Conservation Comment: We're in a lose-lose situation

Lyneke Onderwater is a cycling advocate. Photo / Bevan Conley

I am angry: angry and tired. You would think that, seeing and experiencing all these signs of climate change, people would be spurred into action, but no; we keep on complaining about petrol prices, while purchasing gas-guzzling 4WDs.

Some say they can't cope financially on $150,000 a year. They are obviously living beyond their means. All our income details should be publicly available. Only criminals and those earning scandalous amounts of money would object. The song Praying For Time by George Michael reminds me:
... the rich declare themselves poor
And most of us are not sure if we have too much
But we'll take our chances,
'Cause God stopped keeping score ...

Our economy is to blame. It is a faulty system, but it gets priority every time. "Buy, buy, buy!" is the message, but producing, shipping and buying all these things cause emissions, pollution, litter, rubbish and a never-ending feeling that we need more. When businesses advertise and say "Save!" they don't want you to save your money; they want you to spend it.

Our economy is designed to sell ever more in order to increase our GDP (Gross Domestic Product, our measure of "success"), which is why we need an ever-increasing population. We already make parents feel they need to go back to work soon after giving birth. This adds two wages to GDP: that of the parent and that of the carer. This despite proof that babies need one main carer for the first three years of life. No wonder we are creating maladjusted youth. These troublemakers, too, add to our GDP as police, doctors, lawyers, etc get involved. So it is better for our GDP to have criminals (and accidents, diseases, pollution etc) than to have parents look after their children without pay. That is what we are celebrating when GDP goes up.

Overpopulation is the big elephant in the room that no one dares to tackle. Fewer people will mean a lower GDP. And, how would we go about it? We all love our friends and family and empathise with others.
In the 1980s I read that the planet needed a 90 per cent reduction in human population and the author said he would happily go with the 90 per cent. I commented to a friend that I would too. That is not going to happen voluntarily. However, nature is trying hard to regain some balance through weather changes and diseases.
I became a great-aunt recently and I have mixed feelings about it. Sure, he is cute and I am happy for my niece, but I also feel sad for the little one, who will live through difficult times and add his footprint to an already-overburdened planet.

To those who blame the Government, I would say: come up with the solutions and put your name forward. The Government is only as good as our voting and that system, too, is broken. Maybe we can do away with parties and start voting for projects instead. Co-operation rather than competition is the only way forward.

This climate emergency is not going to be solved the way things are. Not enough people are doing their share and if the Government tries to do something there is an outcry. We are in a lose-lose situation.

I am tired of being one of the minority who make a decent effort and are doing it for other people's children and grandchildren. The planet will survive: with or without us and the many species that we share it with.

• Lyneke Onderwater was the green sheep in a conservative family. She is childless and carless and can't help but do her bit.