Flat parties are missing something. They have the awful alcohol; the top 20 tunes. But the location is depressing. You clamber inside the flat, precariously positioning yourself on the edge of the sofa. Occasionally you may awkwardly move onto the roof to bathe in the last glows of the sun but even this is deceptively awful. The roof will be painful, hot and barren. You sit there pretending to be enjoying yourself – making jokes and listening to stories when all that is on your mind is just how sore your bottom is; how you can’t wait to leave and hurry home; how the cramp in your leg would be great to stretch out but for the fact that you would then fall off the roof. It is not a good time.

I have a solution for your travails. It is a sensation, which has hit everywhere from New York to London to Berlin to Chicago. Put grass on your roof: or flowers or herbs or vegetables or a mesclun of the above. Grass roofs balance the aesthetic desires of a compact urban landscape with the need for environmental action. It is also great for parties.

Roofs until now were uninhabitable wastelands. National Geographic writer Verlyn Klinkenborg opined that “the urban roofscape is a little like hell—a lifeless place of bituminous surfaces, violent temperature contrasts, bitter winds, and an antipathy to water.” We have for generations sought to beautify our buildings and spaces – decorating, designing, colouring, yet until now, the roof, as an area of use rather than shelter has escaped our keen architectural eyes.

Grass roofs are flat and equipped with a special waterproof membrane that protects the house from the thick, insulating layer of soil, compost and grass. Using wild flower or grass acts an important filter for the water it traps. It reduces the need for inefficient and expensive storm water runoff systems. The grass and flowers absorb and store water whilst letting some off, now filtered and fresh to use again. It insulates houses. A thick layer of soil keeps heat in your house far better than any corrugated iron.

Wellington is lucky to have many large open spaces. However, in an ever expanding and populating world, cities are becoming denser – more compact; neighbours are through the wall rather than over the fence. Making use of the space above our heads is just commonsense. It is a place to relax, read, drink and languish.

Roofs are also now being used as vegetable gardens. The locavore revolution has facilitated both boutique restaurants and even larger scale operations to flourish on city roofs. Zibbibo restaurant in Wellington grows herbs and salad leaves in recycled dishwashers racks on the roof–only accessible through a hatch at the top of the ceiling.

In most countries the green roof revolution has grown organically. However, in some nations, such as Switzerland, where building regulation even picks your wallpaper, grass roofs are compulsory on any new flat roof. It has made for remarkable urban scenes and a lot more angled roofs.

Wellington architect John Mills suggested that grass roofs may be more difficult to construct in earthquake-prone Wellington, with earthquake regulation compliance becoming increasingly onerous. Having your garden fall on top of you would not be ideal. That problem may mean compulsory grass roofs for Wellington would not be the best of government decisions, but it remains an attractive choice for those looking to make better use of available space in an environmentally beneficial way.

Grass roof make for a more livable urban landscape, with environmental kudos to match. Make your parties cooler: force your landlord to grass your roof. ▲

Affiliating with an environmental group is a declaration of your beliefs. Be it whaling, climate change, or the ecosystem, there are no shortages of environmental issues, and luckily, New Zealand has stepped up to the challenge of mobilising for action. Salient feature writer Fairooz Samy gives you the low-down.

Generation Zero:

GZ is an organization of young people that are concerned about the effects of climate change. They aim to raise awareness about our country’s lack of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the government’s current policies which encourage fossil fuel development. Unsatisfied with the emissions trading scheme, they call for a plan to achieve zero net emissions in NZ before 2050, a legislative timetable to achieve it. It differs from other groups in that it views climate change as not only an environmental issue but also a human rights, economic, resource supply, and moral issue. They frame it as an “inter-generational issue” that deserves “inter-generational justice”, and point out the unfairness of our current generation inheriting an ecologically damaged planet. GZ has a plan of attack that takes in to account the importance of legal change.

They’ve been having an impact on politicians and regional councils, seeking to work with the system to introduce viable policies that are both environmentally necessary and realistically applicable. This year, they’ve made submissions to local councils across the country, involving detailed recommendations on how they can re-prioritise transport spending to “combat climate change and oil dependency”. However, they know it won’t happen overnight, stressing the “incremental” nature of policy change.

Before the last election, GZ interviewed over 100 politicians about their political stances on climate change. They posted the resulting interviews on their website (which had thousands of hits) and created an accompanying viral video that parodied the popular board game ‘Guess Who?’. Additionally, they ran ‘Climate Conversations’ which are educational presentations that spread the message about the importance of making climate change a priority issue in political discourse. The conversations attracted over 1000 young New Zealanders. GZ also aims to introduce long-term cultural change. Says external relations coordinator Lance Cash, GZ is working to “shift assumptions about what is possible on tackling climate change and creating a zero carbon Aotearoa”. Last March, they organised a flash mob on Cuba Street to raise awareness about the impact of rising sea levels. Currently, they’re running a collaborative research project called ‘Zero Carbon Pathways’. Their management is efficient and dedicated, while their information is soundly-sourced, and presented in an easy-to-understand way. They regularly update their Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter accounts, which keeps their presence visible and broadcasts their many activities.

Verdict: A knowledgeable and competent group with a plan of action and political savvy. Join if you want to make a difference and spruce up your CV.

Greenpeace:

Thanks to the Rainbow Warrior tragedy and the Mutton Birds’ single ‘Anchor Me’, Greenpeace is a fairly well-known organisation in Aotearoa. However, the misconceptions about its radical environmentalism haven’t dissipated. While Greenpeace’s core issues continue to be opposition to whaling, genetic engineering, and nuclear energy, it has an active base in NZ. When the Government proposed plans to mine conservation land, Greenpeace, along with other watchdogs, launched a campaign to prevent it. Greenpeace also protested Fonterra’s model of industrialised dairying and its use of palm kernel for cattle feed. Furthermore, they lobbied the Government to support a plan to save Pacific tuna stocks when they were being rapidly overfished.

On their radar this year is the issue of NZ becoming a prospect for deep sea drilling and the government’s possible plans to invite large oil companies to drill off our coasts. As an established international organization, Greenpeace is a smoothly coordinated and serious about its aims. While they may come on strong for the casual environment lover, their website offers a plethora of advice about ways to help the environment, and information about the issues.

Verdict: Since it’s not a student-based organization, you’ll have to be clued up and ready to commit. But nothing says ‘Greenie’ like Greenpeace.

Greens@Vic:

The Green Party–and their youth wing at VUW–are a staple of the NZ environmental scene. Greens@Vic co-convenor Harriet Farquhar is eager to reassure interested students of the collaborative nature of the environmental community: “the best thing is you don’t need to pick between the wealth of groups! The Green Party are always working in collaboration with other environmental groups and you totally can too!”. She did mention that the Greens offer a holistic view. “We are part of a global political movement, and environmental concern informs all of our ideals. Our vision for New Zealand is one on which is underpinned by ecological wisdom”.

In the lead up to the election, Greens@Vic came out in force to support the Greens’ electoral campaign in Wellington, door-knocking, delivering pamphlets, and getting the Green message into the populace. And their efforts paid off—the Green Party has never been so popular. According to Farquhar, Greens@Vic’s driving goal is to “continue to foster a community of like-minded people passionate about Green issues”. This they achieve with plenty of social events like beach camps, quizzes, and drink nights.

Despite their environmental reputation, the Greens also emphasize the importance of social issues, and many of their policies feature leftist stances, with plans to end child poverty in NZ by 2014 and the rebuilding of Christchurch as major points of interest. Over the coming months, they’ll be collecting signatures for the nation-wide ‘Keep our Assets’ petition and striving for student fares on public transport. On the ecological side, the clean-up of rivers and lakes is a high priority, as is the conservation of NZ’s unique flora and fauna. Members have the added advantage of easily accessible MPs. Fan favourite Gareth Hughes has made appearances at student-led protests, alongside co-leaders Metiria Turei and Russel Norman. Despite lacking their own website and channels of communication, Greens@Vic work better as a grassroots unit, engaging with interested students through meetings, demonstrations, and social events.

Verdict: Friendly and passionate, Greens@Vic live and breathe all things environment. You’ll need to make the political commitment, but if you’re an ardent eco-lefty this is the group for you.

Society for Conservation Biology:

The SCB is an international organization dedicated to probing the issues around the maintenance, loss, and restoration of biological diversity. The VUW chapter began on Salamanca Road in 2010 and is affiliated with Forest and Bird and the WCC. Their projects include Kumutoto restoration, where volunteers work in tandem with a WCC ranger to set up transect lines, bird and invertebrate counts, planting, and weed control. Since 2011, SCB has been operating alongside Forest and Bird to monitor a stretch of land on Island Bay. This also involves monitoring the penguins settled there and carrying out such duties as trapping, planting, and checking on the nests. Training is provided, and the SCB involves a dedicated team that take their responsibilities seriously. Recently, they completed a project with the Wellington Bird Rehabilitation Trust, feeding and caring for hundreds of fairy prions that washed ashore during a storm. The SCB is extremely hands-on, focusing less on political awareness and more on physically tending to the environment.

Verdict: A solid group, SCB is making positive changes in the Wellington area. Ideal for those willing to roll up their sleeves and get back to nature. ▲

Generation Zero:
Website: generationzero.org.nz
Meetings: Tuesdays, 5.30pm in SU216 below the Hunter Lounge. 

Greenpeace:
Website: greenpeace.org/new-zealand

Greens@Vic:
Meetings: Tuesdays, 1pm in SU219 below the Hunter Lounge.
Email: greens.at.vic@gmail.com.

Society for Conservation Biology:
Website: vuwscb.com
Email: Mikey Willcox at mikey.willcox@gmail.com

Chances are you’ve heard about the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Certainly you will be familiar with the Rena oil spill which occurred last year. However, you may not be aware of an environmental disaster which has taken place – and is taking place today – in the oil rich Niger Delta region of Nigeria. In fact, the amount of oil spilt in the Delta each year is more than that lost in the Gulf of Mexico spill.

The environmental destruction resulting from over 50 years of commercial oil extraction in this region has brought poverty, conflict and human rights violations to the local people. Oil giant Shell has been accused of allowing this disaster to happen, denying involvement and not responding effectively.

“What does this have to do with me?” you may be wondering. Here is an issue of the destruction of land and exploitation of powerless individuals at the hands of a greedy multinational corporation. Is this of any relevance to us as comparatively well-off New Zealanders living many miles distant? Should we care about using our power of free speech to campaign on behalf of the repressed? Perhaps you would say no: it isn’t relevant and I don’t care. But I appeal to all you students who feel strongly about environmental and social justice issues, to those who watched in horror the footage of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, those dismayed to see a similar situation play out on our own shores – it is to you that I address this article. Please, read of the plight of the Delta and its people, and take action for positive change.

The Niger Delta is a vast and densely populated region of mangrove swamps, forests and farmland that extends 70,000kms – about half the area of the South Island – and is home to some 31 million people. A region of great natural significance, the Delta comprises the world’s third largest mangrove forest and one of its most important wetland and coastal marine ecosystems. The Niger Delta is also rich in oil. It is no coincidence that those countries with the greatest oil reserves are also among those experiencing the gravest human rights violations. Multinational oil corporations such as Shell, Eni, Chevron, Total and Exxon Mobil have been extracting the dark nectar of the Delta since 1958, and now, 54 years on, the environment has been ruined and the local people are suffering.

Driven solely by financial incentive and having no ethical or environmental regard, oil corporations exploit the land and its resources. Gas flaring pollutes the air and devastates farmland; oil spills damage agricultural land and waterways. For the local people reliant on the land and waterways for subsistence farming and fishing, the exploitation of the Delta has had dire consequences. Fish stocks have dwindled, leaving thousands unable to support themselves and their families. Soil has become infertile, so farming is impossible. The people suffer high rates of disease, both respiratory and water-borne. They have lost their jobs and their livelihoods and now face poverty, sickness, and hunger.

As the first and continuing today as the biggest oil company to operate in the region, owning around 90 fields, multinational oil giant Royal Dutch Shell bears significant responsibility for the devastation of the Delta. In particular, Shell has been charged with denying responsibility for two major oil spills in 2008 and with failing to organise clean-up operations. Caused by faults in a pipeline, these spills resulted in thousands of barrels of oil every day polluting the land and creek surrounding the town of Bodo in the Delta’s Ogoniland. The spills continued unchecked for weeks and no proper clean-up has ever taken place. After conducting significant scientific assessment, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) concluded that it will take over 25 years to rehabilitate the Ogoniland. In the meantime, the rights of the local people to good health, a healthy environment, a means to earn money and an adequate standard of living are being violated.

Desperate to maintain its image as a “responsible” company acting as a “positive force” in the Niger Delta, Shell denies responsibility for the destruction caused by the 2008 spills. It claimed only 1,640 barrels of oil were spilt, when independent assessment concluded the total was closer to 200,000 barrels. It claimed spills started on the 5th October 2008, whereas the Bodo community and Nigerian regulators confirmed a start date over a month earlier. Shell has also provided no adequate compensation to the Bodo community. Initially, it offered a meagre 50 bags of rice, beans, sugar and tomatoes – Bodo is a town of 69,000.

Shell’s historical record in the Niger Delta is similarly troubling. In the early 1990s, thousands of Ogoni people, led by activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and his organisation Movement of the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), took part in peaceful protests against Shell. In response, Shell allegedly co-operated with the Nigerian army which conducted tortures and killings of dissidents. Shell provided the army with patrol boats and ammunition, and assisted in planning raids and terror campaigns against the Ogoni people. Most significantly, Shell was implicated in the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other prominent activists. Shell faced charges in New York, in 2009, for human rights violations but just before the start of the trial agreed to pay $15.5 million (US) in settlement of legal action.

