Whether climate change is a fact, probably a fact, possibly a fact, or a fabrication depends on who you choose to believe. Most Australians line up somewhere between probable and possible on this spectrum.
Despite differences about the causes of climate change, it would be hoped that there's one aspect of the issue about which there could be unanimity. Ideally, all sides of the issue would agree that discussion about climate change is a good thing -- and the more discussion the better.
Given its potential environmental, economic and social consequences climate change is too big a question not to be argued about. Governments are being asked to make decisions that will have huge consequences lasting for decades.
A study released a few days ago asserted that global economic output could decline by between 6 and 8 per cent if action isn't taken on climate change, and that the minimum cost of dealing with the problem would be $4 trillion.
As a matter of practical policymaking, debate about climate change is important. It is also important as a matter of principle.
Claims about climate change are claims about science, and about the interpretation of scientific evidence. Debate and disagreement are the means by which science advances. When we attempt to stop debate and disagreement we are stopping the advance of science.
As John Stuart Mill put it, when truth and error collide the product is a "clearer perception and livelier impression of truth". And in any case, "We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we are sure, stifling it would be an evil still".
The reaction was understandable, therefore, when last month the communications manager of the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, said that organisations that did not share the scientific "consensus" about climate change should not receive corporate funding. There was shock from even the most ardent advocates of the perils of climate change.
It's unfortunate that a scientific academy advocates such censorship . And it's very unfortunate when an elected member of parliament does so. Yet this is exactly what has just happened in this country.
A few weeks ago, Kelvin Thomson, a federal Labor MP and shadow minister for public accountability, wrote a letter to a number of mining and resource companies. In it he proclaims his commitment to the position that "Global warming is happening, it is man-made, and it is not good for us".
All of this he is, of course, entitled to believe. The problem begins when he then asks whether the companies have donated any money to a number of named organisations or to "any other body which spreads misinformation or undermines the scientific consensus concerning global warming". He goes on, "If your company has donated such money in the past, is it continuing to do so? If so, I request that your company cease such financial support".
This "request" coming from a senior member of the ALP raises some interesting questions. Are such attempts to muzzle freedom of speech official Labor Party policy? What action will the Labor Party take if companies do not comply with this request? Are there other issues that the Labor Party believes should not be debated?
The folly of such censorship is easy to demonstrate. The American Enterprise Institute, one of the largest and most influential think tanks in the United States, was named by Thomson as an organisation not to be funded because it produced "misinformation".
A cursory review of some of the AEI's work on climate change reveals that Thomson has a peculiar definition of "misinformation". AEI scholars have argued that the Kyoto Protocol is ineffective because it exempts developing nations; that the best way to cut emissions is through the adoption of new technology; and that when a car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell can be made for $30,000 instead of $1 million we'll have solved many of our problems. It's difficult to imagine that Thomson is genuinely suggesting that the AEI should not be funded to pursue these perspectives.
When the ALP achieves power federally it can only be hoped that it does not engage in the sort of activities advocated by one of its MPs. It can also be hoped that a Beazley government won't ban non-union media from ALP state party conferences, as occurred in Adelaide recently. How Labor treats those with whom it disagrees will be a test for it in government. So far, in opposition, it is a test Labor has failed.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment