Canberra Times
Thursday 4/1/2007 Page: 15
Rosslyn Beeby, Science and Environment Reporter.
LAST MONTH former United States president and climate change activist Al Gore told 5000 scientists attending an American Geophysical Union conference to speak out on climate change. "Get involved because so much is at stake," he said.
Gore was well-aware of the political implications of his challenge. Getting involved in the global warming debate means taking a stand against government censorship and running the risk of a funding backlash or full-frontal assault on your reputation.
Here in Australia we've seen intimidation, exclusion from influence, political ridicule and censorship of scientists. We've also seen a dumbing down of the political debate on climate change as a result, with rhetoric rather than science the weapon of choice adopted by government and opposition.
The National Farmers' Federation recently claimed the Prime Minister's Emissions Trading Taskforce was "stacked" with mining, manufacturing and energy generation interests,"opting to embrace those sectors that represent the problems, and excluding many of those who offer solutions".
This selective approach was in evidence recently when federal environment minister Senator Ian Campbell addressed the National Press Club. He quoted a study published in Scientific American that - he claimed - cited seven options or "wedges" needed over the next 50 years to stabilise global greenhouse emissions, including carbon capture and nuclear energy.
Australian Greens climate change spokeswoman Senator Christine Milne quickly pointed out that Campbell had misrepresented Professor Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacalas' work. They had described 15 options in their study and Milne argued that by ignoring eight of these options Campbell "misled his audience about the choices we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implying that carbon capture and storage and nuclear technology are essential rather than optional."
He also failed to mention that for nuclear power to constitute one wedge in the model,"The world's nuclear power output would need to treble over the next 50 years compared with the worldwide annual growth in the nuclear power industry of about 5 per cent."
In May last year, The Canberra Times obtained a copy of a confidential report by the Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development. It stated that solar thermal technology was capable of producing Australia's entire electricity demand and was the only renewable energy capable of making deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Written by five CSIRO Energy Technology scientists, the report said solar thermal technology was "poised to play a significant role in baseload generation for Australia" and would be cost-competitive with coal within seven years.
But sources claim that until details were published by The Canberra Times, the draft report was passed around "like a political hot potato", with no date set for its release. Despite federal government claims that the CRC "just hadn't got around to releasing it", the view taken by senior climate change scientists was that the report had been deliberately suppressed.
There are also rumours circulating that a second CSIRO report on the feasibility of geosequestration (carbon capture and underground storage) was so damning that all copies have been confiscated and possibly destroyed.
Sound far-fetched? Perhaps not when you consider many scientists working on developing renewable energy options are quite literally terrified of the implications of speaking to journalists or giving a background briefing to elucidate some of the complexities of their work.
The Canberra Times has spoken to scientists who are worried that their phone calls may be traced or emails scrutinised for comments critical of government policy. In one instance, a scientist who merely provided the correct details for a photo caption was subsequently carpeted for "unauthorised contact with the media", One senior scientist refused to be interviewed for a feature on Australia's renewable energy options, apologetically explaining that "it's just not worth the possible risk to my program's future funding."
Murdoch University's Professor on Energy Studies, Dr Phillip Jennings, has described a "climate of fear" operating among solar energy researchers. Sources at the Australian National University say two of the nation's leading solar researchers, Professor Andrew Blakers and Profess Klaus Weber - the inventors of the solar sliver cell which is predicted to revolutionise the rate of global uptake of solar energy - have been warned against speaking out publicly.
It's a pity, because Blakers and Weber are the kind of climate change visionaries we need to hear from, given the recent predictions by the Stern report that we have only a decade to get greenhouse emissions under control.
This week Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop claimed Australia had to "find new ways" to encourage more students to study science at universities. For that to happen the current political climate must change. Bright students simply won't fancy a career where George Orwell's Big Brother is watching.
Welcome to the Gippsland Friends of Future Generations weblog. GFFG supports alternative energy development and clean energy generation to help combat anthropogenic climate change. The geography of South Gippsland in Victoria, covering Yarram, Wilsons Promontory, Wonthaggi and Phillip Island, is suited to wind powered electricity generation - this weblog provides accurate, objective, up-to-date news items, information and opinions supporting renewable energy for a clean, sustainable future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment