Farm of fools

Just when I was starting to doubt John Howard’s environmental credentials, it’s reassuring to see him come out and say that we won’t be paying farmers to close down farms that have been rendered unsustainable by a drought that has nothing to do with global warming. Why? Because farming is “part of the national psyche”.

Yes, just like Gallipoli, it’s part of the Australian mentality to keep stubbornly backing lost causes despite overwhelming evidence that they are indeed lost causes. I couldn’t have put it better myself, and I’d say much of the nation’s head-in-the-sand approach to agricultural policy has about as much chance of success as the Gallipoli landing.

What I don’t understand is why we’re always going to “lose massively from an economic perspective” if we do something about climate change. Let me see if I’ve got this right. It would actually be a better idea not to pay farmers to close down environmentally unsustainable farms, than to pay them to keep trying to get blood out of a stone. Surely it makes more sense to just go and buy water intensive crops like rice from countries where it actually fucking rains once or twice a year?

I know anti-intellectualism is also part of the Australian psyche but really, this is getting a bit much. And I’m really not sure I believe Howard’s argument that “We would lose something of our identification as Australians if we ever allowed the number of farms in our nation to fall below a critical mass.” How does this hold up in a country where 85% of the population lives within 50km of the coast?

And what the hell is a critical mass of farms?

All the animals needed to sing Old MacDonald?

Enough salt-of-the-earth types for the cover of the Terrorgraph for the next 6 months?

Enough small children who have never seen rain (although this has nothing to do with climate change)?

Enough drover types to recite “The Man from Snowy River” in every National Party electorate?

Spare me.