"Alaska, almost a dozen times as large as Jawa, has a population under three-quarters of a million. Here climates range from Cfc to E, soils are thin and take thousands of years to develop, and the air is arctic. ..." (c) H.J. de Blij

Climate change, climate change, climate change.  It certainly bears repeating, if a refrain leads to awareness.  This seems like the dominant discourse to engendering climate change awareness.  Climate change will have (and is having) wide-reaching consequences, some we can predict and many others we cannot.  And of stories of affected landscapes, the high-elevation and high-latitude environments are the most often mentioned.  The post, Geography Directions: Permafrost, carbon and thermokarsts: the Arctic importance offers a slightly different spin on the hackneyed talk of glacial melt.  Instead of continuing to focus on the changes in quintessential landscapes-under-threat, like this one of Glacier Bay, Alaska, the article discusses carbon storage processes in periglacial landscapes.  By focusing on periglacial carbon storage, the article provides another avenue for understanding the Earth’s Carbon Cycle.  Further, periglacial landscapes are also undergoing transformation; however, these areas are also landscapes of human settlement and activity.  If periglacial, permafrost and thermokarsts aren’t sexy enough, then subsiding lands, sinking buildings, and trucks mired in mud should offer some tantalizing bases for climate change mitigation.

Economic growth is the second issue behind the “Big Australia” debate.  Economists argue in Business Week that reducing immigration may increase inflation (rise of prices) by reducing the supply of workers which would drive up wages.  This also has several scale implications.  Within the country, Western Australia would be particularly hard hit as the booming mining sector is in desperate need of workers.  Currently, this creates wage tensions between urban markets on either coast, as reported by The Australian.  Western Australia is forced to increase wages to get workers from the east to move out, thus draining the eastern urban areas of workers, which will then drive up wages there.  This will then lead to a “wage blowout” in Australia, if the country’s regions keep competing with one another.  Further, since that boom in mining is driven by global demands, especially by China.  Any increase in wages in mining would increase prices on those commodities and reduce Australia’s competitiveness, impacting its national economic growth.  Such a situation would have considerable economic costs as the mining sector in Australia is one of its largest export industries.

Another significant Australian export that is already being impacted by immigration issues is higher education, which is chosen by many international students.  A New York Times article reports on the current condition and future of Australia’s third-largest export industry.  Australian universities and education programs are impaired by the strong Australian dollar relative to other currencies that makes an Australian education more expensive.  There is also global competition for these international students that is pitting Australia against better known US and Canadian universities.  Ultimately, it is the tough visa requirements and long wait times of Australian immigration policy that have affected the export of foreign students.  This has led one institution to pursue legal action against the Governments’ current immigration policy.

In the end, the environmental restrictions and discourse on sustainability, combined with the demands of the globalized Australian economy, have led to some ironic socio-economic consequences.  Since population growth needs to be “sustainable” (i.e. limited) and immigration is necessary for economic growth, the compromise is to have immigration policy where not all migrants are created equal.  According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian government manages immigration numbers in two main flows: as permanent migrants or temporary migrants.  The permanent flows include skilled migrants, migrants joining Australian family members, and humanitarian migrants, including asylum-seekers and refugees.  In the terms of Australia’s immigration debate, these are the immigrant groups that are understood to account for population growth.  However, it is the short-term flows of student and business visa holders that are responsible for a significant number of people that end up staying permanently, by applying for residency and thus, adding to Australia’s population.

That situation makes the politics behind the debate more complex.  Officially, the compromise proposed by the government is to highlight the importance of skilled immigration.  Yet, despite that, recent immigration policy has actually made it more difficult to admit skilled immigrants, at least under visas.  The number of skilled professions eligible for visas has been significantly decreased and an updated test for incoming migrants has made English levels, skills qualifications and work experience requirements more stringent.  Both of these impact the numbers of skilled immigrants for business and higher education.  And yet, even those skilled migrants that do arrive with education and training matching or exceeding most native Australians, their skills are being wasted.  Social barriers, like lack of specifically Australian experience, lack of recognition for non-Australian qualifications, or language difficulties, force many “skilled” migrants into low- or medium-skilled occupations.

Moreover, a Telegraph article mentions how most Australians are inundated with news reports about illegal immigrants, “boat people” and detention centers.  This contributes to a belief that illegal immigration is responsible for “overcrowding.”  Although clearly a contentions aspect of Australian immigration, it does not actually have any significant bearing on population growth.  The permanent flow of humanitarian migrants only amounts to 14,000 people, compared to 114,000 for skilled permanent migrants.  Moreover, only 3,000 of those humanitarian migrants are admitted as refugees or asylum-seekers once they reach Australian shores.  Most “boat people” await deportation in detention centers throughout Australia and the Oceania region.

All of this is beyond the concern of many Australians who are worried over the increased the pressures on the existing urban centers with rising housing costs and congestion.  It is these average Australians that pressure the government by polling their opposition to population growth (i.e. immigration).  Since most Australians are located in the densely urbanized East, they form a significant bloc of voters that oppose immigration because of their experience or perception of its ills.  It is eastern Australians that want sustainable population growth and resultantly stifle economic growth for western mining and the international education sector.  The ironies of Australian immigration are found at the intersection of economic growth and environmental sustainability; and they offer no path to please all sides.

First it is important to understand Australia’s current demographic situation.  According to an article in the Economist, Australia’s population will grow almost two-thirds to 36 million by 2050.  An article from the Sydney Morning Herald explains how most of this growth has not come from natural increase, but from immigration, accounting for 65% of population growth in the last 10 years.  Australia’s fertility rate, providing the births as one half of the natural increase rate, is a modestly high 1.9 births per woman; yet, it is still below the replacement level of 2.1 births.  So, as with other developed countries, Australia’s native population is also getting older.  The Economist article states that the number of Australians between the ages of 65 and 84 will double and those over 85 will quadruple, also in the next 40 years.  This will increase the country’s dependency ratio, which is the number of persons not of working age for each person of working age.  The dependency ratio has significant social and economic implications for a society.  Ultimately, Australia’s current population growth is already faster than most developed countries, due to immigration.  And, it will also be facing a difficult future with an ageing population that will disproportionately consume social services without contributing to the tax base that pays for them.

The first issue, however, behind “Big Australia” is that of environmental sustainability.  This vast landmass is dominated by an arid climate, where rainfall and vegetation is scarce.  Such a landscape has a limited carrying capacity and simply cannot support agriculture or settlement on the scale of Australia’s population growth.  Fresh water supplies are being exhausted and biodiversity is under threat. Already, Australian population is over 80 percent urban and densely clustered along the temperate eastern coastlines.  Allowing more migrants would mean adding more people to a landscape that is at its settlement threshold.  Suburban sprawl is already creeping out of eastern Australia’s urban centers. This even adds to climate change concerns, as these urban “heat islands” are also congested with people and cars.  It is this line of reasoning behind the current Prime Minister’s slowing of immigration in the interest of sustainability.

The biggest critic of the limiting immigration in favor of sustainability is the business sector, in particular the property development industry.  A lobbyist for the property sector interviewed in a BBC report points to the “Big” in “Big Australia,” with spatial rhetoric: the size of Australia versus the size of Australian cities; using space more efficiently; and there being “room for growth.” Ultimately, he argues that growth, historically and today, has a direct relationship with immigration: the larger the immigration, the faster the economic growth.  However, it must be said that it is property corporations that would stand to gain the most if there were more people and business demanding “room” in a growing Australia.

Stay tuned for the next Part of “The Ironies of Australian Immigration”, which will discuss more issues in Australian immigration policy.

The creation of DST schemes was centered on saving valued resources.  These resources, like today, were the energy commodities essential to productivity, allowing people to work after dark and indoors.  The National Geographic article sites a book by David Prerau, Seize the Daylight: The Curious and Contentious Story of Daylight Saving Time, that tells the stories of DST.  It was the need for war-time conservation of coal that actually saw DST implemented during World War I, again in World War II, and again during the Oil Embargo of 1973-4.  In 2007, a U.S. energy bill was implemented starting DST earlier and ending it later, adding an extra month to DST.  The same arguments about energy saving were reiterated.  Other benefits were also claimed, like reduced crime and traffic fatalities, and increased productivity, recreation and “smiles.”

Beyond states of emergency, DST has not been mandatory, with U.S. states like Arizona and Hawaii choosing not to observe it.  Such optional geographies of DST provide an unexpected opportunity for studying the cost-benefit of DST schemes.  A study of three different Australian states’ power-use data during the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games found that ultimately any power-saving was cancelled out as energy demand in the mornings cancelled out any savings from the evenings.  A U.S. study in Indiana had similar findings, which saw that energy-consumption from not just lighting, but also air conditioning contributed to increased afternoon demand.  The study found that consumers’ electric bills were actually higher during DST, as people used their air conditioners more during the warmer spring and summer evenings.  Yet, the spatial analysis of DST seems to also offer evidence to the contrary.  Another study of the entire U.S., commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, shows that at the national scale there were small reductions in overall energy consumption, which still added up to significant energy savings.  The study also found that DST had uneven benefits.  For example, California benefits the most from DST because of its mild weather, not requiring year ‘round climate control appliances.  Northern states also benefit more during DST months relative to Southern states because they do not necessarily need as much air conditioning, which is a major energy consumer.  These studies reveal some of the flaws within such standardized time schemes.