Today, the situation in the Niger Delta has not improved. Shell concedes that oil spills in Nigeria are a “tragedy.” However, the Bodo community still awaits proper compensation and clean-up. Following recommendations from the United Nations, human rights organisation Amnesty International is insisting that Shell contribute an initial $1 billion to the clean-up of Ogoniland. Amnesty is calling on Shell to “Own Up, Pay Up and Clean Up.” Shell should be aware of its responsibility to uphold human rights, and it should establish an international fund to clean-up the Ogoniland. Amnesty is appealing to the international community to put pressure on Shell to accept these demands. As members of the public, we can sign an online petition urging Shell’s Chief Executive Officer, Peter Voser, to have his company Own Up, Pay Up and Clean Up the Delta. The petition is accessible on Amnesty’s New Zealand’s website, www.amnesty.org.nz  By signing, you are holding Shell accountable for its actions, ensuring that the human rights abuses it commits are not going unnoticed. Help support the environment and people of the Delta! ▲

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL:

Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of more than 3 million people in 150 countries who campaign to protect human rights. Vic’s Amnesty on Campus group meets every Tuesday evening at 5pm in Room 217, Student Union Building. Feel free to join us if you’re keen to learn about and take action on human rights issues.  Email us on amnesty.at.vic@gmail.com for more info.

It’s astonishing how quickly we forget; how soon the tides of collective amnesia wash our memory into rumour and our rumours into myth. You won’t remember it, but in January 2008, the Kiwi economy was in recession. Six months before the Global Financial Crisis capsized the global economy, we were already struggling to stay afloat.

It wasn’t credit derivatives or cowboy bankers that toppled the kiwi battler; our problems were simpler. From Spring 2007 to Autumn 2008, our farms shriveled, drought cost us 2.8 billion dollars. Simultaneously, the world realised that we were running out of oil, and unprecedented petrol prices strained our wallets. Very suddenly, our nation glimpsed our future: a world in which our wealth was running out.

The 21st century will be defined by the return of true scarcity. For a century we have grown lazy, always asking how quickly we can exploit our environment. We must now grapple with a new question: how much of our old wealth is left? We understand peak oil; that the automobile’s golden age is over. Well, we’re facing peak everything: peak fish, 70 per cent of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited or depleted; peak uranium, nuclear reactors will be fuelless by 2050; peak phosphorus, we have only 50 years left of modern fertiliser. The copper that carries our electricity, the water that sustains our crops, the forests that build our houses. Every natural resource that we have, we have squandered.

The Earth is a finite sphere, and yet capitalism has insisted that it is infinite. That cannot last. But when faced with the evidence, the capitalists are unfased. Technology, they insist, will save us all.

It’s an inspiring thing to be told: mankind’s undeterrable creativity will find a way, our collective genius will inspire paths back to prosperity. It’s also a lie. Technology has never led to great increases in efficiency. While Angry Birds is a lot of fun, global resource use is as wasteful as ever. American cars are, on average, only 1.3 km/l more efficient than in 1923. That’s not surprising: the physics of car design require a certain amount of energy to push a car up a hill, and, though we can minimise waste, that waste is insignificant. New technology isn’t about using scarce resources more efficiently. It’s about using more: bigger ships to mine our oceans, bigger machines to excavate our mountains. That can no longer deliver us wealth. If technology saves us then it will do something that it has never done before.

We once thought that we had infinite resources and an infinite basin into which we could pour our waste, but infinity was a myth. Though that basin is now clogged, global capitalism continues to crap in it. Our endless longing for material wealth is drenching us in our own shit. We need a new capitalism. One in which governments don’t desperately gouge our taonga, but instead celebrate a long-term mindset. One in which we accept that we have to live within our means, no longer yearning for anachronistic fool’s gold. One in which, as communities and as people, we learn to flourish in the simple pleasures of humanity, working together towards a better world.

If society is to survive, we will need a new capitalism.

Nicholas ‘Capitalist Pig-Dog’ Cross: Yes.

One lesson of history is that it’s never prudent to bet against the long-term future of the human race. Throughout history many have done so, but have all been wrong. Modern environmentalism and anti-capitalism are simply the latest in a long line of theories which predict the decline of humanity. Problems may exist but our capacity to overcome them is greater.

Let’s start with the assumption that the economy will remain Earth-bound. Obviously this places limitations on the amount of physical matter available to be exploited by the human race: the Earth is made of a finite number of atoms. This is important, but economic growth is about the value we can extract from matter, not the absolute amount of it.

We are told by the environmentalists that global resources cannot support expected population increases: it’s estimated the world population will peak at 10 billion by 2100. This view ignores something important; people are not just consumers of resources, they are a resource. Consider that productivity in the developed world is many times higher than the developing world. This is because we have more capital. This tells that global production can be increased many times over without even relying on technological innovation, we just have to bring the technology that makes us so productive to the developed world; i.e. build up their capital stock. This process is already occurring, which is why the gap in GDP per capita between developed and developing countries is shrinking.

But what about the natural resources required to sustain all those people? Some of them are non-renewable, but capitalism has the answers. Firstly we should continue to exploit existing resources. It has never made much sense to me to say that we shouldn’t exploit some resources, such as oil, because they are non-renewable: That’s like saying it wasn’t worth making the Harry Potter movies because there are only 7 books worth of material; “It’s a non-renewable resource, J.K. Rowling isn’t writing anymore!” Higher prices make exploration which we previously couldn’t afford viable, which is why we constantly discover more and more oil. They also create an incentive for consumers to better conserve and recycle existing resources.

The invisible hand knows that some resources are non renewable, so the price mechanism rewards those who develop alternate solutions. Currently we are investing in renewable electricity and are developing electric cars, and even cars that run on water to replace fossil fuels. We’re investing in genetic engineering to increase agricultural yields, de-salination technology to solve water shortages. Technology can give us more utility out of fewer resources, or utilise previously useless resources to solve our practical needs. Technological growth cannot last forever: there is only so much we can manipulate atoms. But you would be brave to bet against further amazing developments in the 21st century given what happened in the 20th.

Suppose that I am wrong and we really do face resource Armageddon within our lifetime. Capitalism still offers the optimum solution. You don’t have to be a science fiction or gaming nerd to believe that within the century we will have working virtual reality. And with enough computer power economic growth really can continue forever in simulations. I for one would rather be the emperor of my own virtual reality than live in some shitty environmentally sustainable subsistence commune. ▲

Same-sex marriage. Adoption law reform. Decriminalisation of cannabis. In the past, liberal New Zealanders have been able to look to the Green Party to lead from the front on social justice: issues of equity, tolerance, compassion, fairness and mutual participation. In 1972, the Values Party, as it was then known, contested the general election with its ‘Blueprint for New Zealand’, built around radical new policies that promoted reform of laws around abortion, drugs and homosexuality.

