**Published name**
Upload a submission
Submission to the National Adaptation Plan Issues Paper
From
Professor David Shearman AM MB, ChB, PhD, FRACP FRCPE Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Adelaide
David Shearman is Emeritus Professor of Medicine at Adelaide University and previously held senior positions at Edinburgh and Yale Universities. He is author of many books relating to climate change, its science, consequences and democratic and other solutions; he served on the IPCC for two terms on health and environmental scientific sections. He has been President of the Conservation Council of South Australia and with the late Professor Tony McMichael he founded Doctors for the Environment Australia in 2001 and was the Hon Secretary 2001-2017. He is author and co-author of several hundred scientific and medical papers and writes frequently for the media. He was awarded an AM for service to medicine and climate change. Recently he has received a Public Health Association of Australia Award for his Lifelong Work in Health and the Environment. Web page www.davidshearman.org
Introduction
I must preface my comments on the Climate Change Adaptation Issues paper with the following.
Urgency is now demanded by the fast changing climate science which details results ‘off the charts’ for global warming, which hopefully is a one-off, but much more likely to be a new trajectory from the recorded warming of land and sea in Antarctica which scientists have described as “mind boggling”, and the universal rise in atmospheric temperature over the past year.
Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change said the next two years are "essential in saving our planet." He was referring to emissions reduction but we all know this will not occur while US, Australian and other gas policies remain.
It must also be noted that we are 10-15 years behind many other countries in addressing this vital issue of adaptation. For example Switzerland’s first plan was delivered to the nation in 2012.
The issues paper fails to recognise the degree of danger in not acknowledging that our life support systems are under threat. This is the priority. Our life support systems are a liveable temperature, unpolluted air, ecological services and adequate unpolluted water.
The issues paper does not use the words ‘life support systems’ nor ‘ecology’ nor ‘ecological services’—which provide our food and countless other services vital to life. The issues paper must be educational as well as informative.
Currently a fundamental problem is that Governments, commerce, media and much of humanity fail to understand the complexity of ecosystems, their increasing fragility and the impacts of their decimation. Government must educate.
The Climate Adaptation Issues Paper addresses 56 nationally significant climate risks across seven systems. Ecological services need to be examined in terms of 5 of these, economy, health, natural environment, primary industry and regional communities plus first nations matters – to be added to the Climate Adaptation Issues Paper later. The 7 are security, economy, health, infrastructure and built environment, natural environment, primary industries, regional communities.
The mechanism to deliver an outcome from the consideration of these issues together will be difficult to deliver because of the silo system of governance. An interdepartmental working group will be needed to start now on ecosystems in view of the urgency needed. This might be a “war time cabinet” subcommittee which should work continuously.
This submission will address together three vital interlocking life support systems, ecological services, water security and
the natural environment and their role in providing a sustainable food system. I do not provide a summary on conclusions because I want the arguments to be read fully
Understanding soil is fundamental.
Soil, our ecological life support system for food production, consists of species of bacteria, fungi, viruses, nematodes, mites, worms and insects in fact two thirds of all species on the planet, to maintain its ecological structure and service. Pollinators, birds and animals are included in this ecological service to control pests and enhance productivity i.e. the biodiversity.
If listening systems are placed in the soil one can hear the constant cacophony of noise made by these creatures as they break down organic material to components which can be absorbed through the roots of growing plants. This article describes the sounds in forest soil.
Our soils are fundamentally poor and deteriorating according to Australia’s State of the Environment Report
We have to stop intensive farming and if necessary provide a legal framework to do so.
Clearly soil needs to retain its health by receiving organic matter to break down to service the food needs of plants but in much farming today it is replaced by fertiliser to maintain and increase crop yields. The living soil deteriorates and is more easily blown or washed away by the increasing extreme storms of climate change.
Each of us possesses an ecological system in our intestines. The bacteria and enzymes in our small intestine split apart ingested foods so the constituents can be absorbed into our body. The system is known as your microbiome. Much of my early research was done on this commencing 1972 though it wasn’t named the microbiome till later. Some patients with inflammatory bowel diseases resistant to conventional treatment can be treated successfully with a “poo-transplant”- the patient takes an oral dose of faecal material from a healthy patient with a disordered intestinal ecosystem. Similarly some soils lacking ecological life because of overcropping can only be restored by soil transplant when healthy soil is spread over dead soil.
All living animals have their own unique ecological system servicing their needs –in fact the living animal world can be seen as a series of overlapping ecological services.
The healthy natural world and healthy humans depend on healthy ecological services for both health and survival and this recognition must replace the primacy of economic thinking. Ecological systems operate like circular economies and are therefore sustainable but as yet we don’t have circular economies.
The issues paper 4.7.2 lists many actions already in progress but it is not convincing, lacking evidence of overall control which will deliver urgent action.
