The Limits of Mother Earth

Post-election Pessimism

Kaeden Kabo

Amidst the monumental downfall of the Liberal Party this election and the seeming sudden push towards more progressive governance, it has been easy to lose sight of many concerning trends sighted during this election. Having finally broken from the drunken euphoria of a Labor Government, I’ve realised that the future looks a bit grim. The cynical part of me is increasingly concerned with an increasingly sensationalised election with inadequate media coverage, as well as a scarily discrete shift of the Overton window—the sector of the political spectrum that is considered acceptable or regular—to the right.

It seems ubiquitous these days that politicians are never to be trusted. Your mileage may vary but as was well-outlined in the past election, an increasing number of Australians are dissatisfied with the major parties (see: a lot of independents/Greens). But it is not until now that attacks on the characters of our political figureheads have become predominant in Australia. Labor didn’t just run this election on lowering the cost of living and establishing a federal anti-corruption commission, they also ran it on the premise that Scott Morrison could not be trusted. Liberals similarly campaigned on the notion that Albanese was inexperienced and an unstable element that Australians should not trust. Indeed, those personal attacks were, at least in my experience, the large majority of the advertising aired by the parties. The problem with this is that policy had been thrown out the window. Australians are not being asked to engage in what is the party that will best serve their interests and the interests of the country, but which bobblehead has a nicer look to it. Party heads are ultimately nothing more than that— Bobbleheads—and if we focus only on them, we lose sight of the bigger picture: the future of Australia. To never be exposed to what party policies are is a serious issue for a functioning democracy.

A lack of civility is something that dominated our leadership debates. Individuals from both sides of the political spectrum noted and complained about the juvenile yelling and shouting between the leaders of our nation. However, it was a lack of coverage that dominated our ministerial debates. The only news piece reported from the defence debate between Peter Dutton, our beloved potato slash dark overlord, and Brendan O’Connor was a catchy soundbite of Dutton calling the Guardian a “trashy publication.” If it wasn’t bad enough that parties have moved away from running on policy, our journalists aren’t even reporting half of it, let alone how to analyse that policy and decide if it’s decent or abjectly terrible. As noted by Denis Muller, a journalist and senior researcher at the University of Melbourne, our election coverage has been “unimaginative, slavish PR-stunt footage of the leaders, combined with young go-getters in the travelling media packs trying to make a name for themselves with gotcha questions.” None of this truly tells us how good our leaders are at

leading. The Australian oublic gets all the hot breakfast tea without a solid meal as a basis.

Another tasty titbit of this election has been a bad faith following of election civilities. On the day of the election, Scott Morrison urged the Australian Border Force to reveal that they had intercepted a boat from Sri Lanka and release a statement that has been viewed as against set protocols and proper process, presumably for an election day advantage. In a normal election, rank and file members (members but not politicians) of the Labor party elect their respective candidates. The Liberals have a similar system in place too. In this election, however, both parties suspended normal candidate selection processes, with party leaders making captains’ calls. This was done by the Liberal Party in many NSW seats, and – notoriously – in Kristina Keneally. Scott Morrison suspended the pre-selections of the New South Wales Liberal party to blatantly select members he deemed more favourable for him. If our major parties cannot be trusted, the parties who realistically must form government, this is a critical challenge to our democracy and its function. We need to be able to believe that our parties can accept the outcomes of democratic processes graciously. Otherwise, threats such as the politicisation of High Court nominees and ministry experts, which is prevented largely by convention, are at risk. This could quickly lead to United States-esque toxic polarisation.

In the background of this election, a lot of people have missed just how much policy has shifted to the right over the past 30 years. Labor has adopted traditionally right-wing policies such as boat turnbacks and greater national defence spending. This is scary not just because boat turnbacks and detention centres are patently horrific institutions but also because it indicates that Labor believes it cannot win an election without leaning to the right, without adopting policies it used to condemn. And while we have greater support for Greens and Teal Independents, let us not forget that they - especially the Teals - were elected largely based on climate policy. We have not gotten over the hill of other social issues. Jokes about ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ people aside, it really does seem like we have just elected a whole lot of them. Labor may have won the election, but the substantial aftertaste of rightwing ideology in their victory is disheartening and terrifying. It is truly scary that we can sing a song of progress to the beat of conservatism without even noticing.

I fear that Australian politics is slowly moving towards a position of democratic endangerment. If people are increasingly being directed to care about personalities rather than policies, and the fundamental civilities of our democracy are under threat, it cannot function. On top of that, we have a great illusion of progress which conceals a gradual shift to the right in our major parties. It is too early to celebrate progress.

The Limits of Mother Earth

Hannah Vardy

According to UN predictions, humanity is set to surpass the limits of what Earth can provide within the next decade, if we haven’t already done so. Global temperatures are rising, heatwaves and droughts are becoming more severe, and the global food supply is becoming increasingly unequal. We must combine our human ingenuity, creativity and scientific expertise to find innovative solutions to this crisis, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should play a major part in this.

GMOs are plants or animals whose genome has been modified to express desirable traits, through the insertion of genes that can’t evolve through natural selection. Potential benefits include the production of natural herbicides, increased crop yields, and improved nutrition. Increased yield also means food production requires less land and resources, resulting in less greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the World Food Program, more people die annually from chronic hunger than from HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined. However, the UN estimates that we waste around a third of the food produced globally, while also predicting that 70 percent more food will be required by 2050. To solve this, more just and sustainable practices must be incorporated into our current food system, and we must change our attitudes to imperfect food. However, these strategies alone won’t be enough, especially as climate change increases the severity and frequency of extreme weather events that wipe out harvests and wreak havoc on food production.

In Australia, agriculture is the most vulnerable industry to the expected increase in heatwaves, droughts, and the spread of tropical pests and diseases southward. However, genetically modifying crops to increase climate resilience could ensure farmers can continue to grow food in a changing climate. Increasing the yield of land already used for pastures and fields could also reduce up to a third of global agricultural emissions by reducing deforestation and subsequent plant and soil decomposition.

A report by the UK’s PG Economics indicated that GM crops could also reduce agriculture’s carbon footprint. In 2018, the turning over of soil to remove weeds was drastically reduced because farmers were using more herbicides that no longer harmed herbicide-resistant GM plants. This allowed the soil to retain the CO2 equivalent to removing 13.6 million cars from the road for a year. Furthermore, when GM pest-resistant eggplants were introduced to Bangladesh in 2016, farmers’ reliance on pesticides decreased, improving their health and the yield and profits of their produce. While resistance to herbicides is valuable, more research and funding should be directed toward improving the nutrition of staple crops.

The health benefits of GMOs were exemplified by the introduction of ‘golden rice’ to nations across Africa in 1999. The rice was genetically modified to contain higher levels of beta-carotene (a precursor to vitamin A), helping reduce up to 500,000 cases of childhood blindness and 2–3 million deaths caused annually by vitamin A deficiency. Another modification to rice that transfers growth from the roots to edible parts of the plant reduced its methane emissions by 97 percent. Instead of being