Compare this vision for an ‘Alternative New Zealand’ with the three priorities that the Greens campaigned on, and with great success, in last year’s election: “clean rivers, thriving kids, and jobs that are good for the environment and the economy”, each reinforced by a rigorous financial breakdown. Their focused, targeted, media-savvy approach was met with overwhelming support of the voting public: the Greens won 11 per cent of the vote, equating to a record 14 members of Parliament. The party’s decision to campaign on just three issues was affirmed on election night, but has it come at the cost of its ability to act as an advocate for wider change?

Greens co-leader Metiria Turei, who is also responsible for the party’s social justice portfolios, thinks not. Rather, she says, their streamlined approach was a bid to communicate their profile and priorities more clearly. “In the past, we’ve tended to take a scattergun approach, and that hasn’t worked,” she says. “The election campaign was the first time that we’d narrowed our messages down to just three.

“It was hard work doing that, because there’s more we want to say—but the fact is, people appreciate it if you can be clear in your priorities.”

This new clarity of vision reflects the Green Party’s aim to surpass its status as a minor party and become a major player in Parliament. Turei is quick to refute suggestion that the success of the Greens’ election campaign was a direct result of other parties’ failures. “We’re often described as taking votes from Labour or National, but the truth is, people are making an active choice to vote for the Greens,” she says. “We’re building a constituency based on our own profile, our own values and our own policies, quite separate from Labour and National. Those votes are not protest votes.”

It’s hard to say how Turei could substantiate this claim, as the Greens could not have failed to benefit from Labour’s ineffectual election campaign. Certainly, the party has since taken conspicuous advantage of new Labour leader David Shearer’s failure to gain traction with the public. “On some issues, Labour has been very quiet… meaning there’s been a space for us to be very vocal,” acknowledges Turei.

She says the Green Party has, in effect, led the opposition on matters such as amendments to the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 and industrial action at the Ports of Auckland. “That’s partly a feature of our own strength, in that we know what it is that we want to do, and partly because having more MPs in Parliament means we have more resources to do that work,” she says. “It’s also partly a result, I will admit, of Labour being in the process of figuring out what to do next.”

Again, Turei seems to be underestimating or minimising the extent to which Labour’s period of transition has benefited the Greens. To a certain extent, their success in opposition does not reflect the strength of their policies as much as it does a shrewd and effectual communications team. The style, substance and frequency of the Greens’ press releases is imitable (conversely, just last week, Labour’s finance spokesperson David Parker headed a statement on disappointing economic growth “Nek minnit”). Turei seems to acknowledge this when she says the Green’s being “more nimble and sharper in our messaging” gives them an advantage over other opposition parties.

Being “nimble”, and holding a flexible position within Parliament, is important to the Greens, maintains Turei. Though the party has a formalised Memorandum of Understanding with the Government, last month National rejected plans to expand that agreement, stating that it “did not have additional resources available for the policy priorities of the Greens”. Though Turei’s co-leader Dr Russel Norman described the outcome as “disappointing” at the time, Turei argues that it adds to their potential for impact: “That aspect of being able to work both with and against National, as we’ve done with Labour in the past, keeps us in a very independent political space.”

The Greens are now interested in as much collaboration, with either National or Labour, as can be achieved without compromising their independence, which again reflects their long-term goal of becoming the third major player in New Zealand politics. “We are critical of both Labour and National where we see fit, because we want to have relationships that are much more equitable,” says Turei. “If we are to start shifting away from a two-party system to three dominant parties, they need to understand that that relationship has changed.”

Budget constraints aside, that the Government and the Greens could not agree on items of common interest with which to extend their MoU does not bode well for the “collaboration at that decision-making level” that Turei argues is necessary for a “progressive, modern parliamentary system”. And as far as matters of inequality go, green jobs, clean rivers, and lifting children out of poverty are hardly polarising. Since the election, it’s possible to argue that the party has kept a low profile on more emotive, divisive issues. At time of writing, the Greens have no members’ bills on adoption law reform, the decriminalisation of cannabis, or same-sex marriage entered into the ballot. This is despite their having more MPs in Parliament (and thus more resources) than ever before, and the party’s history of success with members’ bills.

But Turei denies that, in prioritising its goals, the Greens have compromised their commitment to progressing social justice: “The party continues to work on these issues; [the absence of related members’ bills in the ballot] just means it’s going on in a different way.” For example, she says Green MP Kevin Hague’s work with other parties on adoption law reform is “likely to be more constructive, and potentially more advantageous, in the medium term” than a member’s bill.

She stresses the importance of judicious timing. “You’re continually having to assess whether it’s the right moment to get traction and progress on that issue, because otherwise, you’re just wasting your time and other people’s,” she says. “You have to catch a wave, but you also have to spend the downtime preparing for it, because otherwise you get caught short.

“Often those political windows for change are just moments long, and you have to be ready at the right time with the right response.”

But, arguably, as one of the leftmost voices in Parliament (a descriptor that Turei agrees with, though she points out that there are other, more relevant spectrums than left and right), the Green Party has a responsibility to foster debate on social justice. Legislation does not determine culture, and leading from the front on such issue, convenient “window for change” or no, can go considerable way in influencing and informing attitudes.

In Exploring Social Justice: A New Zealand Perspective, Dr Myron Friesen found that individuals’ understanding of social justice could be expanded through both debate and education of “previous injustices”, proving that discussion of such issues is crucial to a progressive society—whether the moment is advantageous or not. In this way, parliamentary tools such as members’ bills can create a window for change, rather than simply taking advantage of one.

Turei concedes this, noting that Catherine Delahunty’s bill provided the impetus for Minister for Disability Issues and Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia to establish a Disabilities Commissioner. But Turei points out that issues of social justice are typically “felt very deeply by a lot of people”, and it is unfair to give them “false hope for change”.

“For those individuals, the solutions seem so obvious, and the political inertia is just so frustrating—I think we feel that particularly strongly, because we come from those communities,” she says. “It’s not like we don’t know exactly what it means for people on a daily basis.

“But there’s only so much you can do in any particular political moment, and it’s one of the hazards of the job—that you do disappoint people. There’s not much you can do that that.

“Somebody’s going to be disappointed because you’re not doing something you should be doing.”