However one can be positive about the listing of the National Soil Strategy to ensure Australia’s soil resources are recognised and valued as a key national asset. It is vital they are sustainably managed for the benefit of our environment, economy, food and infrastructure security, health and biodiversity – now and into the future. The 2021–22 Budget delivered $196.9 million in new funding over four years to implement the National Soil Strategy and associated measures as part of an Australian Government Action Plan.
In summary the salient issues in the stabilisation of soil are water and the environment. Yet they are in conflict which must be resolved by the interdepartmental working group.
Water Security (Issues 3.2.3)
This is a huge topic and the government is usually advised by the Productivity Commission (PC) which prioritises the economic use of water. My most recent submission to the PC was submission 10.
This submission to the PC related mainly to one topic – the health and survival of ecosystem services which, with the availability of water, produce our food and many other essential services for life.
The interim report of the National Water Reform 2024 NWI renewal advice 8.1: Best practice environmental objectives and outcomes
UNCHANGED FROM 2021 says,
"Waterways or water dependent ecosystems should be considered high environmental priority if they have one, or more, of the following characteristics"…
The misunderstanding of NWI is displayed by this. All ecosystem services need water and the NWI’s errant view flows into a flawed political discussion over environmental water.
The Natural Environment
This has been legislated though the EPBC which is to be replaced by Nature Positive Laws hopefully in line with the findings of the Samuel Review. To date Samuel’s recommendations are not being adopted as described in this article. The conflict relates to the use of water and the contamination of water and land by resource industries which in many assessments have priority over the environment and therefore food production. Aboriginal rights are often trampled and it is also a huge health issue. This and many other conflicts are detailed in this report.
Summary of needs to transform farming practice
Urgency – increasing temperature will eventually kill all living species. We need to protect what we have in the hope we don’t reach such a temperature; we do this by removing other harms to the ecosystem services of soil caused by current farming methods.
In terms of temperature, we have to change from large scale farming to smaller areas providing tree cover from sun and wind.
We have to stop the use of fertiliser, herbicide and insecticide which damage ecosystems in soil and in the rivers into which they drain.
Trees have to be planted, which can take 30 years to commence providing shelter for crops and biodiversity and so must commence now.
Food productivity will fall so the farmer must be paid for both food production and environmental custody.
We must be reassured that those farmers around the nation who have already delivered sustainable agriculture are included in leadership of this cross sectoral committee.
The overriding need to move to sustainable food production is the provision of funding which will need billions of dollars quickly. Unfortunately section 4.1 Economy, trade and financial system provides no hope of such large amounts from the current, rigid economic system.
We have to understand that the current neoliberal economic system operating in Western countries devours natural resources without replacing them; it devours and then excretes the waste into the environment to do more damage. The following statement for an eminent ecologist reflects the thinking of all climate and environmental scientists “From Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future” (lead author Corey Bradshaw)
“We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action.
First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its life-forms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts.
Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action.
Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, business, and the public. We especially draw attention to the lack of appreciation of the enormous challenges to creating a sustainable future. The added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of ecosystem services on which society depends. The science underlying these issues is strong, but awareness is weak. Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest sustainability goals”. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full
A paper this year in the British Medical Journal by Prof Liz Grant from Edinburgh University epitomises the problem;-
We have to navigate “two great global systems: 1) the planet’s natural climate system which supports all life, but which is being destroyed by human actions, and in turn is destroying the ecosystems on which all life depends; and 2) a human made global finance system which also purports to support all life and livelihoods, but which is destroying much of the world’s natural systems and as a consequence also destroying humanity”.
“These two systems are entwined in complex interdependent and interconnected ways. The systems, or rather those who are trying to protect and enhance them, are at such odds with each other that finding meaningful pathways to connect through the noise has proved almost impossible. Of the USD $100 trillion plus of finances circling the world on a daily basis only a small proportion is dedicated to green financing”.
https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q97
In the past five years one eminent economist Professor Partha Dasgupta https://johnmenadue.com/mr-morrison-the-g7-summit-and-the-report-biodiversity-natural-capital-and-the-economy/ from Cambridge University has provided an alternative system. One might adopt a true GDP which would tell us that Australia’s GDP has been negative for a long time, a “True GDP” https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3486157-when-will-economic-growth-account-for-environmental-costs/ Those who dallied with a new economics for a second were soon put in their place by colleagues, banks, consultants and industry!
In Australia there are many distinguished economists who advocate alternative economic systems which could be used to impart economic alternatives to attain sustainability but they cannot break into current thinking in government and fellow thinkers. Economics is not a science and defence of current views is unconscionable.
So where will we find the money to change to sustainable agriculture quickly? We can print money (MMT) like a bankrupt UK did after the war to produce thousands of houses. This is the alternative to producing funding in a currently balanced budget where every silo fights for its bite of the budget pie. Yes it will require sacrifice by many sectors of society but it this will not happen till there is much more equality within society.
It is patently obvious that the issues paper has failed to involve a wide spectrum of economic thought. This must be corrected for we are discussing life support systems.
David Shearman
