On the 14th of January, 2006, two newspapers, The Australian and The Age, carried very different accounts of the inaugural meeting of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The conference brought together representatives from Australia, the US, China, India, Japan and Korea which, it was reported, together account for about half the world's energy consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Australian made its position clear at the outset with the view that 'there was more theology than meteorology in the response of the environmental lobby to this week's inaugural meeting ...' It proceeded to attack those who were critical of the meeting, describing them as 'prophets of doom', 'green zealots', 'environmental opportunists' and 'extreme greens.' This is an odd strategy for a paper that aspires to be taken seriously and would presumably seek to distance itself from the muck-raking habits of the tabloids. Any who has actual experience of those being demonised here would find it very difficult indeed to recall having met anyone, environmentalist or not, who could be so characterised; and there is one good reason for this – they are figments of the writer's imagination.

Instead of taking critics of the conference seriously, listening to their point of view and debating any substantive points of difference, the strategy employed here is to denigrate them and attempt to deny them any legitimacy or standing whatsoever. The use of the term 'theology' is a clear signal that those who stand against the worldview of the paper are deemed irrational and not to be trusted. Ironically, this only serves to demonstrate the paucity of thinking behind this unworkable strategy. Clearly, some deeply embedded interests are threatened. But, instead of reflecting clearly on the nature of this underlying opposition, its dynamics, implications, etc, the writer of the editorial has chosen a different, and entirely self-defeating, path. One cannot deal with embedded issues of worldview and value difference by denying the good standing of those one disagrees with. Such an approach is a non-starter and, furthermore, it suggests that the intellectual resources available to the newspaper are more slender than might otherwise be supposed.

This lack of cognitive capacity is also reflected in two further ill-considered slurs on the identity of these ill-defined opponents who are accused of two further transgressions. One is that 'environmental opportunists ... (have an) ideological preference for bureaucratic solutions.' The other is that 'the Green movement's real desire (is) to see capitalism stop succeeding.' The first of these is plainly false because the solutions required obviously span a range of contexts in which bureaucracy is clearly only one. The second purports to diagnose what is 'really' going on under the surface but it actually reveals the author's structural position, which is that of defending the capitalist system against what are seen as its enemies. It is a view that is blind, deaf and dumb to the costs that capitalism has entailed thus far. And it is equally blind, deaf and dumb to the increasingly obvious consequences for the world of the continuance of a growth dynamic that admits of no limits and itself remains blind to the ramifying costs. Moreover, the reference to success is uninformed by any recognition of the irony contained in a word that stands as a piece of compressed code for a way of thinking and operating that derives from the commercial practices of the US and now infecting the world. This 'religion' is so pervasive that the writer is unaware of his adherence to its own, and his own, deeply embedded 'theology' or irrational commitment to it. For there are certainly alternatives and the sooner we take them seriously, the better.

Elsewhere in the piece are other signs of an extremely poor grasp of the issues. Here are a few. About a third of the way in we read that 'a commitment to invest in cleaner energy without crippling economic growth makes sense.' Well, yes, if you see such growth as being the central value and purpose of an economic system that inverts the relations between itself and the natural world, forgetting that the former is wholly dependent on the latter, and not vice versa. The 'theology', or embedded lack of rationality, in placing the abstractions of the economy first and the sustaining realities of the environment second, is clearly invisible to the writer who will almost certainly support the view that, with more economic growth, we can solve our environmental problems. It is a familiar fallacy that is universally missed by mainstream economists and their apologists.

We then learn that global warming is not really such a big deal since Australia is 'only responsible for 1.6 per cent of global emissions' anyway. Again, the 'I'm alright Jack' argument is certainly familiar, but one would perhaps not expect it to be rolled out in a paper that is supposedly intended for thinking people. Most of the latter would appreciate that in an interdependent world such a view is of very limited utility indeed, if now downright stupid. Then we reach the golden nugget at the heart of the piece. We read that 'it seems certain the world is warming, but no one knows how long the trend will continue or why it is happening.' Here the word 'seems' is misplaced because the data is there to show that the trend is real. The view that no one knows how long it will continue is, when one thinks about it, too obvious to need saying at all. Finally, the notion that 'no one knows ... why it is happening' is pure Alice in Wonderland fantasy, one based on that most common of all human psychological traits – denial.

The piece concludes with an assertion that only has one thing to recommend it – it is at least consistent with the dross that precedes it. Here we find that 'whatever the extreme greens say, we can address global warming without adopting a medieval mindset that sees electricity as inimical to the environment.' What this says very clearly is that those who dare to question the ambiguities and oversights of such a meeting, those who have a different point of view, those who may be asking different kinds of questions and attempting to explore different solutions – all these can be assimilated to a view of the world that is one with the Middle Ages. That is, one that is dated, obscure and irrelevant. Yet, as we've seen, what stands behind this crude attempt at a demolition job actually reveals the lack of capacity of the writer and his/her inability to come to terms with deficiencies in the worldview of business and its largely unexamined 'growthist' ideology and practices. If anything needed to be dragged into the light of day, freed of its 'medieval' assumptions, liberated from its own irrational commitments it is this.

The biases noted above are further underlined and revealed by contrast with another editorial published by the Melbourne Age on the same day dealing with the same subject. The treatment could hardly be more different. The Age noted the 'lack of political resolve' to deal with the problem, noting that 'the politicians more or less said that they trusted the industries that contribute most to the greenhouse problem to solve it' (thus raising the legitimate question of the extent to which any 'industry' can in fact be trusted to create its own regime of self-regulation). It also noted that the meeting ' set no benchmarks or targets ... offered the smallest of carrots to industry and waved no sticks.' In other words the official response was a familiar laissaiz faire one that, as ever, was out of scale with the issue involved. The editorial also pointed to other issues, such as 'finite resources' and 'environmental sustainability', suggesting that there was a path hitherto untried that could be summarised under the heading of 'demand management.' Anticipating the likely response of market ideologues the writer disavowed an 'idealistic return to Eden', opting to state the obvious, yet in this context, overlooked, fact that 'sensible everyday changes in public behaviour could deliver immediate greenhouse gains without great pain.'

The Age writer also drew attention to the 'meagre $100 million' that the government had promised to spend over the next five years, correctly noting that this 'makes one wonder about the nation's priorities.' It argued for more 'free exchange of ideas and technology between nations', suggesting that this 'could produce results that greatly exceeded expectations.' It suggested that nuclear power was 'highly risky' and ended by stating that 'neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the new partnership has offered a remotely adequate response to the uncertain future of climate change.'

What are we to conclude? First, the editorial policy of The Australian is badly in need of overhaul. A paper that prints editorials that speak for only one section of the community (and that badly) needs to re-assess its own priorities. Does anyone really believe that growth-oriented business is 'all good' and those who question this paradigm are 'all bad'? One would certainly hope not. Second, there's a far better informed debate to be had on these matters. For example, what IS the role of business in helping us move toward a sustainable economic system? Is anyone in business really interested in finding out? If the answers are 'none' and 'no' then we will certainly move closer to the reality of 'overshoot and collapse' in the very near future. Third, the Age editorial makes it clear that the government itself is not really serious about the issue of climate change and still has its head buried in the sand.

Is this the best a well-educated and (currently) affluent country can do? If the answer is 'yes' then there are difficult times ahead.

Copyright (C) Richard Slaughter, 2006, all rights reserved.