In the meantime, the Greens are focused on extending their “political moment” for as long as possible, as the party’s potential for impact in the long-term is dependent on its continuing to build on its constituency. “If we move up towards 15 per cent in the next election, and 20 per cent at the one after that, the face of New Zealand politics has radically changed,” says Turei. “And that’s good, because if you keep doing it the old way, you’re going to keep getting the old stuff.” ▲

The Green Party has a long list of things it doesn’t like. This is not particularly unusual, as every party has long lists of things they don’t like. However, unlike National’s distaste for beneficiaries, immigrants and women, or Labour’s distaste for rich people, rural people and freedom, the Green’s list tends to be somewhat more idiosyncratic, reflecting perhaps a party driven more by its activists then by any realistic need to govern the country. One of the more prominent recent additions to the List of Things to be Banned is a process known as Hydraulic Fracturing, or “Fracking”, a 50-year old method for increasing extraction of natural gas that has gained increased publicity due to claims it causes groundwater pollution, air pollution and earthquakes. This is all true. However, none of it matters.

The fracking “debate” is a classic example of when environmentalism, a movement with a noble goal, endangers its own credibility by failing to create a rational framework in which to evaluate policy. No policy can be evaluated on whether it creates harm alone; instead policy needs to consider whether harms are substantive and whether they outweigh the benefits produced.

Consider the harms in turn. Groundwater contamination is physically possible. It is also extremely unlikely. Even if it does occur, it is not plausibly going to cause meaningful harm. In New Zealand, fracking only occurs at depths below the aquifers that are used to supply drinking water. Fracking involves the high pressure injection of chemically treated water into subterranean natural gas bearing rock. The rock cracks, gas escapes, the gas and water are extracted from the well via shielded bores. Opponents cite US Environmental Protection Agency findings of groundwater contamination near fracking sites, but the contamination was extremely low. Subsequent researchers have posited such contamination is most likely due to ground-level spillage of dosed water, rather than the subterranean operation of fracking itself.

This is a problem associated with any industrial chemical activity, one that is solved by a sound regulatory regime. It is not a sound reason to ban this particular process.

Air pollution is similar. The process, if not properly controlled, can result in the release of toxic compounds into the air surrounding the drill-site. Again, however, detected levels of benzene (a known carcinogen and poster-child for the evils of fracking) around drill-sites are comparable to that detected around any manner of industrial process and match toxicity levels found in urban environments. Toxicity effects manifest from prolonged exposure, and there is little evidence of communities or individuals who have experienced such exposure. Further, mandatory air-quality monitoring would seem to assuage all fears air pollution could produce.

Perhaps the most disingenuous claim made is that about earthquakes, constantly cited by local opponents—for obvious reasons. Fracking certainly produces earthquakes, but these tremors almost always are of the magnitude of around 2.0-3.0 on the Richter scale. A logarithmic scale, each integer increase represents a ten times larger quake. A magnitude 2.0-3.0 earthquake, therefore, is 100 times smaller than the magnitude 4.0-5.0 earthquakes Wellingtonians often fail to notice. There is no evidence that fracking poses any risk as far as producing actually damaging quakes.

Given all this, what then should the reasonable response be? The answer is not a moratorium. While fracking certainly creates harms, there is no evidence it poses a real risk to the community, and certainly any risk is outweighed by the real benefits of increased natural gas production. The approach that should be applied is that applied to all other industrial processes: regulate responsibly, monitor externalities, and enjoy the benefits of increased energy production.

Of course for die-hard opponents of the practice, none of this will be persuasive. This is unfortunate, because it is the pitched battles over safe technologies (nuclear energy and genetic modification being other examples) that drive conceptions of an environmental movement driven not by reasonableness, but by ideological adherence to anti-industrial paranoia. Ignoring the evidence to reach desired conclusions is the same sin that drives political conservatives towards climate change denial, and sometimes it seems to drive those on the other side of the political spectrum in exactly the opposite direction. Neither direction is good for our environment.  ▲

Somewhere near Seattle, a man is working in a lab, the sole purpose of which is to invent cool shit to make the world better. Take, for example, the laser which fights malaria through tracking and killing female mosquitoes—they’re identified through having a slower wing beat than males—from up to 30 meters away. This man and his lab are something special indeed; a fact which may not be surprising, considering he gained a bachelor’s, two masters’, and a Ph.D. all by age 23.

This man’s name is Nathan Myhrvold, reportedly the smartest man Bill Gates has ever met, and the lab in question is Intellectual Ventures, the base of a company specialising in patenting inventions.

Enter Budyko’s blanket theory. Essentially, this theory is based on the natural phenomenon of volcanic eruptions. In the years after large eruptions–say, Pinatubo 21 years ago or even Taupo nearly 2000 years ago–global temperatures fall measurably. This is due to volcanic excrement being exploded far into the atmosphere, where it binds to water vapour and forms an aerosol cloud, blocking the sun’s rays for about a year. Less sunlight reaches Earth, and we all chill out just a little bit. Now, hold that thought.

In the face of climate change, we have a number of options. We could do nothing, meekly cross our fingers and hope for favourable climate oscillations, a slight change in the Earth’s orbit, or regular volcanic eruptions of massive scale to offset the increasing temperature of our planet (which is occurring, despite what the ACT party would have you believe). We could take a proactive approach, where we get teary and silently promise action during the cinematic ice shelf collapses in Al Gore movies, live vicariously through Lucy Lawless as she battles those evil oil giants, and really become the change we want to see in the world, y’all.

This is not to disparage the work of environmental groups, who indeed have the best possible intentions. But, your average human’s daily emissions from things like driving a car and not recycling your bottles and tins make up barely 2% of our total anthropogenic emissions. While re-using your shopping bags and taking the bus are good things to do, in the greater scheme of things these actions have little effect.

Going vegan and composting your own waste products may be worthwhile endeavours, but the argument over their effectiveness is one which exists on a micro scale. Doing these things will probably make our world a nicer place to live, ignoring the inevitable externality–sanctimony. But to really save the planet, we need to worry about the macro scale. By macro, we are not even speaking about the actions of companies or states. Even if we somehow managed to completely stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the half-life of carbon dioxide means the cold turkey approach wouldn’t be effective for at least a century. We are talking about global systems. This brings us to the third option.

Our third option is to take a pragmatic approach which will actually work, and work right away–this is what Myhrvold and Intellectual Ventures have come up with. Remember Budyko’s blanket theory? Well, the IV lab has developed a plan to create it artificially.

Here’s the condensed version: chuck a relatively small amount of sulphur dioxide (just 0.05% of yearly sulphur emissions) 18km up, into the stratosphere. Let atmospheric winds distribute this around the globe creating a ‘blanket’ which reflects sunlight, lowering global temperatures as an eruption’s effluvia does. We do this using a long pipe, elevated by helium balloons, with pumps every 30 meters to maintain pressure. We test it out with small amounts of sulphur first–if it works we continue, if it doesn’t, we stop. We fiddle with the temperature as much or as little as we want, depending on the amount of sulphur we use. Simple, really.

