Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Four Corners merely states the obvious

LAST NIGHT'S much publicised Four Corners on ABC television claimed that greenhouse gas and energy policy in Australia is dictated by the coal industry 'mafia'. Publicly funded scientists are also routinely gagged for daring to suggest the government is mistaken in believing that burning coal is the answer to our problems.

The Four Corners reporters made two arguments:

1. That [the coal] industry has privileged access to government Ministers in the lobby. This privilege has extended to drafting Cabinet submissions and Ministerial briefs; both papers that should contain the 'frank and fearless' advice of the bureaucracy, not interest groups.
2. CSIRO scientists are routinely reprimanded and gagged by government; accused of stepping outside the legitimate scope of presenting scientific evidence into espousing a policy position.

The first part of the expose was based on assertions by an ex-Liberal party staffer and former speechwriter for an Environment Minister. He claims (and it was the subject of his doctoral thesis) that industry lobby groups, particularly in the extraction and coal industry, effectively constrain government policy on greenhouse gas emissions.

He claimed the sardonically named industry front group the 'Australian Industry Greenhouse Network' (AIGN) commonly refer to themselves as the 'mafia', such is the influence they claim to exert on government energy policy, in the lobby. This is backed by recordings of anonymous interviews with some of the groups members.

Furthermore, this cosy relationship has overstepped the boundaries of proper government process in formulating policy. The same whistleblower claims that industry has in the past been invited to draft Cabinet submissions and Ministerial briefs on greenhouse gas and energy policy. True, industry should be consulted on such things as 'cost of abatement', but the contents of these papers should not have to pass muster at the AIGN.

In one sequence, the Four Corners reporter grills Senator Ian Campbell, Federal Environment Minister, on whether this claim, [if true] concerns him.

(It was almost deja-vu, as I thought the interviewer was just going to keep going, in the same way the BBC's Jeremy Paxman repeated the same question to a Minister 12 times.)

The answers Senator Campbell gives, most would agree, are far from satisfactory:

SEN. IAN CAMPBELL, FED. ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: Cabinet submissions are drafted by the departments.
JANINE COHEN: They're supposed to be, aren't they?
CAMPBELL: Yeah.
COHEN: Industry insiders have recorded interviews claiming they've helped write Cabinet submissions and ministerial briefs, and write costings relating to greenhouse policy, while being informally invited into government departments. If that is happening, would that concern you?
CAMPBELL: Well, I'd want to make sure that every department in government are working closely with industry where industry's affected. For example, I've gone to the...
COHEN: I'm sorry, Minister, that's not what I'm asking you. These people, these industry insiders, are claiming that they've been drafting Cabinet submissions and writing ministerial briefs on greenhouse policy-related issues in the past. Would that concern you if that is happening?
CAMPBELL: Well, I've specifically, for example, asked the renewable energy sector in Australia to come up with new policies in that area, which, which I, which I would quite frankly, I would...
COHEN: Minister, that wasn't my question.
CAMPBELL: I would want to ensure that we get expert advice from industry. Now, the renewables in...industry...
COHEN: Minister, could I just ask you the question again? Would it concern you if industry representatives were writing or helping to draft Cabinet submissions and ministerial briefs on greenhouse-related issues?
CAMPBELL: Industry would provide input into departments...
COHEN: That's not what I'm asking you, Minister.
CAMPBELL: Departments write the Cabinet submissions, industry don't write them.

Thankfully, the reporter didn't fall for the renewable energy straw man thrown in by Cambell. But why did he not answer the question? (This is from a government which has stated that though it is NOT acceptable to lie in Parliament, it IS okay to lie to the media.)

On this first issue, the Liberal party insider merely claims the bleeding obvious: that this [and not only this] government's energy and greenhouse gas policy is driven by extraction industry interests. They have an enormous amount to gain from delaying the imposition of energy efficiency standards and limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

After all, the east coast is virtually made of coal. It is our biggest foreign earner, it makes for easy power generation and easy sales to East Asia, especially feeding the hungry dragon.

And industry finds a willing partner in crime. The government has a huge stake in ensuring the continued steady flow of coal and energy and the tax revenues it derives.

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) that will occur as a result of these policies can be excused by arguing that this energy paradigm is the only route to economic growth for Australia, and all those developing world types who we care about so much. To complete the obfuscation, simultaneously the Howard government continues to send out mixed-signals and that it doesn't necessarily believe that AGW is even occurring. There you have it, for Howard, it's a no-brainer.
So what Four Corners revealed shouldn’t surprise anyone. The government's own Chief Scientific Adviser, Dr Robin Batterham, is Chief Technologist for mining conglomerate, Rio Tinto. He was also the author of the government's 2004 energy white paper Securing Australia's Energy Future. Nobody thought he might have a conflict of interest.

And for the employees of most lobby groups, the rear access to their office is the revolving door to employment in very government departments they earn access to.

THE SECOND claim of Four Corners was that CSIRO scientists are routinely censured, accused of straying beyond the bounds of supplying scientific advice and into the realm of policy, the rightful domain of our elected representatives.

What is science and what is policy?

Scientific debate about AGW rarely stays with the bounds of observation, explanation and prediction. Scientists – being caring and socially and environmentally responsible citizens – frequently blur, or cross, the boundaries into policy, not just describing a particular set of policies to mitigate it, but actually espousing them.

Thus, last week, when scientists at the University of Queensland discovered a major bout of bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, they not only described the phenomena and offered a likely explanation (ie, AGW), but they advocated a suite of policy settings, which they argued should be implemented to stop it.

Scientists are people; therefore it is a somewhat purist to expect them to steer clear of suggesting what a government should do. Surely no sane person – understanding the cause of a something as catastrophic as coral bleaching – could stay silent on whether they thought it was a good or bad thing, simply to adhere to something as contested as the 'scientific method'.

Of course to get round this, the scientist could say "If the government wishes to address the issue of coral bleaching, it would need to take a global lead on reducing greenhouse gas emissions." That is not policy.

And this is where the Four Corners whistleblowers at CSIRO suggested that government intervention has pushed the envelope too far. They claim their science has been gagged.

One CSIRO employee recounted being advised by a Department of Environment bureaucrat that his scientific conclusions - that there would be more environmental refugees as a result of AGW - should be deleted from his speeches and government publications.

When a senior scientist on the CSIRO (climate change) Impact Group was asked about this in interview, he stonewalled. Again an extract from Four Corners is revealing:

JANINE COHEN: Kevin Hennessy is the coordinator of the CSIRO's Climate Impact Group. One of his jobs is to talk about the potential impacts of climate change. But there are some likely impacts of climate change that are clearly a no-go zone. Some scientists believe that there'll be more environmental refugees. Is that a possibility?
KEVIN HENNESSY, CSIRO IMPACT GROUP: I can't really comment on that.
JANINE COHEN: Why can't you comment on that?
KEVIN HENNESSY, CSIRO IMPACT GROUP: That's, that's, er... No, I can't comment on that.
JANINE COHEN: Is that part of editorial policy? You can't comment on things that affect immigration?
KEVIN HENNESSY, CSIRO IMPACT GROUP: No, I can't comment on that.
JANINE COHEN: Can I just ask you why you can't comment?
KEVIN HENNESSY, CSIRO IMPACT GROUP: Not on camera.
JANINE COHEN: Oh, OK. But is it a policy thing?
KEVIN HENNESSY, CSIRO IMPACT GROUP: I can't comment on that.

Hennessy later proffers the following: "The sort of thing that I could say as a scientist, is that with sea level rise there may be people inundated in places like Tuvalu in the Pacific. And that would be an issue that needs to be considered by government policy. But I certainly can't go beyond that as a scientist."

Commenting that sea level rise may impact on people seems remarkably timid for a scientist, and sound to me like the words of someone who is 'holding the party line', probably against his better judgement.

Certainly, it is NOT a statement of policy to argue that rising sea levels would impact on Tuvalu, nor to say that those impacted would be refugees (not simply 'people'), as there is already a pretty clear definition of refugee in international law. For me these are both [albeit disputed] facts of science and law, not policy.

A statement of policy would assert a particular course of action for government. For example, 'we should accept 25% of them', or more likely, 'we should position gun boats off the Great Barrier Reef and fire live rounds over the bows of their boats; then tell 'em to fuck-off back to their own country'.

Yet Hennessy does not, does not want to, or simply cannot make this distinction.

Another CSIRO scientist received warnings from his seniors that he should not criticise ethanol as a viable renewable fuel for cars (due to the huge hydrocarbon inputs into ethanol's production, there is actually a net energy loss). He was told this could upset the government which saw ethanol as a useful greenwash story to pump out when it was simulatneously shaking hands on the AP6 [non-binding, non-regulating, no-target, no nothing] agreement.

This second expose in Four Corners was more revealing. It appears that when an issue becomes politically contentious, the boundary between policy and science is rolled back further. Scientists become too timid to state scientific conclusions, just in case it reveals government information to be either wrong or an untruth. Blunting discussion over the likelihood that the current bout of atmospheric warming is both human induced and potentially devastating to the environment, is policy dictating what is valid science.

….like refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room next to you…

Why does this happen?

That's for another post.

---