Sixteen years ago today, a dickhead Australian prime minister sealed his fate by showing that all his fine words about climate as a “great moral challenge” were empty PR. Turd.
Ten days ago I went to the latest in a long long line of excruciating activist events (1). I wrote a cathartic blogpost which was liked by about half the people who read it (i.e. it was liked by two people).
Catharsis is fine, but then the question comes up – what should we expect of big organisations that act (whether they understand that or not) as a Keystone Species (2)?
Before you say, yes, I know that it is dodgy af to import ideas from biology/ecology into discussions of human activities, but hey, a) we all do it and b) life is short – so here goes.
Keystone species have a ‘disproportionate’ role in the shape/size/day-to-day actions of the ecosystem they function within. Not ‘deliberately’, because (most) creatures don’t (most of the time) have intention beyond eating/avoiding being eaten/fucking. But if you have enough of the keystone members, then they create a kind of dynamic stability (3).
So, there used to be a phrase (perhaps still is?) “check your privilege” , which sought to remind people that they often walked around with advantages that shaped the social interactions they took part in (4). Anyway, privilege applies not just to us white able-bodied middle-class hetero men but also to organisations. If you are a big outfit, that has been around a long time, and has got a media profile you have a kind of ‘heft’, a kind of – well, privilege. Crucially, you may not feel this, because there are always budget worries, always policybattles you are losing because you are outnumbered and outgunned by the lobbyists for the EFTAs (Evil Fuckers Trade Association). You are always being smeared by stenographers to power in the right-wing press. It doesn’t FEEL like privilege, but then that’s the point – it never does.
So, after a decade and a half of having seen these Big Outfits put together various events and claim to be “building a movement” while absolutely failing to do so, I’ve grown a little cynical (see also “smugosphere”, the smugotariat, “emotacycle”, “ego-fodder”, “potemkinclusivity”, Sophisticated Hopium Ignoring Trajectories, etc).
The purpose of this blog post is to outline five things Big Outfits could do to be better keystone species. I am not expecting any of this to happen (see below). If two of the five happened, that would be quite amazing. I reckon if four of these happened, it would be transformative within that Big Outfit’s wider ecosystem (while still, obvs, merely being deckchairs-on-the-Titanic of a global ecosystem being apocalypsed by hairless murder apes with opposable thumbs).
So, drum-roll please.
Set a good example
Obvious, huh? In practice this means –
Start meetings on time. Nothing screams “unserious hippy” like unexplained delays to start-times, especially if you then cry off the advertised activities because of “lack of time.”
Don’t waste time with endless blandishments and self-promotions. If you have specific information to impart then a) the internet and b) some dead-tree format leaflets for those who don’t use the internet.
Keep your promises (so, to choose an example entirely at random, if you advertise something as a Q&A, then do a Q&A. This is not rocket-science
Avoid cringe displays of emotional virtue-signalling. Especially in situations where first nations peoples are being shat on from a great height.
Make sure that when you create an event, you are making it easy for new relationships to form, for new “weak ties” (as per Granovetter) to form.
That is to say, make it possible for various individuals to find each other on the basis of their shared interests, age, geography.
Obviously there are dangers here which need managing. Women, especially, will worry about being compelled to engage with strangers (esp male) who may then get the wrong idea. If you open a space for these relationships to form, you also run the risk of various political sects and groupuscules to try to recruit during your events. These are not, however, insurmountable difficulties.
Big Outfits could lead by example (see above) by designing events so that they are not (always) the goddam centre of attention, sucking up all the oxygen and attention. They could keep comments by their staff and guests to a reasonable length and then then implement the design effectively (there’s no point designing an event and then – because of the lack of skill/awareness of the facilitator/compere – you revert to the bullshit).
So, for example, between the end of speeches at a Q&A and opening the floor to questions you could give people two minutes to compare notes/hone questions etc and then ‘accidentally’ select some – gasp – women to ask two of the first three questions.
There is also a crying need for structured skill-audits and skillshare events, so that people who have skills can share them with people who want them, and organisations that realise they have either a single-point-of-failure or an absolute gap can get help to plug those gaps.
Big organisations could investigate/invent/borrow/steal ideas for better events (marches, rallies, meetings etc) and test them out. Big organisations are more likely to be able to take people a little bit outside their comfort zones.
This would require some courage (not selected for within most formal organisations, obviously) but would set the tone – that responsible innovation is essential.
Remember the past
We live in a perpetual present, where the lessons of yesterday are forgotten, and ancient victories (the fucking Franklin Dam? Really? Invoking that in 2026? WTAF) are stripped of their context and turned into myths.
Part of the problem for social movements is that so much of what happens is never recorded, or recorded and then lost. Memories shift, fade, and useful tactics and tools have to be endlessly re-invented. Big Organisations could at least try to be a repository for broader memory work.
There are costs (not-insurmountable) and dangers, but without memory we are living in Punxsutawney without remembering the day before. That ain’t no comedy, it’s a tragedy.
Practically – this could mean digitising old posters and content, doing periodic oral history interviews. These may not hit the dizzying heights of ‘academic’ practice, but srsly, who gives a damn – is it USEFUL?
Help people and small organisations think about the future(s)
Big Organisations could do better “horizon scanning” for the current trends, so that smaller groups/individuals get the opportunity to think strategically.
Periodic workshops involving scenarios, role-plays etc. Yes, most of the people who come will be the usual suspects, but not all of them, and in any case, skills and knowledge can percolate.
These – and it isn’t an exhaustive list – all these amount to “services to the movement.”
They are things that individuals and small organisations struggle with (or don’t even try to do).
What “we” – as social movements/civil society/a species killing itself – require is a) the repeal of some laws (mostly laws of physics) and
b) Big Outfits within the “movement” to do things that the smaller organisations – and individuals – can’t do. If they don’t do them, then these things won’t get done and you don’t have a movement, just a bunch of Brownian motion billiard balls, going nowhere fast.
The problem is – well, imma just quote myself:
It comes down to what your definition of “movement” is.
If you believe, as Adam Bandt and his colleagues seem to, that a movement is a bunch of people from a Big Organisation, jetting in from their HQ and standing on a stage, offering “hope,” authenticity and validation to ranks of people who are sat mutely in rows, wanting their (begging) bowls filled up, then Friday was another success in a long line of successes.
If you believe, as I and a few (many?) other people do, that a movement is made up of individuals, small groups, large groups, pulling mostly in the same direction, as frenemies, helping each other out, learning from each other, sharing ideas and resources, then Friday night was another catastrophic shit-show/missed opportunity in a world that can’t afford any more missed opportunities.
What is to be done?
They (the Big Outfits) are not going to do any of this themselves. There is no money in it, it’s not in their direct short-term interest, and those running the show have built careers on being on the stage doing the right talking and public displays of emoting.
So, if we want these big organisations to act as decent keystone species, then sorry, but it has to be persistently and insistently EXPECTED of them. Publicly. (I know, I know, “activism about activism” – as if we have time for this shit… But also, as if we can get anywhere useful without this shit. We truly are caught in a trap…)
Apply what pressure you can. Explain that you will not be participating in ego-fodder events. Privately – and publicly – call out exploitative and extractive behaviour by Big Outfits. Offer practical suggestions – training, etc etc – for how to do things better.
But dammit, this is so hard. Knowing that everything is falling about. That no matter what we do, Punxusatawney is getting warmer.
None of this will happen. It is a stupid fantasy. We are all going to die horrible premature deaths. Oh well.
Footnotes
Living where I normally do, I don’t have many opportunities for “hate attending” (a variation on hate-following).
(2) As per wikipedia –
A keystone species is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its natural environment relative to its abundance. The concept was introduced in 1969 by the zoologist Robert T. Paine. Keystone species play a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community, affecting many other organisms in an ecosystem and helping to determine the types and numbers of various other species in the community. Without keystone species, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease to exist altogether. Some keystone species, such as the wolf and lion, are also apex predators.
The role that a keystone species plays in its ecosystem is analogous to the role of a keystone in an arch. While the keystone is under the least pressure of any of the stones in an arch, the arch still collapses without it. Similarly, an ecosystem may experience a dramatic shift if a keystone species is removed, even though that species was a small part of the ecosystem by measures of biomass or productivity. It became a popular concept in conservation biology, alongside flagship and umbrella species. Although the concept is valued as a descriptor for particularly strong inter-species interactions, and has allowed easier communication between ecologists and conservation policy-makers, it has been criticized for oversimplifying complex ecological systems.
NB These should NOT be confused with foundation species. Thanks to HS for the distinction, which I will try to follow-up in a different post.
(3) If we’re abusing ecology (and clearly I am) we could argue that civil society organisations have become “functionally extinct” after 45 years of neoliberalism. That is, there are still isolated shell-shocked individuals staggering around, but they don’t “do” the things they used to. But that’s another blog post.
(4) At which point, as a white hetero able-bodied man I can say “I did, it’s still there, and it’s fabulous!”).
(5) Very non-complete list of blog posts about this here –
Forty eight years ago, on this day, April 26th, 1978 – Australian carbon dioxide measurements from a ground based station at Cape Grim begin.
Tanks were immersed in liquid nitrogen to condense the air (Fig. 7), under ‘baseline’ conditions (strong onshore winds) in these 35 L stainless steel tanks, commencing mid 1978. The first tank filled was CG260478, CG reflecting its Cape Grim origin, filled 26 April 1978, and remains intact in the Air Archive at Aspendale today
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that accurate measures of CO2 in the atmosphere had begun in 1958 with Charles Keeling as part of the International Geophysical Year, Roger Revelle had managed to carve out some money. (We now know that Keeling had done CO2 measurement for the oil companies in 1954 thanks to the work of Rebecca John,)
The specific context was that Australian measurements of CO2 had begun in the early 1970s – they were initially from equipment attached to aeroplanes, TAA, commercial flights. However, something more permanent was required. So we should remember as well that from September of ‘77 there was an increase in awareness of the CSIRO scientists around atmospheric pollution by carbon dioxide.
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty.
What happened next: Cape Grim is still measuring CO2 to this day. There was a conference on Philip Island in December 1978. There was a CSIRO symposium in Canberra in 1986, which got coverage in the Canberra Times. In 1986 the greenhouse project stuff started kicking in.
So where will the files for the commission for the future be and the greenhouse project and so forth? That would be quite. A good National Archives of Australia, find
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Yesterday [April 25, 1989] Mr Tony Blair, Labour’s energy spokesman, went on the attack with a letter to the Prime Minister, challenging what he termed the “miserable record” of Mr Cecil Parkinson, the Energy Secretary, on energy conservation.
Hunt, J. 1989. Greenhouse Effect Warms Tempers. Financial Times, April 26, Pg. 10
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that UK politicians had been aware of the climate issue for (at least) ten years by now. The smart ones, that is. So, quite a small minority.
The specific context was that in September 1988 Margaret Thatcher had conducted one of her u-turns and declared carbon dioxide build-up a problem worth turning into an issue. People had tried to take her at her word, and she had revealed herself to be what she always was.
Anyway, on the day April 25, 1989, she had held a full-day seminar, with various technical experts from ETSU etc, briefing her and her Cabinet colleagues (including several who couldn’t be bothered to stay awake – literally).
What I think we can learn from this is that Blair was trying to get an attack line out there for journalists who were writing about Thatcher’s seminar, so they could quote him for “balance.”
What happened next: Blair? Don’t know. Faded into obscurity. Or so about a million Iraqis would have wished…
OUR ENERGY FUTURES FOR SECURE AND SUSTAINABLE POWER: FROM CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY WITH CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE, MICROGENERATION, TIDAL, WIND AND NUCLEAR
MEETING OF THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON MONDAY 24TH APRIL 2006- Science in Parliament newsletter
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that CCS had been talked about briefly in the late 1970s, and a bit more in the early 1990s, but nobody took it seriously because, you know, behaviour change and carbon trading was all that was needed.
The specific context was that from the early 2000s it was obvious that behaviour change and carbon trading were grotesquely inadequate. Ooh, let’s pull “CCS” out of the garbage can (Cohen’s garbage can).
What I think we can learn from this is that if you really want an idea to grab a minister’s attention, get the policy wonks on board (they’ll influence the civil servants) and also the minister’s colleagues (loved or loathed) in parliament.
What happened next: CCS got more support. A “competition” was announced in late 2007. Fell over. Was picked up, dusted off and started again. Kneecapped with the body thrown in a dumpster in 2015. Resurrected again between 2016 and 2018. And is currently having enormous sums of public money thrown at it. Somebody should write a book.
The Irish Times (among others) ran a story from the UNESCO Courier about the climate and the theory of Arrhenius and others (including, most recently, Gilbert Plass) that carbon dioxide build-up was already causing warming, which would grow.
“Ecology has become the Thing. There are ecological politics, ecological jokes, ecological bookstores, advertisements, seminars, teach-ins, buttons. The automobile, symbol of ecological abuse, has been tried, sentenced to death, and formally executed in at least two universities (replete with burial of one victim)…”
It is leaked to climate journo Andy Revkin that – hope you are sitting down – the scumbags behind the “Global Climate Coalition” were ignoring their own scientists…
A more organised opposition to the IPCC’s conclusions began in the USA on Earth Day (22 April 1996), with a message distributed widely, including to every member of the US Congress, and with the first issue of the State of the Climate Report attached in which the IPCC conclusions were challenged. However, just as this report was about to be published, the Union of Concerned Scientists denounced it in a press release, based on earlier contributions to the media debate about global warming by the man in charge, Patrick Michaels: “The forthcoming climate change report sponsored by Western Fuels Association is like a lung cancer study funded by the tobacco industry.”
(Bolin, 2007) Page 128
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the denialists had won major battles in 1989 to 1992 by convincing George Bush to play hardball and to threaten to boycott the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change the Rio treaty, if targets and timetables were included in the treaty text.
Then denialists had also defeated Bill Clinton’s BTU tax in 1993.
The denialists were also gearing up for a battle royale over the upcoming Kyoto conference, and here we see them sending a message on Earth Day to all congresspeople as part of the day-to-day routine of blitzing politicians with talking points, which will be picked up and used by friends and allies and will be a reminder to those who were not their friends and allies that they the bad guys still exist and can make trouble.
The specific context was that the Kyoto battles were just beginning…
What I think we can learn from this is that evil never sleeps, never takes a step back unless forced to.
What happened next: Evil has kept on winning. Oh well.
Fifty five years ago, on this day, April 22nd, 1971,
UTILIZATION OF SOLAR ENERGY-PROGRESS REPORT FARRINGTON DANIELS
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin: “Fifth, a whole new emphasis on the use of solar energy comes now from the widespread concern over pollution of our environment. Solar devices produce no pollution-chemical, radioactive, nor overall thermal-and under some circumstances could replace some of our power generators which now do produce pollutant carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, radioactivity and excessive waste heat.”
(Read April 22, 1971) Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 115, No. 6 (Dec. 30, 1971), pp. 490-501
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/985842
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the solar lobby had been talking about carbon dioxide for a while!
The specific context was that everyone was running around talking about energy supplies – and this is BEFORE the oil shock.
What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 60s, early 70s, solar energy proponents were pointing to carbon dioxide build up as a reason for advancing solar development as quickly as possible. It wasn’t always or ever their first argument, but it was in the mix.
What happened next: The environmentalists got contained, exhausted, and then the Oil Shock came and delivered the coup de grace.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Who are you – where did you grow up, what contact did you have with ‘nature’? (There’s good evidence to suggest that the main determinant of people getting properly switched on to environmental issues is unstructured play with minimal supervision in nature before age 11).
I grew up in the North Woods of North America—the band of mixed forest that stretches across Ontario, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota—and within biking or driving distance of Lake Superior. It’s a stunningly beautiful place, but the landscape wears many scars that are just under the surface—in the neighborhood I grew up in, all the trees are the same age, and some of them take root in a kind of slate gray soil made of crushed mine rock. It is a landscape rich with nonhuman life, but it is extraordinarily anthropogenic.
I remembering writing something back when I was 15 or so that mused on all of these things, on the many walks and hikes and drives that I had taken through the continent—saying that these were the reasons I had become an environmentalist. I still think that’s probably true. Doubtless, they are a big part of why I became an environmental historian, too.
2) Tell us a little about your academic background – undergrad what where why, ditto for masters and PhD.
I grew up in an academic family—both my parents were scientists. And I went to a small college for my undergraduate degree (Amherst College, in New England), and loved it. There were a lot of draws for me at the time (and I was extremely lucky to have a family who encouraged me to do essentially whatever I wanted for my undergraduate)—the size, the setting, an open curriculum, and so on. Though I’ve always loved reading history books, I went in as a music major, wrote my senior thesis in it, and only picked up history as a double major.
