Ideology in Environmental "Science"

 'They used the term 'ghost metropolis' I think, because we haven't seen big cities fall over in the last couple of hundred years. We know they have in the distant past, but Perth is really in the front line for that sort of event to happen."Scientist Tim Flannery in 2004

"When I said Perth could become the first ghost metropolis, that was true, but the Government acted and got a desalination plant going...The city could have run out of water if it wasn't for the desal plant.'' - Tim Flannery in 2007, the Australian of the Year

Environmental scientists have quite a bad record in Australia, or at the very least, present-day environmental scientists have judged their predecessors very badly. For example, from the 1950s to the 1980s, environmental scientists advised farmers to plant willow trees along water courses in order to slow erosion. Then a new generation of environmental scientists came along and recategorised willows as a significant pest that needed to be eradicated.

The main intellectual deficiency of environmental scientists is their tendency to mask their transient ideologies as environmental protection. For example, environmental scientists of previous generations had increasing economic productivity as one of their chief aims, and their research aimed to create sustainable agriculture. Today; however, the prevailing ideology is to recreate a "pure" pre-1788 ecosystem in which paid environmentalists have taken the place of hunter gatherers as people who periodically burn the bush, and paid poisoners/shooters cull animals not in balance with the ecosystems that they manage. Unfortunately, "a pure pre-1788 ecosystem" and a "biologically diverse ecosystem that is adaptable to change" are not one and the same. Furthermore, the "pure" pre-1788 ecosystems were as much human creations as golf courses are today.

Because some environmental scientists are not honest about their true aims, even to themselves, their version of environmental protection is often nothing more than misguided ignorance.

 

Case study - Redefining the Willow; Ideology in Environmental "Science"

Scientist's recategorisation of the willow from asset to pest is a good example of ideology corrupting the facts. From the 1950s to the 1980s, scientists encouraged farmers to plant willows along water courses in order to slow erosion. As well as achieving their aims of stopping erosion, the lush leaves and green shoots were well liked by animals and so created an additional feed source.

In the 1980s; however, ideology changed. For environmental "scientists", the willow was not native and therefore it was an obstacle to creating a pure pre-1788 ecosystem. Scientists subsequently reanalysed the evidence and decided the willow needed to be eradicated on "environmental protection" grounds. According to the scientists, willows:

From
Controlling Willows Along Australian Rivers: River and Riparian Land Management Technical Guideline, Land and Water Australia
Authors: Lizzie Pope, Ian Rutherford, Phil Price and Siwan Lovett

All the points are accurate, but they have been exaggerated and the flip sides ignored. These flip sides include:

In addition to failing to see the flip side of the willow's negative attributes, the environmental scientists also fail to consider many of the benefits the willow has over native plants:

Willows are useful to achieve specific aims in specific habitats, and environmental scientists need to open their minds to the fact. For farmers, willows slow erosion, help cause some desirable flooding in some regions, trap more water in a local ecosystem, and provide some extra food for livestock. For the management of recreational fisheries, willows provide excellent cover that protects fish, such as introduced brown trout, from predation from birds.

Environmental scientists refuse to see the benefits of willows because they are not honest with themselves about their true agendas. They are not interested in helping farmers or fishermen. In fact, they are not interested in helping native animals either. They want a pre-1788 ecosystem in which all non-natives have been eradicated, and the government pays scientists to burn the bush, cull species out of balance and research the consequences of their actions. Ironically, the pre-1788 ecosystems were as much human creations as farms and golf courses are today. Furthermore, many of the pre-1788 ecosystems that they desire have little biodiversity, and are not liked by native fauna. Native flora and fauna need biodiverse ecosystems that are productive and adaptible to change. They do not need ideology or transient environmental morality.

