Tropopausa, Tropopausa (1979)

_________________________________________________________________ It is the aim of this research to improve farmers’ possibilities for agency and action through an improved knowledge of farmers’ discourses. Understanding discourse and resistance can increase awareness of the limitations of farmers’ current subject positions and may improve farmers’ abilities to act in response to climate change.

While farmers themselves are not the intended audience of this thesis, they are the intended beneficiaries. If extension and policy workers make greater connections between discourse theory, critical literacy and extension, it can help to empower farmers, transform subjectivities and increase their power and agency.

Resistance is created by discourses limiting possible options for behaviour. Understanding discourse and resistance is a way of increasing agency and change. It allows the limitations of discourses to become more apparent and creates opportunity for transformation. This understanding of resistance is aligned with other literature that strongly refutes the deficit model, (Moser & Dilling 2007; Potter and Oster 2008; Vanclay & Lawrence 1995a). In the deficit model, resistance is seen to be the fault of individuals, because they lack skill, resources or information. Although it may be important to improve the skill level and income of farmers, it is more important to examine the social reasons for behaviour rather than individuals’ personal reasons for resisting behaviour change. An examination of the social and cultural backgrounds which inform the discourses of farmers is largely ignored in current applied agricultural research.

The failure to adequately acknowledge discourse has implications for the possibilities of social action on climate change.

This research sought to provide a discursive exploration of the social reasons farmers might reject practice changes for climate change. This chapter seeks to provide new insights for extension theory and practice to facilitate change for farmers operating in a changing climate. For advisers at all levels, from on-farm to high level government policy, it aims to demonstrate how changes in farming practice to manage climate change might be better facilitated.

The four discourses described earlier show that farmers’ understandings of climate change can be constructed around issues of Money, of the Earth, of Human Responsibility and of Questioning. Within these four discourses, Tasmanian farmers construct different approaches to action in response to climate change. This chapter considers the implications of each of the discourses and then discusses how these can inform extension activity and policy development.

Implications: the Discourse of Money

The Discourse of Money is characterised by statements that focus on maximising profit, maintaining economic growth, supporting technological and financial market fixes and orchestrating opportunities through competitive advantage. There is a view that the challenges of climate change can be managed through current cultural and social structures of capitalism. Climate change and its impacts on agriculture are regarded as being able to be overcome by solutions driven from government and industry. Technological and market-based solutions to climate change are assumed to be possible and while they may be initially expensive, they represent the fairest, quickest and, in the long-term, most cost- effective way of responding.

In this discourse, government is perceived as having the power to make important economic and political decisions, yet not trusted to make them fairly or equitably, especially in terms of industry profitability. There is a focus on the costs of action

in response to climate change but possible costs of inaction are ignored. Mitigating climate change is seen as too expensive and government and society should simply adapt to whatever changes may occur.

In the Discourse of Money, delaying action to prepare for climate change is not motivated by a sense of denial or avoidance of change. There is an assumption that predictions of extreme change are exaggerated and that adaptation is an innate human capacity. Climate change is perceived as a simple extension of climate variability, rather than as a total shift in the climate system. There is also a perception that, because farmers are already skilled at managing climate variability, climate change poses nothing new. This confidence is strengthened by a belief that Tasmania will not have to cope with changes as major as other areas of Australia or the world. Therefore, the most logical action is to wait until the impacts of climate change have become more apparent and then wait for market forces to create the necessary adjustments.

In the Discourse of Money, connections to the right people are important, to get information early and to act ahead of the competition to create power. Those in power have access to information which helps them decide what position to take. For climate change, action is currently resisted because it is not yet proven, not yet certain, and is not being communicated clearly or simply enough. This discourse regards uncertainty and ambiguity as problems that will be overcome by time and by necessity. Those who are situated in this discourse do not see their inaction as a problem because action is currently not logical.

Climate change action in the Discourse of Money is seen as a cost that outweighs any benefit, and as a risky financial investment for a delayed, future advantage. Inaction on climate change is not seen as financially risky because it is assumed that there is still time to act at some time in the future when the risks and opportunities have been more clearly established. The possibility of financially beneficial climate change actions are not yet being considered, as there is still time to make any changes once they have been proven on other people’s farms.

Information showing that Australia is likely to be particularly affected by climate change and that Australian farmers are particularly likely to suffer this burden financially (ABARE 2007), is rejected in this discourse.

This discourse does not recognise that adaptation is a finite process and perhaps insufficient to respond to climate change (Howden et al. 2008). Climate change is perceived as on the spectrum of climate variability and therefore within the boundaries of achievable adaptation. Climate change is neither urgent nor extreme in this discourse and is therefore still far enough in the future to allow time for gradual action as needed, appropriate and in step with the rest of the world.

In the discourse of Money, nature as an entity with an intrinsic value separate to the human economic and business system, is ignored. The environment is only considered insofar as it is a necessary support for human endeavour, in terms of business production or recreation. How other species cope with climate change is therefore not considered. This means that action on climate change for the sake of the environment is rejected.

Implications: the Discourse of The Earth

The Discourse of The Earth is about fatalism, nature and the cosmos as divine powers. While there is concern for the negative influences humans have on the environment, there is a belief that these are too insignificant to have any real effect and that the world will persist relatively unchanged. In other words, the Earth has the power to endure. There is a strong sense that humans do not have dominion over the Earth but that the Earth has dominion over humans and that the Earth is vast and beyond human comprehension.

In the Discourse of The Earth, there is a sense that because the climate is controlled by an external force, climate change might be part of a divine purpose and therefore not of any great concern. Consequently, climate change may

promote natural evolution of humans and other species, or humans may even be wiped out, but the Earth will evolve and continue in a different state.

This discourse regards action in response to climate change as important for respecting the Earth but as largely irrelevant to the future of the world. Climate change therefore represents a positive tool for encouraging society to reconnect with nature and to live more respectfully and sustainably, not because it will change the outcome for the world, but because it is appropriate to properly honour the sacred beauty and majesty of the Earth. Climate change presents an opportunity for more environmental values to be reinstated into society. Once this occurs, it is assumed that climate change will be accepted by more and more people as a natural process beyond the capacity of humans to influence.

Climate change in the Discourse of The Earth is not perceived as something that can be managed, nor is it seen as necessary to respond. The Earth is regarded as being in complete control and therefore humans should let natural processes take effect and accept whatever outcomes may arise. Social change will be created through the realisation that a new perspective on nature is essential in order to be moral, healthy, good and sustainable. As people are ineffectual influences on the Earth, governments are distrusted as advocating action for climate change purely for political or popular reasons, which have nothing to do with environmental sustainability or social change. In this discourse, the responses of government to climate change are seen as a waste of time and resources.

This discourse is against action to address climate change, although it might advocate such action for another purpose. This is because climate change is regarded as natural and therefore to be accepted, although changing behaviour to be more sustainable is regarded as more respectful to the Earth. This discourse is against interference with nature and it may distrust science, because science seeks to know the unknowable in Mother Nature and therefore is either wasting time, or if pushed too far, at risk of provoking Mother Nature’s wrath. Science in this discourse is accepted when it is about knowledge through observation but

rejected in terms of science as mastery, control or a capacity to intervene in natural systems. The knowledge that science can provide the answers is regarded as limited and, while it can be useful in specific contexts, it is often irrelevant when it comes to larger issues such as climate change. In the Discourse of The Earth, there is a belief that science has elevated some environmental issues to public concerns unnecessarily, because new forms of technology create awareness of previously unknown environmental processes, such as melting icecaps and ocean acidity. Climate change is seen as the latest and most extreme example of an environmental issue that is only thought of as a problem because of new scientific knowledge and monitoring.

Those in the Discourse of The Earth do not feel strongly connected with society or with humanity. This means that concerns for humanity generally are not significant and issues of equity are ignored. There are no concerns about any inequitable impacts of climate change because people are essentially all the same and because the way different groups will be impacted is ordained at a higher, integrated level, not at a human constructed social level. Therefore equity is both assumed and ignored.

In the Discourse of The Earth, little importance is attached to maintaining social structures to support a healthy human society. Economics and politics are seen as largely superfluous because they are not connected to supporting natural ecosystems: the most fundamental aspect of life. Economics and politics serve a purpose that is solely for humans’ own benefit and those in this discourse regard these social structures as less worthy of attention than serving nature and the environment.

Implications: the Discourse of Human Responsibility

The Discourse of Human Responsibility is about people and the responsibility that people have to care for the world, especially to support future generations. This discourse has agency as a key feature. While this discourse has a very

positive element about community engagement and social action driving more equitable and desirable government policies and eventually a better world order, it is restricted by a lack of clear or unified sense of how to act. Perceptions of the limitations of current social structures at both local and government levels can lead to a sense of confusion or hopelessness. Central to this discourse is the desire to do something. There is a sense of insecurity about the effectiveness of available actions, feeling alone in acting, feeling that there is insufficient support or that actions are too difficult. Trying to act and being unsuccessful or citing wholly-unrelated actions as important are indicators of this discourse. Society is regarded as the problem and the tools to change society are identified as collaboration and cooperation among people and the demand for social transformations that need to occur through the power of democracy. Despite this, these processes are not yet achieving the major changes required to allow all the significant transformations that are prioritised for by those in the discourse.

