The Devouring Dragon: How China's Rise Threatens the Natural World. By Craig Simons - Book Review

The current demise of our natural world is laden with complexities. Trying to explain these complexities to others can be a difficult task, a task that The Devouring Dragon takes on and eloquently succeeds.

When I first started to read The Devouring Dragon I was intrigued as to how Simons was going to place the decline of the natural world on China’s growth, yet he does not. Instead, Simons uses China to symbolically represent the world’s treatment of the environment.

Too often I find environmental texts laden with scientific jargon, preventing those without background knowledge in science, developing meaning from the text. Simons writes his more like a narrative and when he does use terminology he explains it. This makes The Devouring Dragon accessible for all individuals. The readability of The Devouring Dragon combined with it being a story about the whole world’s relationship with nature, makes it an important read for all.

Simons, a journalist who lives and works in China, presents a familiar picture. China, a developing country, wants the same quality of life as developed countries. In a similar journey that developed countries have taken, China is using the environment to their financial and developmental advantage. Yet their pace of development is so rapid it is putting a strain on the ecosystem services that nature provides. Developed countries see this, and even though their individuals have a greater impact on the environment than China’s, they suggest a different direction for China on their journey to a better quality of life. Meanwhile, as developed countries are requesting them to prevent their environmental impact they are using China to manufacture their goods. Which leads to huge environmental impacts locally for China and globally.

To tell this story Simons takes the reader on a journey telling the history of China and its current situation through those without a voice: the plants, animal species and individuals whose relationship with the natural world is being affected by China’s use of the environment. Through the loss of the Yangtze dolphin, the forests in Papua New Guinea and the failure of Copenhagen, the reader is confronted with the effects of our current treatment of the environment. In one statement by a local Papua New Guinean, ‘The trees are gone, the land is spoiled, it is all gone.’

One could be forgiven to see The Devouring Dragon as a pessimistic view of our world. A feeling of no hope, we are on the path to the loss of the natural world and humanity’s destruction. The descriptions of the plants and animals are highly emotive and are used as a metaphor to our ignorance. As they fade away, is there anyone to witness their demise? Does anyone care? Simons shows there are signs all around of nature’s declining state.  Simons describes himself brushing off coal ash from a magazine, a symbolic indication of our feigned ignorance to our consumptive use of the environment. Yet, almost painting an Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) vision of China, the people do not see the environmental destruction around them, only the progress of their society. In Simons’ descriptions of the fading natural world he faintly sends the message that we must see it now before it is all gone.

However, contradictory to his tone of the book where natural beauty meets human ignorance and greed, he concludes that there is hope. He offers that there are solutions that can be realised and he suggests that even though it seems bleak he has optimism. He is optimistic because he chooses to be so, perhaps a lesson for us all.

Despite the hard to swallow truths in Simons book, it is a must read. Not only does it perfectly describe the current environmental crisis, but it reminds us of what humanity could lose.

Huxley A 1932 Brave New World London: Chatto &Windus.

 

 

‘In one way or another, this century will be the one in which we learn to account for our planet. Because unless we start accounting for our transaction with the earth we will bankrupt it for all future human habitation.’ Gleeson-White 2011 p.254.

I have just finished reading Jane Gleeson-White’s (2011) book Double Entry- How the merchants of Venice shaped the modern world and how their invention could make or break the planet. I was drawn to read this book after listening to a talk with the book’s author on ABC radio. Although I only heard the tail end of the talk, the notion of this book intrigued me. In the talk Gleeson- White (2011) stated that Double Entry suggests that the current way we measure our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is destroying our planet, however if we were to take into account the environment as part of our GDP we could desist the destruction and start rejuvenation.

It has probably become apparent through previous entries to my blog that I grapple with the notion that it is difficult to argue a case for the environment as income earnings usually trumps environmental sustainability. I felt that by reading Gleeson-White (2011), my cognitive dilemma would be quelled. If my synthesis of her book is right, then I believe I now understand why monetary gain trumps environmental protection and how we can change this ingrained notion in our society.

In Double Entry Gleeson-White (2011) traces the history of accounting and its journey into today’s society controlling beast. Although I found at times Gleeson-White’s (2011) history of accounting difficult to follow due to lack of interest in the subject and lack of understanding, I believe I can sum up her discussion of how Pacioli’s invention of double entry led to today’s environmental destruction.

