
    • We do have some real greenies here. Hate cars, don’t even wear shoes. Etc as someone who is qualitative, I completely participatory research for this and immersed myself for four weeks in conversation with cc led people. The most disturbing revelation for me is the even above humanity thing you mentioned. It’s real and it’s out there. I mentioned it in the article. I envisage a split in the left as climate change becomes a bigger issue. The worker led Left and the environmental left. Thx for stopping by again Ned.


      Posted by trishcorry | June 19, 2017, 8:06 am


  1. Pingback: Activism: Climate Change & Privilege – TARRED + FEATHERED - February 19, 2018


  3. Pingback: Labor, Coal and Climate Action | The Red Window - December 9, 2019

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trish Corry



I love to discuss Australian Politics. My key areas of interest are Welfare, Disadvantage, emotions in the workplace, organisational behaviour, stigma, leadership, women, unionism. I am pro-worker and anti-conservativism/Liberalism. You will find my blog posts written from a Laborist / Progressive Slant.

Personal Links

View Full Profile →

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7,895 other subscribers

Follow me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: