Archive for the ‘climate change’ Category
who will speak up for science in this new government?
Professor Ian Chubb – toughing it out
I made a very quick video the other night after listening to some depressing news on Lateline, or rather a depressing interview with our chief scientist, Ian Chubb, about the changes being made by the incoming conservative government. But I haven’t yet got the facility to host my own videos so I’ll write something instead.
Chubb was being questioned about the new government’s intention to abolish the Climate Change Authority, the Climate Commission and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, as well as to scrap the position of Science Minister. Now, you might think that all this scrapping, discarding and abolishing is a clear indication of the value that Tony Abbott and his colleagues place on science in general, and that our chief scientist might have some choice words to say about that, but it seems Professor Chubb is a canny operator who knows how to keep a cool head and to emphasize co-operation and positivity under the most strained circumstances.
Asked first off about the axing of the science portfolio, he put a brave face on it by saying that, as science was spread over a number of portfolios, having an actual Minister wasn’t as essential as having someone in government who is passionate about science. [Only one?]. When asked who that might be, Chubb rather dodged the question, unless you can take seriously his suggestion, presented almost sheepishly, that this might be the Prime Minister’s role. Abbott, you’ll recall, once publicly stated, and not so long ago, that anthropogenic global warming is bullshit.
Chubb spoke, no doubt sincerely, of a strategic whole-of-government approach to science, using the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, but I’m sceptical that the new government will deal with anything strategically. My expectation is that it will govern like most conservative governments – do nothing innovative, abolish, cut and scrap as much as you can, make yourself as small a target for criticism as possible, and boast about your economic credentials while health, education, infrastructure and the rest are run into the ground.
Chubb went on – and I can only marvel at his bravery – to answer a question about Australia’s science education results, and how they lag behind those in Asia, by arguing for a more interventionist approach from government in this area. I thought I saw pigs flying across the screen at that one. Then the interviewer asked about the scrapping of the climate change ministry and the various environmental bodies aforementioned, on one of which, the Climate Change Authority, Chubb actually sits (or sat). The actual question asked was – did these to-be-axed bodies have a value? Chubb couldn’t really avoid that one, and had to respond positively, but he qualified this by saying he could only really speak about the body he sat on, and that, anyway, the CCA ‘will doubtless be compensated for by other bodies and groups and, doubtless, individuals who will be offering advice’. Doubtless? I doubt it.
One individual already offering plenty of advice at taxpayers’ expense is Abbott’s chief business adviser, one Maurice Newman, who describes climate change as a myth. What Newman actually means by this queer claim might be worth investigating, but here isn’t the place for it. When asked about this remark, Chubb was more blunt than usual, describing it as a ‘silly comment’. Generally, though, he countered the negativity and anti-science silliness of the conservatives with a lot of talk about the role of science, the importance of evidence, facts and informed debate. His many remarks about scientists being evidence-driven and free from beliefs seemed a trifle idealistic, but they still needed to be made in the face of the fixed, clearly uninformed beliefs of Abbott, Howard and others on that side of politics. Some of his remarks, such as that every contribution to the climate debate, whether pro or con, was valuable, seemed overly mollifying, but generally he gave science a good rap, in the typically cautious, under-stated way of most scientists.
Still, what I heard in the interview, about what was still then a government-elect, hardly warmed my heart about the future of evidence-based decision-making in this country. Hang on science lovers, we’re in for a bumpy ride.
This is an issue worth keeping an eye on. I’ll try to report on any further developments, or lack thereof.
*Incidentally, I was bemused on reading, in the transcript of this interview, that little Johnny Howard, that Giant of Aussie Science, is to deliver a ‘Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture’ in November, bearing the title ‘One religion is enough’. Now think about that title. It does more than claim that anthropogenic warming is a religion, it claims that any more than one religion is too much! And what is that one religion? Well, Jesus, it must be that religion. So much for our resident Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, Jainists, Pastafarians and whatnot. Talk about an expense of spirit in a waste of shame.
lots more oil
I just heard this morning on the ABC business news program that there’s been this massive turnaround in the availability of oil – yeah the fossil fuel stuff – in the USA. They were saying that recent oil production has been matching that of Saudi Arabia, and that this transformation has been very rapid, and unexpected, except to insiders. Moreover, the amount of reserves, and the capacity to access them, have increased dramatically.
So I’d like to know how this has happened, and what this means for those going on about ‘peak oil’ over the past few years, as well as for renewables, both in the USA and elsewhere.
A USA Today article from last October suggested that the way things have been going in recent years, the USA could surpass Saudi Arabia, which has been the world’s biggest oil producer for some time, by 2020. Experts expect that US production will average 11.4 million barrels a day in 2013, a US record. Production has increased substantially each year for the past five years, with 2012 registering the biggest gain in one year since 1951. It’s predicted to reach 13 to 15 million barrels by 2020. However, US consumption levels remain well above production, so it will still be a net importer, though the percentage is reducing.
So where’s all this oil coming from? Wasn’t it accepted as fact a few years ago that US oil reserves were running dry and that this would mean doing desperate deals that would likely increase global instability?
There are a number of factors that are easing some of the import problems for the US, including more fuel-efficient vehicles, but clearly the main factor is increased domestic production thanks to such advanced methods as horizontal drilling and fracking – the controversial process of cracking underground rocks to release their oil and gas content, using pumped water, sand and chemicals, at high pressure. New shale formations are being found, and production from some of these are expected to treble by 2020. Every site is being re-evaluated, and expectations are soaring. The peak oil claims of a few years ago, at least in relation to the USA (but surely these successful techniques will be applied worldwide) have completely collapsed, and the US is expecting, and indeed already experiencing, a huge economic boost via oil and gas production and subsidiary industries.
Presumably this will affect the renewable energy sector, as well as, in a roundabout way, the debate over anthropogenic global warming. A recent article by one Steve Forbes (editor of Forbes magazine), also in USA Today, takes the standard business line that the government should be doing everything to encourage and support business in exploiting the newly-extractable fossil fuels, rather than imposing environmental regulations. Although the article is called ‘Focus on economy, not climate’, Forbes, perhaps astutely, doesn’t mention climate, or science for that matter, once throughout the whole body of the article. He focuses entirely on economics, jobs and production. Thus he evades any accusation of climate change denial, and can only be described as a climate change avoider. He even follows the old conservative line, much beloved by conservative pollies such as Nick Minchin here, that ‘48% of Americans place higher priority on economic recovery and job growth over mandating additional environmental protections’. This is twice ridiculous: first, because it suggests that an important issue such as global warming should be decided upon through popular vote rather than through the recommendations of those with the knowledge – that’s to say, the scientists who study the data; and second, because the statistic he quotes shows that 52% of Americans don’t place higher priority on economics than on environmental protection. And this is the editor of a supposedly world-class business magazine? Quel embarrassment.
Many Americans, it seems to me, are living with a kind of duel reality – denying global warming while at the same doing their utmost to minimise it. They manage to reduce their carbon footprint while arguing to themselves that they’re just aiming at business efficiency, nothing more. It’s fascinating to watch, if nothing else. And meanwhile, the weather causes havoc…