While graduate school had certainly been a possibility, it took me several years to apply. I was disappointed with non-academic work, and though I figured there wouldn’t be a job at the other end of a history PhD, it would be a nice way to spend six years writing a book. In the end, I ended up with a book and a wonderful job.
It was a rocky path. I ended up switching my supervisor quite early on, and both my new advisors and my fellow PhD students radically changed my approach to history in a number of ways (a much bigger focus on labor and capitalism). I also think I probably came out the other end a better person—or at least a more thoughtful one. A couple of postdocs later, I’ve ended up at UCL.
3) In a nutshell (sorry!) what does your book – The Hobo: A History of America’s First Climate Migrants (Princeton University Press, 2026) – argue, and where did it “come from” – what gaps in the previous understandings was it filling, what ‘myths’ is it overthrowing, or at the least complicating?
Hobos were migrant workers because of an unpredictable climate and a steam-powered energy regime.
When we say “hobos,” we mean a group of long-distance migrant workers in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century U.S., who moved seasonally between cities and the countryside. They existed in quasi-legal—really, mostly-illegal—spaces in the American West, dodging railroad police and working handshake contracts for bad bosses and rare but substantial payment.
And they existed for two reasons: First, the extraction industries hobos worked in had enormous year-to-year variability because of the climatic unpredictability of the American West. Employers never knew how many laborers they would need in a given season, so they hired migrants to plug the gaps. Second, no one managed to automate these industries, in large part because steam engines were big, bulky, and slow, unable to help much with harvesting wheat, cutting lumber, or construction. You needed human muscle power.
In the end, with new energy forms that could support much more miniaturized power, employers needed far fewer workers, and the mass migrant class vanished within basically a single decade.
I suppose relatively few people have thought about migrants environmentally. But this argument is less about gaps, and more about connecting disparate histories and asking what it means to consider them all together. Hobos are wonderful subjects in part because they travel so widely and work in so many different sectors—if you look through their eyes, you can see basically every industry of the American West at the same time.
4) Some readers will be thinking “but if you’re ‘rootless’ and have no love of/incentive of a particular place, then surely your attitude is going to be ‘use it up, move on’ – hardly an ecological example” – how would you respond?
There’s quite a number of ways I might respond to that. For one, some hobos often did love the environments they passed through—that was one big reason to go on frankly impractical cross-country trips in the first place. (Still is, as my own photo rolls can testify.) And their work absolutely orbited extraction and exhaustion, but this wasn’t really because they were rootless—it’s the other way around. Their work, and hobos themselves, moved rapidly to follow new and unexploited resources. In the end, pretty much everyone in the American West participated in this economy of relentless extraction—including farmers and ranchers whose families put down roots (ha, pun) for generations.
5) What were your favourite and least favourite bits of the process?
I love writing. Putting together everything into a narrative is a delight—from the outlining to the drafting to the chucking it in a bin and starting over. Writing a book is hard work; writing one that you like is nearly impossible. But I enjoy the challenge.
6) Who should read it (well, obviously, everyone should) and why? How would it help us make sense of our current and near future dilemmas/trilemmas/quadlemmas/n-lemmas?
You nailed it—it’s a book for absolutely everyone.
I really did try to write a book that basically anyone can pick up and read. That said, outside of people who want to read about hobos for their own sake, I think it’s for those interested in histories of the environment (obviously), capitalism, and specifically climate and energy. I think it’s also startlingly relevant to people who want to think about our own climate crisis.
Hobos faced an unstable climate and an energy transition, all while dealing with extremely precarious employment and threats of automation. In some industries, hobos were spectacularly unsuccessful in facing these challenges, and essentially disappeared from the workforce. In other industries, they successfully mobilized to defend labor and reduce precarity for everyone. Overall, their best moments came out of solidarity, and their worst out of prejudice and infighting.
As I write in the book, the situation hobos found themselves in doesn’t precisely map onto the one we face in the present day. Their climate disasters weren’t anthropogenic; the world was still being connected; the energy systems were different. But if you want to read a book showing how climate change and energy transitions changed life for the most destitute people in a society, read this one.
7) What next for you? What’s the next project?
It’s taken me a long time to come to terms with the fact that, although I’m a very fast writer on the day-to-day, projects seem to take a while. Writing is by far the fastest and most fun part of a book project for me; research is where I really tend to sweat it out and tinker with things for years. All of which is to say—there are a few different things that are brewing, including a probable second monograph on energy and American settler colonialism, but that and the others will all take a while to see the light of day.
8) Anything else you’d like to say.
Buy my book, of course! It’s quite affordable! Bookshop.org (US), (UK), or from the PUP website! (And the usual exhortations that requesting it at libraries, buying it from brick-and-mortar stores, and leaving reviews, are all great ways to help it out.)
Over thirty people gathered on Monday night to hear from four highly-engaged (1) and deeply knowledgeable speakers on the question of what is being done/can be done on biodiversity in Adelaide in the era of accelerating climate change.
The event was organized (very capably indeed) by Unley Voices for Climate Action.
After a brief welcome to country (2) and scene-setting, four speakers each had fifteen minutes to explain what is going on.
The first three were from Green Adelaide, a state government created and funded body which is “working towards a cooler, greener, wilder and climate-resilient Adelaide that celebrates our unique culture.”
They were
Sarah White, Regional Data Officer for Green Adelaide
They were followed by Di Salvi, the lead Climate and Sustainability officer from Unley Council, who gave an overview of what has been done/is planned locally.
(I took copious notes, but have doubtless got things wrong/mangled them, and will update accordingly).
Ms White kicked things off with a numbers-heavy (because numbers is what she does!) presentation that highlighted the work that has been undertaken to map – down to a house level, where the trees are, what they are, and what benefits accrue (especially in terms of their cooling effect).
In the brief Q&A for her talk she expanded on this – the Green Adelaide survey also captures the understory coverage (which is particularly important for biodiversity).
She was asked how frequently the surveys were done. The work is very resource intensive, and – if I got this right – it has been at four year intervals, with another survey just completed.
Dr Sheryn Pitman delved more into the overall strategies underlying the Green Adelaide effort, including the recently announced Urban Greening Strategy.
Tree coverage varies widely in the 17 (or 18, depending on how you count) areas covered by Green Adelaide (the Adelaide Hills is not included), from 1.7percent in Seaford to 52% in Waterfall Gully. There’s a target for 30% across the whole metropolitan area, but of course, they also have to look at species diversity for “future proofing” against disease etc (see my question at the end).
In the Q&A the thorny question of what actual powers Green Adelaide has at its disposal was raised, but deferred (see further down the blog post)…
The third presentation, from Nat Giffney, brought it to the nuts and bolts of what is being done and can be done by individuals and communities. Reflecting on the point that Adelaide was – before the settlers turned up – a particular biodiversity hotspot, with grassland, heathland, wetlands etc etc, Giffney said that “we need to use every little parcel of land. The starting (but not finishing) question was “what once grew where you live?” She explained that the Green Adelaide website allows you to find out, but typing in “native plants.”
She pointed out that tree hollows, useful for possums and birds, take a very very long time to form, and bigged up the work of volunteers who spend many hours removing agapanthus, which overtakes native species.
[Such is the history of introduced species – at this point I was put in mind of the wonderful concept of “biological cringe”, developed by environmental historian Tom Griffiths] See also here.
Biodiversity is, though we often fail to see it, is essential for the health of well, everything, and the ability to ‘bounce back’ (or to a different state) following floods, droughts etc. [see also though, ‘the great simplification’ and the Sixth Extinction].
So, we need plants at different heights and densities, lizard lounges, frog bogs and all the rest of it. The final plea was to make sure that bird baths are out of reach of predators, and cleaned regularly.
Right, before we continue with the rest of the report, a request. If you are reading this, there is a non-trivial chance you were living in Adelaide in the 1970s, and active on environmental matters. If so – and especially if you were involved in the campaign to get a deposit scheme going for beverage containers – I would like to interview you. ALSO, if anyone knows anything about M. Allen of Malvern, who wrote this letter to the Advertiser, published on December 14 1973, please get in touch.
Sir – One reads (“Advertiser,” 11/12/73) of the Australian Government’s interest in entering the car manufacturing industry of the Miners’ Federation move towards development of a national trade union policy to conserve energy resources, of the prediction of the British National Development Council that the energy crisis will probably halve the growth of world trade and the fear of the Member for Angas (Mr. Giles) that future petroleum shortages may affect all of us as private individuals and the business community.