The National Geographic article also describes some of the interesting connections to DST and lifestyles.  As mentioned in the 2007 energy bill, one group argues that the daylight shuffling in DST encourages lifestyles that are more active.  A study mentioned in the article does support that view; during DST people were more likely to include more active outdoor activities, rather than more languid indoor activities.  However, a “chronobiologist” argues that our body clocks never adjust to DST.  A result of that is decreased productivity, increased susceptibility to illness and being frequently tired, all symptoms of “social jet lag.”  He argues that the shift in daylight toward the evening only serves to delay the body clock, affecting sleep schedules and leading to overtiredness.  This overtiredness could also have more serious consequences.  A 2008 Swedish study showed that the risk of heart attack actually increased following the switch to DST.  The study’s author found the most likely explanation for the findings were again related to body clocks and sleep rhythm.

In the end, DST works for some and not for others.  Body clocks or sundials, it is nearly impossible to standardize savings uniformly, whether they are of day light or of resources.  However, to this author, DST is now a fitting seasonal scapegoat for procrastination or listlessness.

"Environmental problems resulting from massive deforestation and over-exploitation of agricultural land are highly evident in El Salvador. Long dependent on coffee, which was produced on large landholdings owned by a few families, this small, densely populated country suffered a devastating civil war between 1980 and 1992. A familiar soft drink sign on the outskirts of El Salvador's capital of San Salvador is suggestive of the continuing influence of North America on the republics of Central America. Money remitted from the United States by people who fled there as refugees from the civil war has helped rebuild the Salvadoran economy. Urban industries include textiles, footwear, and food processing. However, the problems of overpopulated agricultural areas, rural poverty, and a highly unequal distribution of resources and wealth remain." Barbara Weightman

The link between food and land has been a crux of human-environment interaction.  Today that relationship is increasingly complex and abstract with many modern humans having no direct experience or conception of the land from which their food came.  The post Geography Directions: Eat to be healthy and save the planet provides an example of that disconnect.  Increasingly, the food we eat (recognizably that “we” is not an even, inclusive global “we”) is affecting many diverse environments across the globe, which aggregates into a significant scale global environmental problem.  Also in the post is the world’s development divide.  Increasingly, it is the diets of the developed world that ruin the environments in developing world or in emerging economies.  This image of the El Salvador environment reveals such an example as the legacy of global coffee demand among other globalized connections is evident on the landscape.  However, with the rise of truly global-scale environmental problems, like climate change, the world’s affluent are eating away (yes, pun intended) at their own future.  For starters, we should reconsider the phrase, “You are what you eat,” accounting for the indirect environmental consequences.

It is well documented that around the world pristine environments are being destroyed to produce some of the food that we eat in the United Kingdom. For instance, the Brazilian savannah or Cerrado is currently being destroyed faster than the Amazon; this is largely due to soy production (most of which is fed to the animals we eat), beef and other agriculture. A further example is that of Borneo whose tropical forests are being cleared to plant palm trees to produce palm oil for biscuits and fish fingers. If everyone in the world lived as we do in the UK we would require two planets by 2030. But now we may be able to save the planet over lunch. Researchers believe that we can and they say that if we all ate what they would like to see on our plates, Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions could be cut by a quarter, our meat consumption would be reduced drastically and we would be a lot healthier at the same time.  All this comes in the guise of the Livewell Diet, which is a weekly menu assembled by nutritionists, which sets out the best ingredients to balance healthy eating with sustainable food production. The average weekly cost of the diet would be £29 per person.

At present an estimated 79kg of meat a year are consumed by the average UK resident and the Livewell 2020 diet is expected to reduce this to 10kg a year; thus reducing the pressure on natural resources.  Scientists from the Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health at Aberdeen University have produced the diet commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) which is designed to be familiar and normal. The diet is based on nutritional guidelines from the government for eating healthily. It will also help us meet the 2020 targets for greenhouse gas reductions, as laid out the in UK Climate Change Act by steering away from processed food (whose environmental impacts are due to their extra production, packaging, transportation and energy consumption) and meat.