Artificially manufacturing Budyko’s blanket is doable, and incredibly cheap in comparison to the expected cost of climate change—$1.2 trillion per year, according to economist Nicholas Stern’s 2006 findings on the economic impact of climate change—or even in comparison to the cost of Al Gore’s climate change money-go-round: a $300 million public awareness campaign which included the infamous film An Inconvenient Truth. Setting up a basic version of the Budyko’s blanket plan would take barely two years, cost a mere $20 million, and another $10 million a year to operate. That’s just 600 Priuses.

As tends to happen, we humans find ways to fuck things up. Budyko’s blanket is unlikely to be an exception. If we can barely decide multilaterally on issues such as emission caps (see: the Copenhagen Climate Council held in 2009), is there any indication that we can successfully negotiate what we do with the entire stratosphere?  In reality, the likelihood of implementation is slim as the blanket plan has little support from governments. It’s not going to grow economies or provide tax revenue, and the amount of multilateral cooperation required to achieve a workable consensus is possibly insurmountable.

There is also bound to be opposition to this plan; worries have been raised about increased sulphur content leading to reduced rainfall, and increasing the phenomena of acid rain. An 18km stretch of glorified hosepipe is a relatively easy target and if Greenpeace can find a few Japanese whalers in 20 million km² of southern ocean, I imagine there’d be many ways to halt the sulphur flow should such a measure be desired.

It is not the logistics of the process, but its implications which are the largest stumbling block. If we can emit greenhouse gases until our hearts are content and easily fix the temperature rises this will cause, do we then have a green light on pollution? Will climate change awareness without the threat of a huge negative externality like global temperature rise still have the same effect? Budyko’s blanket would undermine the need for awareness and action, eroding the gains environmentalists have made towards making our planet a nicer one to live in.

Should we even proceed with fiddling with the systems of an entire planet? Messing with the ozone content of the stratosphere is heady stuff. Environmentalists will argue that we are already fiddling with the planet, through wanton pollution from industrialising powers like China, the global carbon factory which is agriculture, and deforestation. Is the answer to meddling really to meddle more?

Ultimately though, it’s a good safety net. It lets us know that if push comes to shove, we can stop climate change if we have to. Budyko’s blanket is a solution which is simple, cheap, controllable, reversible and quick to implement, and one of few ideas that can make people genuinely optimistic about Earth’s future. That, and the possible return of Georgie Pie.  ▲

The author would like to acknowledge the works of Stephen D Levitt and Stephen J Dubner in writing this article.

In America, the days of the coat-hanger abortion might be back. With the presidential race approaching, a new breed of conservatism is making its presence known on the political scene, and the consequences for women are grim. Over the past couple of years, Republican law-makers have been steadily creating legislation that restricts women’s access, and right to, contraception and abortion services. 

Against the advice of medical profession, activists, and many women themselves, their decisions are adversely impacting lives across the nation. But the issue transcends the pro-choice/pro-life debate. It’s about a political party using its clout to marginalize 50 percent of its country’s population. It’s about that party implementing laws that undermine the agency of women and holds them all to a conservative standard of behaviour. It’s about bypassing the democratic process and the separation of state and religion. And the result is that tax-paying citizens are subjected to laws they were never consulted about—laws that affect them intimately—simply because those citizens have female genitalia. Welcome to the American dream.

You can’t make this shit up

America’s self-appointed nickname is the “land of the free”, but recent events are shattering that reputation.  Abuses of power and policies that defy belief have cropped up all over the democratic nation, and no one seems to be taking any notice.  When a congressional hearing about Obama’s Affordable Care Act was put together, its aim was to discuss whether or not health insurers covering birth control under their plans would violate religious freedom. In their infinite wisdom, the Republican party decided to have a balanced panel of experts debate the issue. It consisted of eight people and five witnesses. All were male. Most were religious clergy. The fact that no religious institutions would be forced to pay for contraception (and the fact that no one on the panel would be affected by insurers subsidising birth control) went unnoticed. Also absent were economists, insurance industry representatives, doctors, employment lawyers, and, uh, women.

All the people of Georgia and Oklahoma wanted were upgraded parking meters and a new library, but their state legislatures took it upon themselves to spend taxpayer resources on passing a new law that grants fertilised eggs the same rights as full-grown human beings. Since partially-formed, conscious-less embryos are scientifically incapable of exercising these rights, it appears as though the states are just paving the way for future anti-choice measures. Also in Georgia is the “Women as livestock” bill that requires women to carry non-viable foetuses to term, because, as Republican state rep Terry England reasons, if pigs and cows can carry their dead foetuses then women can too. Just take a minute to think about that logic and the fact that Terry England has the power to make legally-binding, medically inexplicable decisions based on that thought process. Then, think about how emotionally devastating it would be to a woman who has to carry the remains of her would-be child for several months until the state decides it’s the “natural time” to end her torment.

Texas governor Rick Perry decided to unconstitutionally destroy the state’s women’s health program in case any funding went towards Planned Parenthood clinics, who he seems to think are evil abortion advocates that convince vulnerable women to kill their babies. In reality, Planned Parenthood provides invaluable sexual and mental health services for both men and women, including STI treatments, cervical smears, and counselling. Apart from being a spectacular abuse of power, Perry’s actions have woeful implications for Texan women who rely on these services for basic health provisions. But the happy fun times in the lone star state don’t end there. Women seeking abortions in the towns of Kingsville and Corpus Christi must listen to a presentation (given by an honest-to-God doctor) that explains the link between breast cancer and abortions (which empirically doesn’t exist). This is all done in a wholehearted attempt to convince the women not to go through with it, regardless of their own reasons (rape and incest don’t cut it) or the medical code of impartiality.

In a move intended to restrict access to safer, easier, less expensive terminations, Wisconsin passed a law that required doctors to perform vague deductive checks to make sure their patients aren’t being pressured into having terminations. It sounds well and good until you consider the sinister reasoning behind it that conceives of abortion as a choice that no right-minded woman should consider. Additionally, it increases the number of medical visits a woman would have to make (in America these don’t come cheap) while making it illegal for doctors and patients to communicate via webcam when undergoing medical abortions. This needlessly disadvantages women who choose the non-surgical route and penalises doctors who just want to ensure a medically-sound experience from start to finish. Finally, let’s not forget Arizona, where a recent law stipulated that a woman’s pregnancy legally starts two weeks before the point of conception. Technically, this means that every woman is legally pregnant since she can’t fully guarantee that she won’t be pregnant two weeks in the future. Let’s hear it for common sense!

Time for a change?

Luckily, NZ’s legal limitations on reproductive rights aren’t as restrictive. Bafflingly, abortion is listed under the Crimes Act, and can only be carried out under the provisions of serious danger to life, physical or mental health, incest, and foetal abnormality. Although factors like rape, extremes of age, and foetal abnormality are taken into account, they aren’t legal reasons in themselves. Self-abortions are not only illegal, but a criminal offence. To get abortion performed here, a woman must be certified by two specially-appointed doctors.

