There is an unrecognised sustainability dilemma at work in NSW. Our local issue, which is very real, is iconic of the global dilemma as expressed in the recent New Scientist cover story Growth Is Folly.

It is well known that historically, societies destroy themselves by undermining their own resource bases. When farms and forests turn into deserts, then that's that.  Jared Diamond's Collapse gives many examples.

Anthropologist Joseph Tainter takes a slightly different angle.  Tainter points out that societies collapse when they can no longer produce the energy (grain, fuel, and in today's world money) required to maintain the complex layers of education, arms manufacture, roads, ports, and administrative bureaucracy that were developed to solve the society's challenging problems (The Collapse of Complex Societies, 1988). 

When energy needs can't be met, societies devolve to a more decentralised less complexly integrated organisation.  The transition, if sudden and not willingly undertaken, is horrendous.

Completely aside and apart from whatever forces of corruption or opportunity for self-aggrandisement may be at play, those who govern a society sometimes feel forced to make decisions that are ecologically damaging because they feel that they cannot afford to make the ecologically sound decision.

This is the unsustainable complexity dilemma.  It's a question of immediate financial need versus long-term ecological viability. Beyond a certain point, activities undertaken to increase or even just maintain a certain level of social complexity set us up for social and/or environmental collapse.  Let's look at how this is playing out in New South Wales.

In New South Wales the government is currently authorising full exploitation of our coal resources (from which the government gets royalties) rather than protecting the long-term viability of rivers and aquifers. 

NSW has an extensive coal mining industry, far bigger than most people realise, and it is set to expand. In addition to the larger issue of global warming there are three key areas that are of immediate ecological concern: mining in the wetlands at the sources of rivers, doing underground mining so close to rivers that the stream beds crack (longwall mining), and mining over a major aquifer, which will either crack the aquifer or pollute it with heavy metals released by the mining.

Mining in wetlands at the source of rivers destroys the life of the entire river. This is because wetlands provide a steady flow of stored water even in the severest droughts. If that flow stops, all the life of the river dies.

New South Wales is in the process of issuing permits for more underground mining near rivers, as well as permitting coal mining at the swampy sources of some rivers, and in the Liverpool Plains, the most productive grain-growing region of New South Wales.  The Liverpool Plains agricultural region (which is in north-west NSW, not near Liverpool City) is supported by an aquifer. 

And of course coalmining uses huge amounts of water in its own right in a time where cities and agriculturists are concerned about water supplies.

Enough damage has been done already that a coalition of groups, Rivers SOS, has been formed to raise awareness and stop mining in these crucial affected areas.

The government currently gets about $1 billion per annum in royalties from mining, including coal.  It has been suggested that the NSW government authorises the mining because the government is addicted to the money. 

But we should look at it from the government's point of view.  Continuing to expand coal mining in NSW is a case in point of the unsustainable complexity dilemma.

The NSW government has not taken up an offer by the Rudd government to provide a computer for every desk in schools, because they cannot afford to. According to the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, the NSW government is $900 million in debt already this year, and the housing market is dropping, severely affecting its revenue base.

It is not obvious that banning mining in areas which would affect rivers and aquifers would immediately reduce the government's income from coal. So it is a bit of a puzzle as to why they continue to authorise such environmentally damaging activities. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the government genuinely believes that by imposing environmentally protective restrictions they would lose $1 billion in royalties.

You can see the dilemma. The government feels pressured to make an environmentally damaging decision (not just damaging, but disastrous), in order to maintain itself.  Understandably, they want to protect the income they need to properly maintain education, health services, roads and railroads, their own bureaucracy and many other services.

I submit that this is not just a government dilemma; it is our dilemma, as a society and as members of that society.

As Tainter points out, we have step by step made our society more complex and hungry for resources. We've kept adding roads, port facilities, distribution terminals, free trade agreements, education and research facilities - all of which solve real problems.

When a society can no longer maintain its level of complexity, it inevitably (and painfully) reverts to a less complex mode of organisation. No government wants to do this; as you know governments around the world are assiduously trying to keep the growth economy going.

Given the link between economic growth and global warming, this is our unsustainable complexity dilemma writ large. If we succeed in keeping growth going, as New Scientists points out, it will surely end in tears.  A financial crash is nothing compared to an ecological crash. 

Currently we deal with such dilemmas by bumbling along with competing interests but no common cause. One faction may win, but our common need is neglected.

A far better approach would be to understand our global situation as a system, and ask how must the system change if we are to achieve long-term viability? The spirit of such an enquiry is captured in two comments Barrack Obama made in his acceptance speech:

Even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime, two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.

So let us summon a new spirit ... of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.

Obama is right to remind us that we have a planet in peril and that we need to look after each other as well as take care of ourselves.

So I suggest that we develop cross-sectoral forums to think through our situation and identify what is needed to create a viable society. For lack of a better term I call them immersive think tanks.  We should gather people with divergent knowledge, opposing points of view and different value sets. Experience shows that if such groups spend sufficient time - say three full days - they reach fruitful levels of common perception, and come up with creative solutions that transcend their initial biases.

Such forums should not be attended just by academics, but also by policy makers and senior leaders of influential organisations. The point of such forums is not just to communicate conclusions, or articulate positions. Rather it is to immerse everybody so deeply in the consideration that we all come out with a new understanding of what is needed and possible, and most importantly with a commitment to getting there. 

If we want governments to change their way of thinking, we need to change the way we all think. We need to immerse ourselves the unsustainable complexity dilemma until we come up with a line of solution that we are willing to work to achieve.

Andrew Gaines, Alliance for Sustainable Wellbeing; Member of the Society for Sustainable Business 

Andrew Gaines has thirty years experience improving human performance as a Feldenkrais practitioner, creativity trainer and psychotherapist. His book "Evolving a World That Works" explores the connections between the environment, our industrial system, economics and psychology, and highlights constructive points of change that can make Australia a world leader in ecological sustainability and social wellbeing.