 

Case studies- The genocide viruses

Misguided ideology can be seen in the development of genocide viruses that aim to temporarily eradicate foreign pests from ecosystems. It is an egocentric ideology that places humans as the only ones capable of bringing an ecosystem back into balance. In reality, genocide viruses keep the ecosystem in a state of unbalance as they merely slow the natural process of adaptation. If the virus is successful, any predators of the pest are forced to turn to alternative species. If the alternatives are not enough, the predator might go extinct from the area themselves. When the pest eventually recovers, they can repopulate an ecosystem that is relatively more hospital than the one that they were temporarily removed from.

The cane toad virus and the slowing of adaptation

Presently, the Australian government is funding the development of a cane toad virus that intends to stop toads from metamorphosing while not causing disease in Australian frogs. Aside from the fact that some toads will already be immune to the virus, the virus being studied has a temperature threshold. It is disabled at 34 degrees C and killed off at 42 degrees C. As a result, it will useless against toads in the entire top end of Australia.

If the virus is successful in other areas, more animals than just the cane toads are going to suffer. In less than 60 years, birds have learnt that if toads are flipped onto their backs, their bellies can be eaten safely. Water rats have learnt that toad legs can be eaten without harm. Some snakes have evolved smaller heads so they can eat smaller toads in a quantity that their body can tolerate. A native frog, Alitoria Dahlii, is a predator for the toad. In dams inhabited by the frog, the toad has been unable to establish any foothold. If the toad were removed, these animals would be denied a food source, and will have to look elsewhere. Although they probably wont unlearn how to kill toads, when the toad eventually recovers, the extent of adaptation might not be as great as it might have been if toads had not been removed.

 

Myxomatosis virus and a decline in ecological biodiversity

From a perspective of economics, the myxomatosis virus was a resounding success; estimated to have added billions to Australian agricultural output. From a perspective of science, the virus was a feat of human achievement. It showed an ability to develop and release a virus that almost killed off a singular species. From a perspective of native Australian animals; however, the virus was problematic. By temporarily removing rabbits from ecosystems, large numbers of predators turned their attentions to the rabbit's native competitors. When these alternatives proved insufficient, the predators also saw their numbers decline. Myxomatosis immune rabbits subsequently migrated into ecosystems ravaged by myxomatosis. In comparison to what they once had been like, these ecosystems had few competitors for the rabbit, and even less predators. Paradoxically, the final outcome was in the rabbit's interests.

Myxomatosis was first released in the Murray Valley in 1950. It was spread by blood-sucking insects, such as fleas and mosquitos, and also from skin lesions. The original virus killed up to 99 per cent of infected rabbits, and allowed for a significant increase in agricultural production. Over the following decades, myxomatosis was spread Australia wide, and likewise achieved impressive kill rates.

While the virus was great for farming communities, for native ecosystems, the rapid removal of the rabbit caused some problems in the ecological balance. Large populations of rabbits were sustaining large populations of native birds such as the Wedge-tailed Eagle, Little Eagle, Black Kite and Swamp Harrier. They were sustaining large numbers of Tiger Quoll, Spotted-tailed Quoll and Spot-tailed Quoll. They were also sustaining large numbers of introduced predators such as foxes and cats.

When there is a decline in a species that a predator relies on, there are two main effects upon the predator. Firstly, the predator hunts for an alternative species. This is called prey switching. Secondly, if alternative species are insufficient, the predator will migrate from the region, reduce its breeding, or starve to death. The decline in its numbers will allow it to again find an equilibrium with available prey.

When rabbit populations rapidly crash due to a myxomatosis outbreak, there is a lag between the decline in rabbit numbers, and the decline in predator numbers that are required for a return to an ecological balance. For example, cat populations will take at least four months to adapt to the crash in rabbit numbers. It is in this four-month lag that the alternative species are most vulnerable to over-predation. In regards to the cat, susceptible native species are small mammals, birds and, reptiles. In regards to the fox, rabbits compose almost 100 per cent of the diet when abundant. When scarce, it turns its attention to reptiles, and small mammals.