Currently, almost all abortions performed in NZ are approved under the mental health clause. Agencies like family planning–who provide fertility advice, cervical smears, vasectomies and much more–advocate for sex education and access to abortions without unnecessary barriers. The Abortion Law Reform Association of NZ (ALRANZ) argues that our current law, which was passed in 1977 when Parliament only had four female members, is outdated, punitive, and unrealistic. They say the $5 million it costs to certify a consultant could be better spent on preventing unplanned pregnancy, and that socio-economic factors should be recognized and not swept under the heading of ‘mental health’. Additionally, they say that the discourse around abortion needs to change. No contraception is 100 per cent effective and sexual activity is not a crime, so mistakes are bound to happen. They argue that women want to give their children the best start in life, and forcing someone to carry a child they just don’t have the resources for is not in the best interests of society.

ALRANZ also points out that rural and poorer women are more disadvantaged in the process, and the bureaucratic delays result in the prolonging of the abortion process, which is neither cost-effective nor medically advisable.  Additionally, they point out that the law hasn’t reduced the number of abortions, it’s just made the process more costly and difficult for doctors and patients. Currently, the Supreme Court is hearing the long-running Right to Life v Abortion Supervisory Committee case. Right to Life are appealing the court’s decision that the ASC (who are appointed by Parliament) should not be allowed to overturn the medical decisions of certified consultants, and the outcome is yet to be decided.

The big picture

None of this is to say that having pro-life/anti-choice beliefs are necessarily bad. The horror of the matter is that individual choice is being taken away on fundamentally personal issues. Instead of focusing on what the public wants to fund, the Republican lawmakers in the US are abusing their powers to further their own ideological agendas. By using their influence to promote beliefs that trample on the hard-won reproductive rights and civil liberties of women, the Republican Party are giving preferential treatment to those that share their own religious affiliations at the cost of everyone else’s human rights. Even in safe old Aotearoa, we still have reproductive laws that were passed over 30 years ago. Our society has changed, and so have our views on sex and reproduction, so why are our lawmakers so resistant to updating the legislation around them? Though we might not see US-style ‘reforms’ here, the political inaction speaks for itself. America’s new laws on reproductive health are a depressing indicator that a country which supposedly champions individual rights is willing to forfeit the achievements gained in equal rights over the last 50 years to conform to a standard of morality that doesn’t suit many of its 300 million citizens. Thankfully, those citizens still get a voice in the upcoming election. Let’s hope their views won’t be silenced.

Fa’afafine are people who have the physical characteristics of men but are raised more as women, yet to call them either of these things would be bigotry. Traditional Samoa considered them Fa’afafine with distinct cultural roots and roles separate from the binary gender divide. In Samoa, homosexual sex is considered to be wrong, yet a man having sex with a Fa’afafine is not. Fa’afafine are brought up to carry out female tasks but due to their physique are often very useful people to have around. They are less likely to get married and are more expected to look after elderly parents.

In traditional Samoa, they were accepted as a normal type of individual: a third gender, just as appropriate as being male or female. Yet Samoans don’t live in isolation anymore. They have uprooted to New Zealand and the rest of the world, or remained in Samoa only to be bombarded by a Western way of life. That cultural contact has forever altered and distorted the treatment of Fa’afafine. Whether in the sandpit or watching TV, Fa’afafine are forced to consider the fact that they are different.

Fa’afafine in New Zealand are first subject to this way of life when they make the trip to school. The education system exaggerates differences in gender. Schools are defined based on the gender they cater for. There are male and female bathrooms. PE becomes a test of testosterone. Uniforms are binary. Schools, the Human Rights Commission found, even struggle to cope with the names that Fa’afafine and other transgender individuals wish to call themselves.

Fa’afafine are forced from a young age to categorise themselves into these ill-fitting definitions. Some go to girls’ schools and embrace their effeminate side. Others go to boys’ schools and often feel pressured to hide who they are. De La Salle College, a Christian boys’ school in Auckland, is well known for its significant Fa’afafine population. They are a success story in their treatment of Fa’afafine. There, Fa’afafine feel liberated and comfortable with who they are, partaking in the arts, often advantaged their unique gender. Unfortunately, the story of De La Salle is not the norm.

Even some Samoan families no longer support their Fa’afafine children because of the bombardment of Western norms. A report by the Human Rights Commission in 2008 on transgender people commented that “…childhood experiences at home were marked by confusion, fear and conflict with parents and others in response to their gender identity related behavior.” The very individuals that were lucky enough to bring them into the world fail to cope with having a child who is ‘different’. Many, such as Peter, are beaten or abused. Parents often are unsure whether to try to ‘correct’ their child’s gender or to just ignore it, hoping it will phase out. Both these responses reek of a deep-rooted social conservatism, founded in Western ideology—where not being normal is somehow morally wrong.

Dr Pat Moloney, a senior lecturer at Victoria University, who specialises in sexuality studies suggests that when individuals move to a different culture, they are “perceived in novel ways”. Our “different set of cultural categories” means that some gender behaviours are interpreted differently. Fa’afafine are viewed differently due to their new environment, and thus also consider themselves in new ways.

Nonetheless, there have been success stories of integration. The American Samoan men’s football team, has been overachieving on the international stage. A Fa’afafine, Jonny Saelua, is a star player of the side. When interviewed by The New York Times, she said that her teammates “make me feel like a part of them.” A fellow player commented that “[i]t’s difficult for their situation. I let people do whatever they want. It’s their life. He’s part of our family right now.”

Fa’afafine, Dr Moloney argues, may not be discriminated against as harshly as their Pakeha transgender counterparts. “The category of the exotic other”, Moloney thinks, “…may give them more license to be different than their Western equivalent.” Fa’fafine, because they are Samoan, may have freer reign in New Zealand to express themselves, as they are obviously from a different culture.

One way to demonstrate our support for Fa’afafine would be for our society to reflect on ourselves in just the same way that we force Fa’afafine to reconceive their own lives. If we are never forced to compare our approach with other cultures it is easy to fall into the trap of believing our attitude is universally ‘right’; that there is no other way to consider gender. When we think gender is biological rather than a cultural construction influenced by social roles and a heteronormative majority, it grants unfounded legitimacy to our logic. We purport that our attitude to gender is right because we think it is something with which we are born. This is most certainly not the case. It is only because of the construction of our society and our daily interactions with others that we have slowly engendered norms of definition. We sought to classify. This definitional system has only heightened feelings of isolation and self-consciousness by those who are not ‘normal’ ‘straight’ ‘men’.

Over the last few decades, we have seen the rise of what Dr Moloney coined “the medicalisation” of the ways transgender and Fa’afafine are born. Medicine has sought to offer ‘solutions’, primarily to parents, around issues of sexuality and gender. What might have been accepted in the nineteenth century as different, is now a ‘medical problem’, potentially deserving of treatment. That may mean gender reassignment surgery or pharmaceutical drugs forced by parents upon their Fa’afafine or transgender children.  This “medicalisation” may exacerbate problems surrounding gender. Seeking to cure something makes it be perceived as a problem: something to get rid of rather than embraced.

The Fa’afafine tradition supports the notion that our culture influences our concept surrounding gender. When reinforced by similar attitudes in other cultures, it seems more likely that our approach to gender is defined by our culture. For the concept of a third gender isn’t unique to Samoa. The Xanith of Oman, the Hijra of India and the Fakefefine of Tonga are all considered in their respective cultures as a third gender.

A more fluid attitude to gender liberates people from a binary system, allowing them to flourish as individuals. People should not have to tick a box from the age of zero, telling the world that they are a man; or forced to pick a school based on their gender. Our obsession with gender shackles us to a world built on arbitrary difference; it leaves people such as Peter with a life of suffering, because people find them odd. Our culture has inflicted damage on Fa’afafine. We might redeem ourselves by learning from them.

“It seems I am offending another girl just by calling her a girl.”

It would not be hard to believe that this statement appeared in a letter to the editors in the back of Salient, as Steve Cones defended himself against those who disagreed with his verdict that girls at Victoria just weren’t “taking pride in their appearance”.

But it didn’t. It begins a letter from “Bob” to “Dot” that was published in The Otago Witness on ‘Dot’s Little Folks’ page in 1898. Louisa Baker was the first Dot but she was succeeded by both men and women. The page allowed children and teenagers to discuss their lives with each other and with Dot. The female readers had been voicing their disagreement with Bob’s misogynistic outlook.

“Did I ever say to you Dot that I disliked or despised girls?” said Bob in an earlier letter. “…I think they are all ‘much of a muchness’. But that isn’t despising them.”

It has been suggested that Bob’s letters were commissioned by the Witness to incite more girls into writing for the page. It worked. Bob was trolling—Victorian style. Maybe Cones was trolling too, but the gender conflict they provoked is genuine. Both readers of ‘Dot’s Little Folk’ and Salient readily defended and aligned themselves by gender.

Many maintain that gender conflict is the result of society’s expectations that the sexes uphold opposing values. But despite the century of feminism between them, the structure of gender conflict in the letters to Dot and Salient is amusingly similar.

Because Cones is the product of modern society, we can assume, or perhaps blindly hope, that he believes females and males should have equal opportunities. But he did not consider the possibility that boys at Victoria weren’t taking pride in their appearance either. He may not have intended to be offensive, but he did not hesitate to hold different standards for each gender. On the other hand, Bob was raised in a culture steeped in gender prejudice, yet he didn’t seem to occupy himself with Victorian gender roles—he claimed he could sew.  Bob’s main gripe was that girls thought he ate too much.

You would expect Cones and Bob’s stories to be reversed. If a century of transforming social norms and blurring gender roles does not diminish the prevalence of gender conflict then what does? Can we even call it “gender” conflict? It becomes tempting to say that the conflict is rooted in unavoidable biological differences, rather than the clash of abstract identities. But this isn’t true.

Research led by Beverly Fagot of the University of Oregon found that babies were able to distinguish the difference between pictures of male and female adults. Babies were also shown pictures in which the women had shorter hair and wore masculine clothing. The changes in these gender attributes did not affect the results. Researchers concluded that the ability to distinguish people by sex develops naturally but the ability to categorise people based on gender attributes has to be learned. This seems obvious to most people.

However, the ability to distinguish people by sex does not cause children to discriminate between their peers. The same team conducted research at playgroups. Two year old children who could correctly assign gender labels to pictures were far less likely to play with the opposite sex than those who couldn’t. Why do children discriminate against others based on gender but not sex?

According to Diane Ruble of New York University, young children have a “growing awareness of membership in a [male or female] social group”. Children begin to search for ways in which they can further identify themselves with the group. Parents provide many when they give their children gender-typed toys. The consequence of identifying with a social group is a wariness of anyone who does not belong to the group. Members will discriminate against those who do not subscribe to their gender ideals, even if they are of the same sex.

Gender roles have changed since Bob wrote his letters. But what connects his world to Cones’ is the continued presence of two predominant gender groups. Regardless of whether there is social equality, the mere existence of two gender groups means they will pitch themselves against one another.

We’re back where we started. Gender exists and it creates conflict. What should we do about this?

Some parents are trying to close the gender divide. They believe that children should not only respect other genders, but that they should be “gender neutral”.  According to The Telegraph, Beck Laxton and Kieran Cooper attempted to raise their son Sasha as gender neutral for the first five years of his life. Only close relatives were informed of the child’s sex and were asked to keep it a secret. He was only allowed to play with gender-neutral toys. The attempt is not unique.

According to the same article, Dr Daragh McDermott, psychology lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University, has said that there is “little empirical research” investigating the long term of affects of attempting to raise gender neutral children. Sasha’s story raises the question: how much should parents interfere with their child’s gender development?

Sasha’s parents want to him to develop his own identity. But by concealing Sasha’s sex and referring to him as “The Infant” have his parents denied him the important process of identifying with a social group? Furthermore, by only allowing Sasha to play with gender neutral toys have they really given him opportunity to experiment with his gender identity? Ethicist and Professor Margaret Somerville at McGill University also asks us to consider whether “the parents [are] doing this for the kids… or… for themselves?”

Deborah L. Wisnowski wrote a piece for the Clinics about her experiences raising a gender non-conforming child. Her son Bobbi never identified himself with a male social group. Of his own accord, he developed a feminine gender identity. Wisnowski recounted “many moments for parents of gender non-conforming kids that are heart-breaking”. Bobbi struggled to make friends and have a fulfilling school life. Sasha’s parents have raised a child in a gender-neutral environment with the knowledge that he may experience the hardships common to the experience of  gender non-conforming children.

“Children are the gender they are identifying as, so they should live as the people they really are” says Wisnowski. Gender neutrality is not the answer to gender conflict. A culture in which children can confidently acquire gender identities is preferable, even if those identities are stereotypical and conflicting. We definitely should not deny them their sex and prevent them from belonging to social groups.

“I like reading Bob’s letters very much and I wish I could write one like him, but he is a boy and I am only a girl” wrote Jessie C to Dot. We should be glad these attitudes are not as common as they were in the 1890s. Conceptions of gender and the acceptance of diverse gender identities have come far. Gender identities make us who we are. But as long as Salient is published, genders will continue to fight amongst the letters pages. That’s pretty funny and just fine.

A collection of letters to Dot can be found in the book Dear Dot I Must Tell You, edited by Keith Scott.