With the invention of double entry bookkeeping by Venice merchant Pacioli, the ability to measure ones capital gain (or loss) became a possibility. According to Gleeson-White (2011), it was this invention that sparked the Renaissance due to the ability of high earners to pay for the architecture and art. Although this revolutionised the way business and earnings were achieved, it wasn’t until the industrial revolution that double entry became common place along with the ability to tinker with one’s books. Thus the profession of accounting was born along with regulation bodies and the emergence of capitalism. Double entry had developed from a small invention used by merchants to an overarching tool that was used by businesses and eventually governments to measure their capital and therefore their overall worth. Unfortunately, measuring one’s capital, as Glesson-White (2011) points out, does not measure those things that do not hold monetary value, like education and the environment.

Eventually, with the rise of accounting double entry was used to measure a nation’s success. The use of GDP for calculating the profits and loss of a nation and thus developing a budget was first used by the British government to calculate the cost of World War Two. Despite the universal use of GDPs and budget developments today, calculating a nation’s worth and spendings was only to be used to calculate the effect of the war, and was not to set ‘a precedent’ (Gleeson-White 2011 p.185). Despite this warning, it was a precedent.

Following the evolution of accounting into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Gleeson- White (2011) mentions the many scandals and downfalls of businesses and the economy due to the fallibility of the human condition and therefore the manipulation of the double entry system. She shows that with a society that has a large focus on capital, when businesses and nations are subject to human dishonesty and greed the fall is rather large. Particularly when large corporations are tied up with governance and individual investments.

Through the journey of the evolution of accounting and the rise of capitalism, Gleeson- White (2011) brings the reader to our modern day world. We have become a society that measures the tangible while the intangible becomes second class. With the mention of Robert Kennedy’s speech in 1968 she shows how our evolution into a society who values profit has given us an inability to measure those things that give us life and give life meaning. In other words, the environment and society itself. However, she suggests that although through double entry we have ruined the planet, we can use this tool to rejuvenate.

Gleeson-White (2011) paints a vivid picture of the way we are currently treating our planet. One could put it into a metaphor of stealing. We take from our planet what we want and need and use it for our own purpose, yet we do not pay for what we take. We leave it in a state of dishevelment and do not believe we ‘owe’ nature anything. We get it all for free. According to Gleeson-White (2011) what we do with the resources that we take from nature is worth more to the national GDP than the actual resource itself. We do not pay for the cost of destruction as a result. However, she believes that if nature and society were included in the GDP, we could rejuvenate and avert environmental ruin. Gleeson-White (2011) suggests that if we put a monetary value on the ecosystem services that nature provides, the GDP of many nations would look very different as well as the state of the environment. Gleeson-White (2011) offers the following examples; tropical mangroves are worth US$1000/ for their ecosystem services , yet when cleared for shrimp farm the value is US $200/hectare. The WWF’s Living Planet Survey showed that the ‘ecological debt’ that we owe to the planet as a result of our activities is US $4 trillion to US $4.5 trillion each year. An amount, according to Gleeson-White (2011), far greater than the loss of the current global financial crisis.

What I believe Gleeson-White (2011) is saying is that we need to treat nature like we would someone who provides us with goods and services. We need to start paying nature for what we take. That means we need to start placing a monetary value on the services offered to us by nature and the only way to do that is by putting natural resources and their destruction into the double entry system of nations. Those of us who care for the environment for its own sake and for ecosystem services need to stop fighting capitalism and use it to our own advantage.  It certainly would be interesting to see how we would value and treat our environment if this was the case. I would imagine rather differently.

 

Gleeson J 2011 Double Entry- How the merchants of Venice shaped the modern world and how their invention could make or break the planet Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

The notion of 'de-extinction'- A reflection

Although the notion of ‘de-extinction’ is quite appealing, I feel a sense of concern. This sense of concern is two-fold. One concern is in relation to the inherent complexities of the process within ecosystems and the second concern is for the urgency and the feeling of needing to protect critically endangered species.

Processes within ecosystems are very complex and there is a possibility that when one species is no longer a contributor to an ecosystem other species fill that ecological niche. Thus, if a species is re-introduced could there be a potential for it to disrupt the processes that have developed since its departure?  Or, What would be the outcome of an extinct species re-entering into an ecosystem where its potential competitor is also on the brink of extinction? For example the Thylacine re-entering the Tasmanian wilderness with the Tasmanian Devil suffering from DFTD and habitat fragmentation/lose. Of course there is the possibility that the returned species will fit nicely back into its ecological niche. Yet that is the nature of ecosystems, they are highly complex and unique, outcomes could be positive to ecological processes or negative.

According to Tilbury and Wortman (2004), sustainability is about addressing the cause of problems, not the symptoms. I feel that the use of ‘de-extinction’ is a potential band-aid to the fact that we are going through a period of rapid species loss that is largely attributed to human activities. Although  did not state that this is a solution to saving species from extinction I fear that it could be seen as a potential solution by others, therefore diminishing the feeling of urgency and need to protect these species. I feel that one of the answers to species extinction is addressing the causes. That is, societal attitudes and systems that allow human activities to impact on the survival of other species and not the symptoms, which is extinction. Although this may seem like an almost impossible task, would it not be wonderful if other species’ survival were valued in all facets of society?

Tasmanian Devil: Symbol of ecological complexities and our inability to understand them.

I have just finished reading Tasmanian Devil: A unique and threatened animal by David Owen and David Pemberton (2005). After reading this book, completing three assignments in the subject Ecological Processes at university and the chance encounter with the television program Living Planet on SBS, I have come to the realisation of the deep complexities that make up an ecosystem. It appears that everything is connected and an intricate balance between the processes in an ecosystem keeps the environment functional and healthy. Yet, if something is removed or disturbed this intricate balance can be disrupted with sometimes drastic consequences.

A perfect example of the complexities within ecological processes is the Tasmanian Devil and the current issue of Devil Facial Tumor Disease (DFTD). According to Owen and Pemberton (2005) although it is known that the current declining rate of the Tasmanian Devil is due to DFTD it is not certain as to the cause of this devastating disease. There is speculation that it is due to deformities in oysters as a result of chemicals used in forestry that have made their way into the water streams. This same chemical has been associated with tumors in mice. As devils almost eat anything, including oysters, there is speculation that this chemical, bio-accumulated in oysters and ingested by devils, has caused DFTD (Owen & Pemberton 2005).
This association, though would seem unlikely, shows just how complex and connected processes are in an ecosystem and how our behaviour could have unintended consequences. As a result of DFTD we (Australia) are at risk of losing our last endemic marsupial carnivore. This begs a question to be asked, What consequences could losing the Tasmanian Devil have to the ecosystem in Tasmania, particularly when we consider the devils' scavaging abilities?
Predictably, the powers that be are denying this connection between their chemical usage and DFTD. How much power does a huge money making industry like forestry in Tasmania have? Is it enough power that its voice is louder and has more sway than that of the lose of a species?

This example shows that our lack of ability to understand the complexities in ecosystems is not just due to their inherent complex nature but our political stubbornness and greed for money. It seems that an industries ability to make money and produce jobs comes before conserving a species. Although this is speculation on my part, it appears to be a recurring and common issue with most environmental/conservation issues. After reading Owen and Pemberton (2005) two things seems certain to me, politicians will sit on their hands unless it is absolutely necessary to act, like a species becoming extinct, and if anyone stands to lose money as a result of a decision to save a species, affected parties will argue for their case stalling any real action.

Although I do feel sympathy for those who are trying to make a living I have trouble accepting that the ability of one to make a living trumps the health of our environment and the wellbeing of species. Do we want another extinction in Tasmania because of our actions and the value we put on capitalism?

Own D & Pemberton D 2005 Tasmanian Devil: A unique and threatened animal Allen & Unwin Sydney.

A video for change- Moving away from the fear message.

A friend of mine sent this video to me. At first I was hesitant to watch it as often organisations such as Animals Australia use confronting and, at times, disturbing images to change our behaviour. However, this video has used all that the literature has been saying about getting individuals to care and take action. 

Animals Australia reminds us of the compassion and empathy we have for other creatures, the love we feel for them. It is from this reminder that Animals Australia informs us of the mistreatment that occurs to our beloved animals in the name of mass consumption and makes us question our current use of the animals that we consume. 

Finally, we are moving away from the loss message and more towards the love message.The question is, can we change our behaviour in order to save the lives of innocents and extend our circle of care to ALL creatures? Can we be selfless?

My Philosophy of Environmental Education

The following paragraphs contain my beliefs and views on Environmental Education. They are based on all my learning over the past two years and will mirror some of my reflections in this blog.

My Philosophy will be broken up into six sections dealing with the purpose of Environmental Education, the importance of Environmental Education, how I view my role as an Environmental Educator, what makes learning effective in Environmental Education, how Environmental Education relates to the bigger picture of environmental and sustainability issues and what it is that I hope to achieve through my role as an Environmental Educator.

What is the purpose of Environmental Education?

I believe the main purpose of Environmental Education is to connect individuals with their natural environment in order to incite a want to protect nature. However, I acknowledge that connection is not sufficient enough to lead individuals to take action for the environment. Within Environmental Education, Education for Sustainability (EfS) should be complementary partners. Education for Sustainability gives learners skills and mindsets in order to take action for the environment.

I believe that although Environmental Education is not the single answer to environmental and social equity issues, it is an important component. In connecting individuals to the environment and giving them the skills to protect the environment, Environmental Education has the ability to assist in sustaining ecosystem services, prevent ecological disasters, prevent the extinction of species, improve social equity, improve the way we treat other species, enhance our wellbeing and allow future generations to experience the wonder and the diversity of nature.

Although these may seem like impossible tasks I truly believe that Environmental Education can make an important difference to our current treatment of nature.

Why is Environmental Education Important?

Environmental Education is important for reconnecting individuals with the natural world and creating an awareness of the reliance we have on the environment. In modern society I do not believe we think often enough about where our resources come from and whether or not we care if we lose our natural environment. Yet if we want to continue to survive on this planet as a species we can no longer bury our heads in the sand to the origins of that which we consume.

Environmental Education is also important for the survival of other species. Through the feeling of being connected with nature, learners can empathise and feel compassion for other species in the environment. It is through this ability that learners will wish to do no harm to other species and therefore the environment in which they live.

With its complementary partner, EfS, Environmental Education follows a pedagogy that enables learners to develop holistic and analytical ways of thinking. In doing so learners question all stated truths, look beyond the surface of an issue and recognise the connections within a problem. This ability will be important in learners’ futures in which they will be subject to insurmountable amounts of information, a growing populace, possible climate change and an environment and economic system that will need to be equally sustainable. Through reconnecting with the environment and gaining the skills and ways of thinking through EfS, learners will have the necessary cognition and ability to address these issues in a just manner.

How do I see my role?

I believe it is my role to help learners connect with nature and develop the necessary cognition and skills in which they will be able to make a positive difference to society, other species and the environment. I see my role as following four criteria:

1.       Allow for learners to spend time learning in nature- This will give learners hands on experience in their natural environment therefore giving them the opportunity to build a positive connection with the environment.

2.       Include knowledge about the environment- Through my own experience learning about the processes that occur in the environment I have become aware of how important it is to understand how systems operate in nature. I feel that without an understanding of these processes and interactions in the environment we may hold misconceptions about nature and other species therefore resulting in inappropriate treatment. For this reason, I see it as my role to allow learners to gain knowledge about the processes within the environment in order to develop an understanding of the natural world and its patterns. I believe this is best learnt within the natural environment.

3.       Follow the principles of EfS- The principles of EfS give learners the ability to think critically and deeply about issues. Therefore learners can become autonomous thinkers and not accept all information that is given to them. They will want to pull apart all stated truths in order to find reality. It will also give them the skills to deal with the reality once they have found it and develop well informed decisions.

4.       Lead by example- I cannot hold the belief in the resilience of the environment and the wellbeing of other fellow humans and other species without partaking in the action myself. If I lead by example I will hold conviction in my beliefs. Although I do not agree in imparting one’s beliefs onto another as this does not foster critical and deep thinking, through leading by example I can show what I believe through my actions and that others have the ability to do the same.

What makes learning effective in Environmental Education?

I believe effective learning in Environmental Education must possess the elements and their sub-categories that I outlined in a framework of EfS earlier in this blog. I have included this in my philosophy as I feel that it outlines my beliefs of what makes learning in Environmental Education effective. The only difference I have made is in regards to the sub-category of Programs should (if applicable) provide learners with opportunities to interact with their natural environment under the element of Learner needs. This has been changed to Programs provide learners with opportunities to interact and connect with their natural environment. This sub-category is essential in initiating a feeling of care and a want to protect their natural environment and it should be the starting point of all learning.

Framework for Environmental Education and EfS

Elements and their sub-categories

Learner needs

• Programs must acknowledge and build upon learners’ previous knowledge.
• Programs should be adaptable to learner needs eg. Disabilities, cultural.
• Programs provide learners with opportunities to interact and connect with their natural environment.
• Programs should have clear objectives that are known to the learner with feedback provided from educator.

Cognition

• Programs develop and foster Critical Thinking.
• Programs develop Reflective Learners.
• Programs develop and foster Systemic Thinking.
• Programs develop and foster Envisioning Skills.