What none of these individuals or groups gives any consideration to is the fact that our past rapacious use of fossil fuels, both in industry and in the motor car, may well bring about changes in climate far more catastrophic to our way of life than shortage of fuel.
While conservation of energy resources is commendable, what is urgently needed is a complete reappraisal of our values and priorities and a thorough investigation of the long-term consequences of our actions in both the private and industrial sectors.
M. Allen
Malvern
Now, back to the report!!
Speaking last, Di Salvi of Unley Council had the hardest job – keeping the attention of the audience after a solid 50 minutes of very dense information. She managed it with aplomb, telling a compelling story about the Council’s efforts in creating more tree cover and wildlife cover (full disclosure, my late father, Mike Hudson, was a Councillor for many years, with an interest in ‘pocket parks’ before they were sexy).
Thermal sensors are available via the Unley Library catalogue, so you can take an inventory of your house and garden.
The Council did a “tree voucher lottery” skewed towards areas in Unley with less foliage, and this appears to have been a success, with fruit trees being particularly popular, and most of those planted still alive.
There are, of course, challenges
A micro-break to stretch legs and recombobulate from the large amount of information received was followed by a short and sweet Q and A.
The first question was “more of a comment” but – gasp, a short and pertinent one (it didn’t come from a man) – it was about the importance of night lighting and not making life hell for nocturnal creatures. The happy news is that not only is there a webinar on this (the webinar series “will beat Netflix”) but when Unley Council was replacing some lighting recently, they made sure the new stuff was wildlife friendly.
The second question was from me – I asked if thought had been given to the speed of climate change and what trees etc will survive the temperatures we are likely to be seeing in the year 2050 (which is only just around the corner). Pleasingly, the answer was an emphatic yes.
“Are there priority species?” asked someone. Well, that’s complicated, because of course there is no one size fits all plan for such a wide variety of habitats.
The question of what actual power Green Adelaide had to enforce, rather than cajole, came up, and was fairly deftly dealt with (no legislative or budgetary power, but the kind of ‘soft power’ – data dependent – that can make some meaningful changes.) Until we institute the green eco-utopian government, that’s probably the best we can get? (as distinct from hope and plan for).
“What is being done about fake lawns?” asked someone. It turns out that some councils have banned them, and Sarah White pointed out that the data that Green Adelaide is able to provide about the cooling function of real lawns helps policymakers see the light.
An expert on climate extremes suggested that Green Adelaide run an educational campaign to inform people that the time to water their gardens is BEFORE the heatwave starts (once it has started your efforts will be pretty futile) and this was received with great enthusiasm by the Green Adelaide representatives.
And then, very shortly after 9pm, the event was brought to a close. Nicely done!
Dates for your diary
Btw – You can email the Unley folks on – uvforca@gmail.com
May 3rd GreyBox Day
May 18 – next meeting of the Unley for Climate Action crew.
Possibly June 1st for “virtual powerplants” meeting (about batteries alongside solar panels, and feeding back into the grid).
Random reflections
The event was urgently needed, for me at least. I needed something to restore my faith in “activism” – in the idea that people could put on an event that started on time, did what it said it would do and was generally efficiently and effectively run. (I won’t link to my rant about last Friday, but you can find it if you look)
What would I change? Very very little. Perhaps a ‘turn to a person you don’t know’ at the outset, and a ‘clap clinic’ style device for keeping people to time. If the speeches could have been recorded, that would be great for people who couldn’t attend (but this is labour intensive and the game may not be worth the candle!). These are quibbles. It was a fine event, and lovely to see an all-female panel for once (fanel as opposed to manel?)
Footnotes
(1) I would encourage everyone – but especially men writing about women – to avoid the word “passionate”. It is far too often code for “emotional/over-invested/unreliable” with shades of “hysterical.” See also Malcolm X and the use of the word “articulate.” (And Chris Rock, for that matter).
(2) It was a nice touch to flag that first nations people are reclaiming their language and fire practices and that “for 190 years they’ve put up with colonization.”
Update April 22.
Here are some links kindly sent through by the Green Adelaide folks
Green Adelaide Webinar recordings: Webinar – YouTube (this is where people can access ‘The colour of the night: wildlife sensitive lighting’, along with a lot of other topics).