It must be said that not all native animals suffered due to a decline in rabbit numbers. Grey Kangaroos, which have comparatively few predators, benefited from the lack of competition for food, and their numbers increased. Wombats likewise benefited from a decline in their burrowing competitors. While this was great for the native environment in one way, in total, the increase in Roo and Wombat numbers didn’t compensate for the decline in ecological biodiversity. Furthermore, farmers and ecologists soon found themselves needing to pay professional shooters to cull Kangaroos.

With time, rabbits built up an immunity to the myxomatosis virus. Rabbits that did not die produced a high level of antibodies, and subsequently passed these antibodies on to the kittens. Whereas the kill rate was once 99 per cent, now it has declined to an overall rate of around 50 per cent, and some rabbit populations are completely immune.

As rabbits returned to their old stomping grounds, they found the ecosystem infinitely more desirable than the one that they had left. With few predators, and few small mammalian competitors, they were able to breed unchecked, and reach plague populations again.

The focus on the viral solution is partly indicative of scientists wanting funding, but it is also indicative of a human ideological preference that is not necessarily consistent with the needs of the ecosystem. For ideological reasons, some humans have decided that introduced animals, such as the rabbit, have no place in Australia. However, if a Wedge-tail Eagle, or Tiger Quoll were able to speak, they would have a different opinion on this issue. The existence of feral animals is not a problem as long as there is sufficient biodiversity, and an ecological balance, to ensure that native animals are not threatened. Biodiverse ecosystems are more adaptive to change, and less likely to suffer individual extinctions. Both feral and native animals contribute to biodiversity, and are important in ecological balances. Although it may be ideologically challenging for some environmentalists to admit, cultivating a biodiverse ecosystem is not one and the same as a cultivating an ecosystem only containing native animals. Likewise, recreating a pre-1788 "pure" ecosystem is not possible as the dominant predator prior to 1788, humans, are no longer active hunters. A "pure" ecosystem would therefore be out of balance.

By playing havoc with the ecological balance, the myxomatosis virus has led to a decline in the very biodiversity that is necessary to ensure the survival of the native species. While it may have looked like a triumph in the short run, in the long run, it has been the rabbit that has most benefited from it. Furthermore, the decline in ecological biodiversity really wasn't in the interests of native animals, or even the long-term interests of the farming sector.

Examples of environmental ignorance in Australia

Cane Toad

In 1935, cane toads were imported from Hawaii to control the cane beetle. Although the scientists had done their research, they had failed to consider the fact that the beetle lived in the upper stalks, while the toad lived on the ground. Furthermore, at the time of the year that beetle's larvae were emerging from the ground, no toads were about. As a consequence, the toad had no influence on the beetle at all. It did, however, became a major pest itself. In all, the final outcome has not been a great advertisement for scientific common sense.

Rabbit-poof Fence

A 1,833 km long fence that was built to keep rabbits out of Western Australia. It was quite optimistic thinking to believe that it was ever going to have the ability to keep out the singular pregnant female that would make it onsolete. Rabbits simply burrowed underneath, or the fence was knocked down by camels, and the rabbits went over the top. To make matters worse, the fence became a land version of the drift nets of death seen in the oceans. Kangaroos sometimes got their legs caught in the wires, or migrating emus came to the fence and perished.

Now WA has the world's longest fence as a monument to its stupidity.

Burn the bush to stop global warming

While some people might think the world needs more forests to act as carbon sinks, CSIRO research scientist Dick Williams thinks the world needs more flame throwers. According to Williams, if an ecosystem is burnt, then it wont suffer extreme bushfires in the future. Therefore, paying people to burn the bush should be seen as a form of carbon trading. American gas company ConocoPhillips agrees, and is now paying people in West Arnhem $1 million a year, for 17 years, to offset 100,000 tons of the refinery's own greenhouse emissions. So, according to the company's press-releases, Australians can now be "comforted" in the knowledge that burning ConocoPhillips gas wont cause global warming as Austalians are offsetting the damage by burning the local bush.