Anthropogenic causes of climate change are accepted by many in the Discourse of Human Responsibility. Yet, this discourse does not necessarily include a belief that humans had to create the problem in order to feel obligated to be part of the solution. This discourse commonly connects with objectives outside of climate change, such as creating a more equitable or safe community, overcoming loneliness, giving something back or reassessing personal values, including the environment but these are always focused on people. As they are so broad, the objectives of those in this discourse are often difficult to achieve.

In the Human Responsibility discourse, climate change is an emblematic issue that requires more public engagement and public rally. It can only be addressed if enough people join the cause, change their lifestyles, demand widespread changes and together commit to transforming the world. Climate change becomes the catalyst for creating more equitable and desirable government policies, healthier lifestyle choices, valuing local communities and the environment more and creating a more stable, social world order. In this grand plan, climate change can get lost amidst demands for changes in other issues. This discourse is against

action that is inequitable or delayed and can be distracted by criticism of other unsuccessful attempts to promote action, such as government-driven emission reduction schemes, rather than actually taking action itself. These issues tend to cloud practical ways forward for those embedded in this discourse.

In the Discourse of Human Responsibility, the environment is seen as fragile and fading and as needing human protection, advocacy and support. Yet the value of the environment in and of itself can be forgotten as the focus is on human uses and human needs for the environment. There is a perception in this discourse that nature needs to be preserved to secure the continuation of the human race and this in turn creates concerns about increasing population size and consumption rates. Therefore, social transformations are required to reduce human consumption of resources and to extend the ability of the planet to support the growing number of people. The lack of processes for managing this equitably is recognised as a problem that does not yet have a solution.

The Discourse of Human Responsibility encapsulates potential action and actual action only occurs on a small scale, often confined to particular communities or groups. Many of these actions are multifaceted and support agendas other than climate change. Nevertheless, many of these other issues still fundamentally promote the need to look after the planet for all those who share it now and for those who will inherit it in the future.

Due to the diversity of other agendas it is possible for issues of the environment to be silenced in this discourse and climate change may be absent as other issues take over. Many issues in the Discourse of Human Responsibility overlap because it aims to address multiple goals, from multiple directions. Currently the desire of those in this discourse to achieve multiple goals simultaneously may need to be revised if action for climate change is to be achieved.

Implications: the Discourse of Questioning

The Discourse of Questioning is characterised by statements that focus on issues of fact, truth, knowledge, information and trust and it isolates itself from the problem by focusing on questions. It emphasises aspects of uncertainty or incomplete knowledge and the complexity of climate change. Vested interests are seen as exaggerating climate change, and while there is probably some element of truth in how humans cause negative environmental impacts, the extent to which this occurs and how these are best addressed is still unknown and unable to be discerned until emotional oversensitivity and media deception have subsided.

The Discourse of Questioning includes issues of doubt and the quest for more knowledge as its key features and controversial or emotional information is likely to be distrusted and rejected. Little about climate change is transparent; everything is arguable and contested. Any information is likely to have been found too complex or too difficult to understand. In this discourse, attempts to find more information, talk about the issue, or a willingness to think reflexively about it are likely to be avoided until such a time as the answer has become sufficiently clear and legitimated by more scientific endeavour.

The Discourse of Questioning includes the belief that climate change will not have any severe negative effects until further into the future. This means that there is time to act later, when Australia can build on the knowledge gained elsewhere. For example, additional information can be gained after carbon trading has been trialled in the United Kingdom or the United States of America, or after China has produced cheap alternative technological innovations. Delay is justified in the Discourse of Questioning for the purpose of perfect knowledge. It is common for this discourse to draw on past experiences associated with other issues, which have led to a loss of trust in science and make neutral thinking about climate change particularly difficult.

In this discourse, a solution for climate change is only possible in the future, when conditions are different, more is known and governments and industries have made sufficient progress to create mechanisms for individuals to act. These top-down structures will take some time to implement and are part of the progression of system improvements and adjustments that might otherwise occur for efficiency and sustainability, even without climate change. At present, individuals cannot act because they do not have enough information and because