For a more complete discussion and explanation of the complicated interplay between  human diet, energy, climate change, the financial crisis and the socially and environmentally unsustainable grain–livestock relationship it is recommended to read, Energy, Climate Change, Meat, and Markets: Mapping the Coordinates of the Current World Food Crisis in the Geography Compassjournal. In the meantime the WWF will lobby the government and the food industry to use the Livewell diet as a blueprint and if we just adapt our diets slightly by eating less meat and fewer processed foods, and replacing them with more fruit, vegetables and grains, we’ll be making a positive difference for ourselves and the planet.

By Paulette Cully

To view the original article please visit the Geography Directions Blog.

One of the most difficult problems facing African wildlife is the encroachment of human settlements into wildlife habitats.  As human settlements move out into undeveloped, “wild” lands, fences are built, native vegetation is changed, and fresh water sources are taken over.  This expansion and appropriation of land and water in Africa is the main source for clashes between humans and animals.  Farm lands and crops are trespassed by elephants and other foragers.  Livestock is targeted by lions and other predators.  Shared water sources can bring human populations in direct conflict with dangerous animals like hippos and crocodiles.  When humans feel they are in danger, the only recourse is to kill offending or threatening animals. As more and more settlements materialize, the end result is the overall decline of wildlife populations.  Another effect of human settlement is the fragmentation of habitat, particularly of range lands.  Many large animals in Africa require significant land areas to hunt, migrate or forage.  As these human settlements pop up, they break up the necessary open land that many animals, especially big cats, need.  This creates more opportunity for conflict between these animals and settlements.

Local peoples are not solely to blame.  And in fact, this conflict between humans and ecosystems has happened the world over.  However, it is the power of the African landscape in Western imaginations that seems to make conservation such a necessity.  The questions are what kind of conservation should be supported and how to best integrate tourism.  Historically, conservation has involved the creation of parks or conservancies that had expelled indigenous peoples, creating “conservation refugees.” These early parks were built on imaginations of pristine, untouched wilderness that did not include the presence of native people.  However, increasingly, conservation projects have begun to centrally involve indigenous people in the stewardship of the land and its biodiversity.  Some of these conservation projects are seen as community initiatives where they provide local peoples with actual income or social support in exchange for promoting conservation or for more sustainable livelihoods.  Some hope that such initiatives will eventually provide an avenue for poverty alleviation, yet when studies have proved more data is necessary to judge them a success.  Safari tourism has provided a somewhat positive outlook, as first of all safaris are geared toward viewing wildlife, as opposed to hunting it.  Safari fees in some areas have been used to lease land from locals, which relieves some pressures allowing native vegetation and wild animals to return.  Further, fees have supported local schools, in addition to the staff, rangers and maintenance of the conservation area. However, the safari business has its spatial limitations, since most safari tourists are interested in the big game seen in the African savannas.  Such a model has yet to provide any benefits to other African ecosystems like the Congo Basin, which is plagued by illegal logging that directly threatens gorillas and other forest wildlife.

Ultimately, the question seems to relate to economic bottom lines.  The hope tied to locally inclusive, community initiatives requires a balance between providing indigenous people more income or a better quality of life than they would achieve exploiting the land and its wildlife as they had prior to the presence of conservation efforts.  And, that conservation money comes from private, international interests, which has political implications and creates a reliance on goodwill and continued valuation of outside geographic imaginations of Africa.

A recent article in the December Geographical Journal by Michael Bradshaw entitled “Global energy dilemmas: a geographical
perspective”, examines the relationship between global energy security and climate change policy. With growing concerns about the sustainability of the future supply of hydrocarbons and the fact that they are the single largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, decarbonising the way energy is produced is a key component of climate change policy. The central proposition of the paper is that as the world faces a global energy dilemma can we have a secure, reliable and affordable supply of energy and at the same time, manage the changeover to a low-carbon energy system? The paper considers the present-day challenges to global energy security, and focuses on the possibility that future oil production might not be able to meet demand. It also looks at how the dangers of climate change are forcing us to rethink the meaning of energy security such that a low-carbon energy revolution is now called for. In addition, the paper explains that while the developed world is principally responsible for the anthropogenic carbon emissions in the atmosphere, a global shift in energy demand is underway and over the next 20 years it is the developing world that will contribute an ever-increasing amount of global emissions. The article also looks at global energy relationships explaining how the processes of globalisation are the driving force behind the shift in energy demand and carbon emissions. Finally, Bradshaw explains how the global energy quandary plays itself out in different ways across the globe.

Shedding further light on the future of fossil fuels, a report published in the same month by Deloitte’s Global Energy & Resources group, “The Oil and Gas Reality Check 2011, a look at 10 of the top issues facing the oil sector” analyses the oil and gas trends and issues for the coming year. The issues range from deepwater drilling, where the next alternative energy source will be found and the growing influence of Asia on the industry. According to the report it is estimated that oil and gas will continue to constitute the world’s primary energy supply for the next 25 years. It explains how Asia’s share in the growth in demand for hydrocarbons has risen substantially while that of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and the European Union has declined. This shift has been caused by high rates of economic growth and increasing populations in many Asian countries. Simultaneously, up to three billion people in developing nations will have bought cars and adopted middle class consumption patterns by 2030. This suggests that more fossil fuels will be needed despite the fact that alternative forms of energy such as wind and solar have grown rapidly. In the meantime oil and gas producers feel they are a bridge to the new energy economy.

By Paulette Cully

To view the original article please visit the Geography Directions Blog.

"Work is very difficult in the silver mine at Potosi. Most labor is manual and conditions are so harsh that life expectancy of miners is a mere 40 years. When I went down into the mine, I saw that all the miners were chewing coca which they held in a large wad in one cheek. Coca helps to prevent the men from feeling cold and hungry. Coca is sold at the entrance of the mine along with small packets of non-filter cigarettes." BA Weightman

Global demand for minerals, like copper, silver, iron, uranium, and others, drives mining industries in all world regions.  The conditions of miners varies greatly from country to country.  Regardless the technology or safety regulations in  national contexts, mining is ultimately a very dangerous endeavor.  As described in the post, Globalization of Rescue: the case of the 33 Chilean Miners, the rescue effort associated with the 33 Chilean miners illustrated the global networks that came together to make the rescue possible, but it also illustrated the dangerous conditions of mining and raised important questions for the future of the industry.

Chile’s main copper mines are found in the northern arid Atacama Desert region.  This is where the 69 day saga of the 33 Chilean miners took place.  A copper and gold mine in Copiapó collapsed trapping the 33 miners 2,300 feet or half-a-mile below the surface.  Trapped for 17 days before being discovered, the miners had to ration limited food, water, and hope.  Once they were found to be alive, the waiting game begun before they were able to be rescued.  Early on, it was estimated to take around 5 months to reach the miners by drilling down to the ventilation chamber where they were trapped.  From the outset, the rescue was an international effort.  Chile’s president appealed to Peru, the United States, Canada and Australia (all with significant mining sectors) for their mining expertise.  In preparing for a long confinement, the American space agency, NASA, advised the Chilean government about the psychological state of the miners.  To help mitigate their emotional tensions, the miners were sent down anti-depressants, a small television and psychologist-approved movies, like The Mask.  However, when the miners requested “comforts” like beer, wine and cigarettes, they were denied or sent nicotine gum instead.

Due to the already dangerous conditions of the mine, new strategies were needed to drill the rescue shaft and design the rescue capsule.  BBC News offers a remarkable collection of images and animations detailing the three rescue drilling plans and the rescue pod’s ascent.  NASA engineers helped to design the rescue pod that was then built by the Chilean navy.  Seven other American-based firms also aided the effort by supplying drilling machinery, providing free shipping for equipment, creating special safety vests, and donating socks and sunglasses. Such globalized cooperation and “innovation” led a writer for the Wall Street Journal to declare that: “Capitalism saved the miners.”

While awaiting the actual rescue, the world watched intently.  An interesting microcosm of reporters, politicians, well-wishers and even clowns were encamped at the surface entrance of the mine, dubbed Camp Hope.  On the day of the rescue, people from all over the world tuned in live to watch each miner get hoisted up in the capsule.  Following the last miner to reach the surface, relief, joy and congratulations were echoed from global public figures like President Obama and the Pope, to everyday people like Japanese school teachers, émigré Chileans, and social networkers.  Some global news sources sought serious lessons from the event: some called for the overhaul of mining safety rules; others called for no más underground mining; and others cynically looked at their own mining industry and questioned if there would have been such a “happy ending” there.  Regardless, these miners are certainly being treated to a “happy ending” with all manner of gifts, including: money; vacations to Europe, Israel, and the United States; iPods; and even stripteases.  And this is not to mention the Hollywood offers for movie rights, book deals and television appearances.

As the world was focused on the rescued miners in the limelight, the mundane tragedies of other Chilean miners continued to play out.  Camp Hope has turned into a protest site.  When the owners of the mine declared bankruptcy and closed the mine, they dismissed 300 miners without any severance pay.  These protesters, who live in impoverished shantytowns declared: “we are trapped at the surface,” and perhaps this will be the lasting, yet overlooked message that stays when the limelight fades.