Collaboration

• Programs should be developed with the goal of empowerment of individuals.
• Programs should have role of educator as facilitator.
• Programs should further build upon learner’s ability to work with others.

Values Clarification

• Programs should develop metacognitive skills.
• Programs should encourage learners to question current dominant world views that create unsustainable practices.
• Programs should encourage compassion and empathy.
• Programs should encourage visions of a better world and not treat them as rhetoric. 

Evaluation

• Programs have mechanisms in place that allow for flexibility.
• Programs should have on going monitoring and reflection.
• Educators should be engaged in reflective practice.
• Programs are developed with ability to be evaluated and built upon from evaluations.
• Resources are appropriate and effective.
• Evaluation should measure the elements in this framework.

What is the bigger picture?

I often feel there is a perception that Environmental Education is a non-essential subject. However, if we look beyond the education realm and to the issues in the wider world, common sense would suggest that Environmental Education is imperative. Through my learning in my Masters degree and critical reflection, I have come to the understanding that we, as humans, need to be treating our world better. I believe that our climate will change, I believe that we are losing some of our most wonderful plant and animal species, and I believe that due to current systems many individuals and other species do not have their basic needs or rights met. Our current way of thinking puts human needs above that of the environment and other species. As a result we place ourselves above the rest of the natural world and view our wants and needs to be far superior. Ironically, though, our basic needs are directly connected to the ecosystems that provide us with all necessities and in our race to consume all that we desire we put a great stress on these ecosystems. In response to this mindset and consuming actions, species are declining, global warming is a threatening issue, pollution is choking our oceans and water ways and we have many individuals living in poverty and with hunger or have lost traditions and customs that are integrated with the natural environment.

I believe these issues do not make for a just or sustainable world, as such we need ways of feeling, thinking and acting that will enable us to protect the service that provides us with our basic needs, the environment. Environmental Education follows a pedagogy that can provide these ways of feeling, thinking and acting.

What do I hope to achieve?

My motives are based on the connection that I feel with the environment and other species. I am very much concerned for the well being of other species and for this reason I want to protect our environment. Through Environmental Education I hope to create well informed, critical, reflective and positive individuals. I want learners to question injustices and our unsustainable way of living. I want them to possess the skills that will enable them to interact positively with their world and in doing so take actions that will heighten the well being of their environment, other species and other individuals. We need to start recognising that we share this planet and with that comes a responsibility to look after and care for it.

‘We have suffered here because we can no longer see the sacred in the trees, flowers, and our fellow men’ (Segovia 2010 p.749)

I have often wondered how we, as humanity, have come to view ourselves as separate from the natural world. The conclusions that have become apparent to me are not based on research that I have read but more of a combination of analysis from viewing the history of Australian Aboriginals and my own heritage. 

After watching the documentary Kanyini last year in the subject Introduction to Sustainable Development I became very aware of the reasons for the current situation Australian Aboriginals find themselves in. They have lost their culture and as a result their identity. According to Segovia (2010) many indigenous groups like the Australian Aboriginals have their culture tied with the rhythms of the earth. They view themselves as not being separate from nature but an integral part of the landscape along with the creatures who also belong to the same earth (Segovia 2010). It can be assumed, then, that as a result of oppression with European arrival to Australia, Australian Aboriginal’s lost their connection with the natural world. Could this be the reason for our Western anthropocentric views of the world? Did we lose our connection with the natural world?

I am lucky enough to be aware of some of my heritage. My father and his family come from Wales. Of the little history that I know of Wales, the Welsh, like the Australian Aboriginals, suffered oppression and had to fight to keep their culture from other invading groups. However, unlike the Australian Aboriginals who have only recently felt the oppression of an invading force, my ancestors suffered centuries before my time. 

According to Segovia (2010) our prehistoric ancestors would have had myths and legends for the patterns that are existent on Earth. Yet we have lost these stories and with it, our connection with the natural world. I have wondered what it was like for my ancestors to lose their connection with the natural world and therefore their culture. Although some still exists through our language, the Welsh and their way of life is very much integrated into the Western anthropocentric context. Did we feel disillusioned and disconnected?

When I think of my Welsh heritage and that they too would have shared the same connection with nature as indigenous groups do today (Segovia 2010) there is a feeling of hope that we may be able to regain this connection. Perhaps through regaining our connection with nature we can start protecting it instead of using it as a commodity.

Segovia V M 2010 Transforming mindsets through Education for Sustainable Development Demography and Social Change- Social Change Elsevier Ltd.