I would rather sit in a dentist's chair than have lunch on an inner Melbourne footpath. So the tax on local restaurants using outdoor heating introduced in my 'hood to "discourage the use of outdoor gas heaters" won't change my alfresco dining habits one bit.
But I am interested in the reasoning behind the introduction of a tax on hot air. One commentator writes:
Diners who choose to dine outside on very cold days should wear appropriate attire instead of using external gas heaters installed by the business owners. Most of the heat is wasted in warming up the open air, and only small proportion benefits the diners. Such inconsideration reflects on the naivety and hypocrisy of the diners on climate change and global warming argument.
Scrutiny of dress and behaviour, the preoccupation of moralising writers since ancient times, places this tax on outdoor heaters in a moral sphere. Lacking experience, wisdom and judgement, diners are not conforming to moral standards or beliefs to which they profess to aspire. Like wayward children, diners at restaurants that use outdoor heating will be encouraged to act morally by adopting uniform attire, in this case a government issued blanket.
“I would like to start to build a culture in outdoor dining areas of people using a blanket rather than a heater,” one local official told Melbourne media.
Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd labelled what the correspondent I quoted refers to as the global warming argument the greatest moral issue of our time.
Around seventy cafe's in the 'hood use outdoor heaters on footpath dining areas. Those heaters are estimated to produce fifty five tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, around three-quarters of a tonne per cafe per year. By contrast, Hazelwood power station in the Latrobe Valley, which supplies around a quarter of the electricity used in my 'hood, produces sixteen million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, capped at a net four hundred and fifty million tonnes over time. If global carbon dioxide emissions are changing the weather, as seems likely, common sense suggests that some kind of debate over what to do about that must follow. But I doubt that framing the debate in moral terms will produce any useful outcome.
The platform principles of the deep ecosophy movement (which I have been rather painstakingly working through on this blog for a while now) attempts to frame the debate in rational terms. Those who subscribe to the platform principles "have an obligation to directly or indirectly try to implement the necessary changes." Taxing fifty five tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions smacks of tokenism, and a lack of intellectual rigour, in what ought to be a debate over human interference in nonhuman life. It is simply not good enough to frame this earth-shaking debate as a moral argument, and rail against the hypocrisy of those who are hungry and cold. We need to do better, and I fear we are incapable of rising above the condemnatory rhetoric of everyday moralising, inevitably a domain of the intellectually bankrupt.
They only introduced outside heaters when the no-smoking inside rule came in. Most restaurateurs and coffee shops didn't want to loose their 'smoking' clientele and so installed the outside heaters so smokers wouldn't feel entirely left 'out in the cold'. A tax on hot air - bah! Humbug!
ReplyDeleteMy views, however non-politically correct or against the current grain of thinking is that:
ReplyDelete1. We may be experiencing climate change, but it may change again in the future. I remember the decade of worry about the ozone layer, now we are told that it is healing.
2. No amount of carbon reduction by Australians is going to make one bit of difference to the overall emissions, especially since India and China are going to be increasing their emissions over the next few decades.
3.Scientists lie like everyone else to suit a particular agenda.
4.The world has been making everything a catastrophe since 9/11, we're all so focused on things that can and will go wrong that we can no longer see anything positive.
5.There's never going to be a 'real debate' about carbon emissions because the west has prospered by using fossil fuels and now it wants to curb developing countries from having the advantages that they had - a no go I would think.
I'm interested in what the climate change debate says about us, and our culture, and the ways in which we frame and deal with problems. Scaring people and accusing them of destructive immoral behaviour is an ancient strategy that doesn't seem to be working out too well in modern times, and I'm interested in why that might be, as well. Personally, I think evidence of man made climate change is overwhelming, but who cares what I think? It is what I say, and how I say it, that might make for interesting reading.
ReplyDeleteI agree, man made climate change is overwhelming, so what should we do in light of the fact that China, with a population of 1.3 billion and India's 1.2 billion are the greatest culprits of this, so called 'climate change'. India's population will grow to 1.52 billion in the next few decades, so how will anything we do in Australia reduce worldwide emissions? Is this a 'feel good' exercise on our part or a supremacy exercise - 'we're better than you because we are attempting to reduce our emissions'? I don't think it has anything to do with morality, as far as I can see it's about economics and survival and a whole lot of rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI'm basically interested in the idea of a coalition between human and nonhuman life suggested by ecosophy. Right now I'm trying to make sense of some medieval ideas about such coalitions (although they were political alliances with saints and angels) suggested by Dom Bosco and Thomas Aquinas a thousand years ago. Those are illuminating, but heavy going for me, struggling in twenty first century to understand their significance. I don't really care about modern politics; I did what I could when I could and now enjoy a contemplative, rather than a politically active, life.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say 'non human' in this context, are you referring to other worldly beings such as angels? I hope Shaun is reading this, he's a fan of Thomas Aquinas. I too find ethics interesting, but in the context of the way we frame our questions, because I don't necessarily see that there are universal answers.
ReplyDeleteGiven that Aquinas was an advocate of determinism as opposed to free will, how do you account for climate change within the notion of environmental determinism - see:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_determinism
When ecosophy talks about the impact of human upon non human life what is meant is all things in the natural world. The closest analog I can find to these ideas in Western thought is pre-humanist philosophy, which did concern itself in great detail with the problem of what is universal and what is not. After Descartes, and especially Voltaire, those preoccupations with the nonhuman (and universal) vanished from Western thought. Perhaps they are returning in ideas about the post or trans human, perhaps not. But pre humanist philosophy was vitally interested in ideas about being part of a coalition of human and non human (including dead human) life, so it is an area rich in ideas (but I am short on comprehension, and finding it heavier than expected going).
ReplyDeleteSounds interesting, what texts are you reading? Are they on line so that I may have a read. I might then be able to tell you whether or not some of these ideas emerge in post human discourse.
ReplyDeleteOK great. Cooking dinner right now, but I'll have a look and email you afterward :)
ReplyDeleteAt the moment I'm eating chocolate to try and make myself feel better. Although sleeping for 11 hours today certainly made me feel more like myself than yesterday, but still being very quiet because I really do have to go into Uni to tutor tomorrow afternoon. Being on the blog and doing email has kept be sane today. I'm not a good patient when I'm sick. Yes, please email me with references, I am interested.
ReplyDeleteWell get better soon. If you need anything at all, just call.
ReplyDeleteI emailed URLs to Summa Theologica, heh don't know what a feminist will make of it all but I'm looking past the theology to what he says about being human, or not :)
Thanks for the links - will attempt to read and get back to you after other commitments and notwithstanding current illness.
ReplyDelete