Firestick farming

While some people might think that watering might be helpful for plant growth, Australian scientists think a flame thrower is more ideal. Likewise, while some people might think the flora and fauna density and overall biodiversity could be aided by increasing the productivity of the land, Australian scientists again prefer the flame thrower. One of these people is David Bowman, a senior research fellow at Northern Territory University. According to Bowman, as the climate warmed at the end of the last ice-age, burning the bush helped preserve rainforests. According to Bowman:

"They intervened and they changed the habitat balance with their fire management practices and, in doing so conserved some habitats, such as rainforest, that might otherwise have been lost during the extreme aridity that characterised the end of the last ice-age some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago."

Global warming or one parrot?

In 2006, the federal government refused to approve a wind farm after an environmental impact statement found that perhaps one endangered parrot might fly into the turbines every two years. While it was noble to consider the welfare of the bird, if the environmental impact statement had considered the issue more holistically, it may have concluded that global warming might also be a risk to the parrot. If so, it may have concluded that the wind farm might have helped compensate for the rise in CO2 emissions caused by firestick farming, and the burning of ConocoPhillips gas.

1080 Poisoning

1080 is a synthetically produced substance that is a replication of a naturally occurring poison found in plant species such as poison bush. Although native animals can eat the foliage, seeds and flowers of the plants with no ill effect, it is deadly on the feral animals that have not evolved alongside it.

While the science is good, once the target animal dies a cruel death, more simply migrate in to take its place. To make matters worse, in the time lag of the ferals being replaced by migration, predators may turn their attention to native species in order to sustain their communities. On the positive side, at least ecologists aren't on the dole que - although the environment would no doubt be better off if they were.

Climate change – More rain but it will be drier

When it comes to the Greenhouse Effect, some of Australia's environmentalists have strange ideas. One strange idea is that burning the bush will reduce carbon emissions. Another strange idea is that, while the Greenhouse Effect will result in more evaporation and therefore high rainfall overall, this will mean a drier climate. This view was promoted by Dr Tim Flannery.   In response to Tim Flannery's prediction that there will be more rain, but the climate will be drier, the NSW Treasurer, Michael Costa, called him "idiot" and questioned why he became Australian of the Year.

Perth will become a ghost metropolis

In 2004, Dr Tim Flannery predicted that Perth would become a "ghost metopolis" due to climate change. According to Flannery:

 'They used the term 'ghost metropolis' I think, because we haven't seen big cities fall over in the last couple of hundred years. We know they have in the distant past, but Perth is really in the front line for that sort of event to happen."

A few years later, Perth built a desalination plant and so its residents didn't have to abandon their homes. Flannery then qualified his comments by saying:

"When I said Perth could become the first ghost metropolis, that was true, but the Government acted and got a desalination plant going...The city could have run out of water if it wasn't for the desal plant.''

Burning the bush to stop bushfires

Aside from arguing that Perth was going to be deserted, and draughts will be permanent, Flannery argued that the Australian bush needs to be burnt in order to stop bushfires. In Flannery's opinion, Australia's susceptibility to bushfires stems from the extinction of the megafauna that used to eat plant matter. Because the plant matter wasn't being eaten, it built up as fuel. According to Flannery, Aborigines recognised the problem of fuel build up so they started burning the bush. Now that Aborigines have stopped burning the bush, white people need government funding to take their place.

Flannery's idea that plant matter will sit as fuel if not eaten by animals fails to consider the decomposition process. In reality, plant matter does not need to be eaten in order to decompose. All it needs is a humid environment. As for the importance of animals to prevent the build up of fuel, animals tend to prefer the moist plant matter, such as willow, that decomposes quickly. Few animals enjoy the dry and oily Eucalyptus that start dominating after the bush is burnt.