Tag: Animal activism

• Renaturalising Sullivan’s Creek

  November 12, 2022 12:19 pm Comments Off on Renaturalising Sullivan’s Creek

  Dedicated to my Dad.
   
  During Semester 1, 2021, a group of ANU students was formed to work with local community organisation SEE Change on the topic of “renaturalising” Sullivan’s creek. The ‘SEE’ in SEE Change stands for Society, Environment, and Economics and these are the “three pillars” of sustainability that  underpin the framework used by our group. Our task was to create a report that considered key issues and explored a broad range of ways to approach the idea of “renaturalisation.”
  What does renaturalisation mean?
  Simply put, it means to return a place to its natural state. One area we focused on were the sections of the creek with concrete beds. How might we go about returning them back into soil and plants, and what are the potential benefits of doing so in terms of biodiversity, human wellbeing, economics, and community sustainability?
  These are all important areas we wanted to address, but there’s something largely absent in these sorts of considerations: First Nations peoples and perspectives. I had the privilege of speaking briefly about this project with Dr. Virginia Marshall, the Inaugural Indigenous Postdoctoral Fellow with ANU’s School of Regulation and Global Governance and the Fenner School of Environment and Society, and a Wiradjuri Nyemba woman. With respect to our focus on flooding, she noted that:
  “If we look at various concepts of living within an Aboriginal world view, the understanding of the benefits of floodplains and flooding is [that it is] nurturing to the entire environment. Why do we build near rivers that flood?”
  She pointed to research into the colonial history surrounding areas like Gundagai, Daly River, and Wingecarribee River – among many others – where Aboriginal people warned settlers not to set up camp near rivers. We at the ANU have certainly set up camp here at the creek.
  Referring to earlier discussions about the “three pillars” that began this article, she stated that a fourth pillar – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture – is considered as ‘core,’ adding that the “triple bottom line” employed by sustainability-minded organisations in homage to the three pillars framework would instead be a “five bottom line” in many Aboriginal communities where the fourth area of culture is joined by a fifth – law. These are different frameworks that open up a broader range of considerations.  
  What does natural mean?
  To return a place to its natural state may seem self-explanatory, but what does “natural” actually mean? A state without human interaction? A time before human intervention? The Ngunnawal peoples, among others, have lived in this area for at least 20,000 years. Before colonisation, the entirety of Australia was what you might call an Indigenous constructed landscape. Dr. Marshall echoes these points, noting Bill Gammage’s appropriately titled work The Biggest Estate, as well as the work of Aboriginal authors Bruce Pascoe and Tyson Yunkaporta. Her own award-winning book, Overturning Aqua Nullius takes this same argument of an expanded, managed estate to the waters of Australia – so often forgotten in discourse that places Western words, frames, and concepts like “land” above other more inclusive Indigenous terms like “Country.”
  We don’t need to rewind the local ecology 20,000 years to arrive at a time before these concrete blocks were placed, yet we use a word such as “natural” which implies an absence of humans. We could just as easily, and more accurately, describe this process as “re-Indigenising” if what we’re aiming for is the healthy Indigenous environment from just a few centuries ago. 
  The settler-colonisers who invaded this Country saw nature as something different to and separate from themselves. As early as the 1500s, influential legal thinkers like Grotius enshrined these ideas in frameworks of sovereignty. Later, Blackstone’s 1754 comments around ideas of agriculture and the right to take those civilisations deemed lacking it formed the basis of other disastrous concepts like terra nullius. These legal frameworks prevented settlers from seeing the landscape as something already “deeply shaped by people,” with severe and far-reaching consequences still felt today. We obviously want to avoid repeating those mistakes, but it’s often hard to do from the start when the language we use, and the way we’re taught to understand it, prominently features those same frames.
  A similar idea is found in the concept of “wilderness.” In fact, a “rewilding” project for ANU was already raised long before our project began. The ANU Below Zero initiative is exploring ways to reduce campus emissions, and a community consultation document refers multiple times to the idea of “rewilding” campus. Again, this isn’t a bad idea, but perhaps we should be mindful of the framing here too. 
  A term like “wilderness” implies an absence of humans, perhaps even more strongly than the word “nature”. At the time of the interview, Dr. Marshall was planning to attend COP26 as a Pacific delegate, to engage in discussions around these issues, exploring “how we can learn from Indigenous knowledge and culture in working with an Indigenous environment”. She added that:
  “Wild and wilding is a colonial concept that relates back to the colonial discourse of ‘prehistory’, ‘primitive’ and ‘nomads’. Indigenous peoples are very uncomfortable about these terms for good reasons.”
  In Carving Wilderness, Tracey Banivanua Mar describes the creation of our national parks system and how it both depended upon, and reaffirmed, the concept of a deserted wilderness. This idea left no room – in the mind, or on Country – for Indigenous landscapes. In a related paper on ‘narratives of dispossession’, Mar continues this line of thought and considers these colonised landscapes as a kind of history text – one read through mere occupation, an act that constantly reaffirms those same ideas.
  It’s important for us to appreciate the hidden values in frames like these so that we can work to also include thoughts beyond or outside them. Once we also start framing “nature” as “Indigenous environment” or similar, it opens new and exciting ways of thinking about problems like those concrete blocks.
   
  Originally published in Woroni Vol. 72 Issue 5 ‘To Be Confirmed’
  Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.

  Nick Blood

• Four Simple and achievable ways to eat more sustainably

  May 4, 2019 6:51 pm Comments Off on Four Simple and achievable ways to eat more sustainably

  From school climate rallies, to keep-cups and the movement against straws, young people are championing a more sustainable future. However, amidst all of our sustainable attempts what is often ignored is the enormous impact our diets have on the environment. One-third of total global greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture alone and Australians have one of the largest per capita dietary environmental footprints in the world. But fear not! Although veganism is an ideal solution (I’m patting all the vegans on the back here, especially because you’ve made it very clear who you are), there are many more achievable ways for us mere mortals to help the environment by what we eat. It all starts by what you put in your supermarket basket.

   Plan your meals

  It’s simple. A well planned supermarket shopping list translates to less food wastage, less impulse spending and more money in your pocket. You won’t have sad and soggy vegetables sitting in the fridge and will also ensure that you have the right ingredients to cook with (rather than opting for another packet of two-minute noodles). Sit down at the start of each week or fortnight and plan your meals. This can be all your meals or just your nightly dinners. Basically just list the ingredients and quantities you will need to buy.
  E.g.

  MONDAY AND TUESDAY DINNER

  Healthy roasted chicken and veggies

  2 medium chicken breasts
  1 capsicum
  1 zucchini
  1 clove of garlic
  ½ an onion
  1 cup of broccoli
  paprika

  BUY
  BUY
  BUY
  BUY
  Pantry
  Frozen in freezer
  In cupboard

           2. Moderate your meat intake
  Avoiding meat is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet. Try making Mondays meat-free! Red meat, lamb (if you are feeling particularly bourgie) and processed meats such as sausages, salami and ham have particularly high eco-footprints. Eating beef just 1-2 times per week, over an entire year is the equivalent of driving 2482 km in a petrol fuelled car. Attempt to substitute them for lower impact meats such as chicken or pork. In addition, alternatives such as flexitarianism (eating meat more rarely) are feasible for most people. Another great tip is to experiment a bit and learn to cook your favourite recipes a little differently. Why not make a vegetarian lasagne or pork tacos instead of beef! There are also a huge range of legumes, tofu and nuts that can act as meat-like substitutes. Similarly, junk food and most-dairy products have a reasonably large environmental footprint as they are heavily processed. Swap some of your processed snacks for fruit or home baked products (particularly if they are lovingly baked by a parent or grandparent).
          3. Eat seasonally
  Eating food that is abundant and in season means that produce does not have to be transported internationally from countries such as the US and China to appear on our plates. Buying produce that is seasonal will not only reduce transport emissions but it is often fresher and less expensive. It is easy to tell what is in season based on the fruit and veggies that are the cheapest and most abundant in supply. If in doubt just check the label.
  Here are some of my personal Autumn faves in season

  Fruit: Most apples are in season, kiwi fruits, avocados, bananas, most oranges, pears
  Veggies: beetroot, broccoli, Asian greens, cucumber, carrot, spinach, pumpkin, leek, zucchini
  Some ‘treat yourself/I’ve just been paid’ fruits: strawberries, raspberries, grapes, mangos

          4. Eat locally
  While lowering your environmental dietary footprint can be achieved by shopping at the big two supermarkets, it is even better to support local stores and producers. Right here at the ANU, the Food Co-op under Lena Karmel Lodge sells affordable and sustainable local produce. They also sell weekly veggie boxes filled with seasonal fresh fruit and vegetables. Their foods are sold in bulk to reduce excess packaging and plastic.
  In addition to places such at the Food Co-op, Canberra is surrounded by quality farms and growers who are passionate about cultivating great produce. The Farmer’s Markets are held every weekend and are a great chance to feel like a prised millennial, walking around in your activewear (with no intention of going to the gym) while holding a bunch of kale. Choku Bai Jo in Lyneham and Curtin also aim to give local farmers another outlet (that’s open during the week) to sell their produce and foods.
  Another fantastic thing about shopping at smaller, local sellers is that you are helping to reduce the food wastage associated with the big supermarkets. Shockingly, up to 60 percent of fruit and veggies never even make it to the supermarket shelves because they do not meet the narrow cosmetic standards they set. For example, Woolworths lists an 11,000-word document just describing their standards for bananas. While some stores have introduced ranges such as ‘the odd bunch’ selling ‘ugly’ produce at a discount, local producers will sell you what they grow. They may sell you a slightly bend-ier carrot, or a mysteriously large zucchini, but ultimately it’s what’s on the inside that counts.
  The keep-cup revolution and the switch to reusable shopping bags shows us that if small changes are done consistently they can have a huge impact. Planning what you buy, swapping high-carbon footprint foods for lower ones and eating locally and seasonally where possible are some of the easiest ways to ensure that our planet can support future generations. A more sustainable diet is not only healthier for the planet but it is also better for your cash-strapped student wallets and your health.

  Jennifer Kerr

• The Case for Veganism

  April 24, 2019 10:22 am Comments Off on The Case for Veganism

  On 9 April 2019, traffic chaos surged in Melbourne while vegan activists blocked Flinders Street intersection as part of a nationwide protest. Police eventually acted, arresting the protestors and throwing them into paddy wagons. Placards were left on the road, their message still visible: “You have been lied to. www.watchdominion.com.”
  Widespread condemnation erupted. Prime Minister Scott Morrison dubbed the activists “green-collared criminals”. Greg Sheridan, journalist for The Australian, complained that his “productivity was diminished” because of “vegan militants”.
  Even The Betoota Advocate, usually favouring the underdog, took an admittedly humorous swing: “Melbourne’s Vegan Protests Lose Momentum As Activists Begin Napping Due To Iron Deficiencies”, their satirical headline read.
  An important message was forgotten among the furore surrounding the protests. That veganism – the belief we should not eat or use animal-based products – has a rational basis. In fact, veganism is based on an uncontroversial moral principle that everyone reading this will accept: that we should not cause unnecessary harm.
  So let me carve out the meat behind this argument – so to speak.
  Consider why we should accept the principle in the first place. You approach a fork in the road while driving. Road A and Road B are your options. Both have pleasant views, require similar travel time, and lead to your destination. However, driving along Road A causes a boulder to fall from a cliff, killing someone. Nobody is harmed on Road B.
  Obviously, everyone would choose Road B. Otherwise you would harm someone unnecessarily. Consuming animal products, however, is analogous to choosing Road A.
  Nonhuman animals are sentient – capable of experiencing pleasure and pain – and thus capable of being harmed. We know animals suffer because they virtually all scream, cry or resist when subjected to mistreatment, behaving just as humans do. Backing up this inference, the nervous systems in vertebrates are fundamentally similar to humans.
  However, invertebrates – and especially bivalves like oysters – have less similar nervous systems. Therefore, we should be less confident these animals experience pain. Nevertheless, recent research suggests that crabs, prawns and octopuses all experience pain. With the science inconclusive, we ought to give invertebrates and bivalves the benefit of the doubt if killing them is unnecessary.
  There is no significant evidence to suggest that plants have the capacity to feel pain.
  Killing nonhuman animals for food and clothing causes them harm. Many modes of killing animals do not inflict an immediate death. Instead, they cause animals to suffer greatly as they die. Intensive farming practices confine sentient animals in cramped, unsuitable conditions for their entire lives. Eggs regularly come from hens in small cages, and the male chicks are killed at birth because they will never produce eggs. Dairy products often come from cows who are artificially inseminated in confined barns – their calf taken to the slaughterhouse shortly after birth, leaving the milk for humans, but the mother and calf wailing.
  The lives of free-range animals are undoubtedly better than those raised in factory farms. Using them for food, however, still requires killing them. Even hens and dairy cows are killed when their productivity declines, which is usually early into their life span. By killing them, we are eliminating their future pleasures – all for the mere difference in taste between a plant-based and animal-based meal.
  So, using animals for food and other items causes harm to animals. We have no good reason to discount this suffering simply because they are not members of the species homo sapiens.
  Animal agriculture also produces more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transport sector worldwide. There are many more negative environmental impacts associated with non-vegan diets. In 2018, Oxford University researchers concluded that plant-based diets are the most sustainable: the “single biggest way” to reduce your environmental impact. For anyone who believes in climate change, the harms associated with non-vegan diets are clear.
  Consuming animal products is completely unnecessary for most. According to the American Dietetic Association, “appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain conditions.” Granted, vegan diets can be unhealthy, but with proper planning all essential nutrition is available. A plant-based diet may even be healthier as growing evidence connects red and processed meat consumption with higher incidence of bowel cancer. It is no coincidence, after all, that many elite athletes now opt for vegan diets.
  There are many delicious vegan dishes too. True, some vegan products are more expensive, but many are not. Lentils, chickpeas and tofu – great sources of protein – are much cheaper than meat-based equivalents. My favourite dish – Spinach Dhal – is cheap, easy to make, and mouth-wateringly tasty.
  Therefore, consuming animal-products harms animals, the planet and ourselves. We lack good justifications to cause this harm. It is analogous to choosing Road A.
  Other objections to veganism remain. “It is natural to consume animal flesh,” some say, “as nonhuman animals eat each other.” Are other things nonhuman animals do – including torture one another – therefore acceptable among humans too? Moreover, most animals who kill for food would not survive if they did not, whereas we have no need to eat animal flesh.
  “We do not actually cause the harm by purchasing animal products,” people contend. “Such products already exist – irrespective of whether we consume them or not.” Nevertheless, there has to be some threshold that – if consumption levels drop beneath – will precipitate a change in ordering patterns. If demand falls for animal products in a supermarket, less will be ordered in the future; triggering a reduction of animals harmed. Vegans, therefore, are not attempting to change the past, but prevent the persistence of objectionable practices. Just as boycotts of products coming from South Africa during apartheid endeavoured to do.
  Granted, some days a vegan diet will make no difference. But on other days, refraining from purchasing may cause the threshold to drop beneath the level of profitability. Thus, we ought to avoid animal products. After all, we would all avoid Road A even if there was only a small chance the boulder would fall and crush someone.
  Veganism is based on strong foundations – and everyone who accepts the moral principle that we should not cause unnecessary harm thereby accepts the premise of veganism. You may indeed disagree with the Melbourne protests. But a misguided protest does not render the cause itself misguided.
  I strongly encourage everyone to watch documentaries about slaughterhouses – to see, for yourselves, the abhorrent reality that underpins our consumption of animal products; hidden from us in the supermarkets, restaurants and clothing stores we frequent. And if you agreed that driving on Road B was the right thing to do, I encourage you to think about how you may be steering the wheel in your own life. On reflection, you may decide to eat like the world depends on it.

  Anthony Merlino