We Need a Steady Voice: A Note from Phil Sawyer
Posted by jennifer, July 28th, 2009 - under Good Causes.
Tags: Elections
I am convinced that a competently run and managed party, overtly running on a pro-science platform, could win enough Senate seats in the Australian Parliament at the next election to take control from the independents and the Greens. This post briefly explores the potential for success of such a party, and invites responses from readers.
To the extent that the name should be a signifier of party identity, I have suggested that the Science Greens or Green Science, would be a good name. However, some sounding boards of mine have suggested that “science” has a bad name in the public mind! Others insist that calling oneself any kind of ” green ” will be a complete put-off with large slabs of the potential constituency. Maybe. However, such a name does imply that there are other kinds of greenies, ones that are patently not scientific. And that is the starting point of the platform, as outlined below.
Another name might be the Resources Party, or some such. Whatever it is called, with the right people in the driving seat, and with candidates to knock your socks off, I believe it could have spectacular success.
My argument for why this outcome is entirely possible is not based the simple assumption that there is sufficient electoral support for policies in favour of nuclear energy and GM crops, and other such “scientific ” matters, to get over the line. There may be, but I doubt it, although judging by the unfolding debate about nuclear power, this constituency can only grow.
Rather, the key to understanding why such a party could be a startling success is in the realisation that such a party could also be tailored to tap the widespread anti-greenie sentiments that are held within the general community, which I see as a huge, but latent, slice of the electorate that no other party is prepared to pitch for. The influence on public policy of quasi-scientific environmentalism touches most Australians, and, in the form of the ETS threatens to further do so.
This situation has created an enormous constituency that basically subscribes to the barbecue wisdom that ” the greenies have too much influence over governments.” But, aside perhaps from the Nationals, voters have nowhere to go to cast a vote against environmentalism.
By environmentalism I mean that clutch of beliefs that go beyond the realistic, and on to the fundamental, and held by people whose naive certitudes threaten the welfare of all of us, courtesy of a compliant Government which is itself largely scientifically illiterate. Pollies are thus intimidated by their incapacity to scientifically argue anything that differs from the quasi-science of the purveyors of planetary salvation.
So we end up with a situation whereby those of an anti-green sentiment generally have no-one to vote for. Their vote instead goes to the party that best caters for their various other predispositions, which uselessly spreads the votes from this substantial slice of the electorate across all the parties. And all the other parties have common policies: they all want some sort of an ETS scheme, are against nuclear power, are obstructionist with regard to GM crops, and are happy to let the Parkies close up more and more of our land and sea, trashing lifestyles and communities in the process. A single party that generally stands against the excesses of all this planet saving madness will get considerable support.
Thus the aim of the party would be to tap this incipient coalition. Maybe enough to capture 3 or 4 senate seats, thus ensuring that Australia will never trash its prosperity in a paroxysm of millenarianism and settler guilt, or lose opportunities because its Government was unable or unwilling to put the national interest before the electoral need to placate a sentimental rump. The very creation of a new science-based party, led by a clutch of outstanding scientists as candidates, should be sufficient, in itself, to set off an immediate tidal wave of support and notoriety. Around the world!
Support for Nuclear Energy, and GM crops would be signature “science” policies of the new party, policies that will bring the immediate wrath of environmentalists, and assure the party of early notoriety. It is even possible that success could balloon into something positively Hansonian! ( by that I mean cheap publicity through the very novelty ).
Policies on population, the ETS and climate change, water management, forestry, national parks, fisheries, energy infrastructure priorities, etc would be designed to assemble a broad anti-environmentalist coalition, from BHP to beekeepers, from bikers to boaties, from boffins to boofheads, from blackfellas to bankers. You get the drift.
Having assembled a variegated network of corporate and institutional support, the party launch would become the time for the candidates to appear on the scene to begin the political process with a sheaf of policies already written. Not much room for a grass roots approach. And not enough time either. A top-down electoral coup, some might say. A naked push by technocrats, impatient with leaders who wait to follow, others might say. And as for taking money from industry, I would ask why taking money from people who are frightened by the prospect of the end of the world is morally superior.
The pro-nuclear lobby, the uranium industry, and the genetic engineering industry are obvious sources of financial support. The anti ETS lobby is now substantial, and the gas, mining, and smelting industries in general would obviously be supportive of policies to decorbonise our economy with nuclear energy. For example, it is scandalous that Areva and Westinghouse cant quote for the water and power for Greater Roxby, and a stupendous amount poallRThe forestry community too, where grass roots organisations like the FCA have more members than our political parties put together, should be a natural fit, as would the fishing industry.
From the published views of unions like the AWU and CFME, one could also expect support from them, along with a smattering of think tanks, bits of academia, the denialist blogosphere, some aboriginal groups, and so on.
Aside from commercial interests and stakeholders, recreational groups should also be seen as a huge potential reservoir of support. Their memberships are often single issue type voters as well. Access and management of national parks and other public lands and waters are the issue, and the example of the recent locking up of the Barmah forest is typical, as was the end of the mountain cattlemen, more than a decade ago. Fishing industry organisations too, are up in arms all over the country. GBRMPA is regarded as a law unto itself, and other states like SA are busily locking up well managed fisheries into marine parks.
The sacrifice of tradition and lifestyle on the altar of cafe latte environmentalism demonstrates a failure of the body politic to both protect and respect the interests of ordinary people. And they are justifiably furious. And I won’t mention Black Saturday. The list goes on. A broad base on which to pitch for electoral support, it seems to me.
I am reminded of my own brief career as an ALP candidate. John Kerin was a mate who shared my misgivings about our party getting into bed with the greenies during the 1990 election. We both saw a threat to our grand old secular social-democratic party from uncritically fellow-travelling with the greens, tempting as it it might have been, in the short term. John told me later that he raised the matter of dividing the “greenies” into ” fundos ” and ” realos ” in cabinet, arguing that realos were ordinary Aussies who just wanted to do things better, ( and who could argue with that? ), while the fundos were those who exploited this fact to further their own agenda. We both thought it was a good idea, even if slightly borrowed from Germany. We could label anyone we differed with us as a fundo! Easy. But apparently a certain my Richardson shot the idea down. Why, you might ask? Because it would involve candidates knowing enough science to carry out the strategy!
Twenty years down the track our country urgently needs the steadying voice of science, clearly and simply expressed from the highest levels of public life, more urgently than ever. Control of the senate is the perfect platform.
And the candidates? Only science and engineering graduates need apply.
I believe six or seven of the nine members of the Chinese Politburo are engineers. Lord help us.
What do you think?
Phil Sawyer
Adelaide, South Australia
***************
The picture of Mr Sawyer was taken looking over Port Lincoln in May 2007.
Louis, I was a little too brief.
As undersea volcanoes release methane from magma and pyrolise organic sedimentary layers, at the high temperature centre of the hot rock, we get (for example, only one of several similar reactions) CH4 + 2H2O = CO2 + 4H2 and CH4 + H2O = CO + 3H2. The first of these produces CO2 directly, the second after the CO is oxidised when it reaches the atmosphere.
Further away from the hot spot, these reactions are quenched by the cold water so only pyrolysis products and deep-earth hydrocarbons are released. These also get oxidised by lightning.
The distribution of lightning is shown at
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast05dec_1.htm Interesting to note the prevalence of lightning strikes along the north Siberian coast, where methane is seen bubbling out of the ocean.
See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217203407.htm
Anyway, Louis, I guess you know more about this than I do – over to you
Donal,
I didn’t mean to infer that I agreed with the proposition that the extra CO2 produced because of the defeat of the nuclear power industry ” required urgent attention “. I was merely trying to point out the irony of the situation whereby the AGW brigade, having caused much of the ” CO2 problem ” themselves, now want it fixed. I apologise for the ambigiuty.
Toby,
You say the CSP wants to stop the ETS and then its job is done. I can only agree with those who suggest your focus is to narrow. For a start, control of the senate means the casting vote on a myriad of issues unconnected with your platform. Alcopops come to mind. The anti abortion candidate becomes a student of climate change!
People need to have some idea of the party’s general stance and reason for being, and how it will approach the myriad issues that will arise. The Democrats had the slogan of ” keep the bastards honest “. Yours should be ” keep the bastards scientific “!
By the way everyone, have we have forgotten that there is the skeleton of a nationally organised centre left party still lying around the place somewhere, a party that lost its way and was abandoned by the voters.
Yes, the Democrats! A more ideologically rigorous liberal-minded party might have recognised the threat posed by eco-fundamentalism and become the party we need. Alas they dropped the ball. We should not be too critical. So did a large slice of the social democrats. Maybe someone should send a copy of this post to the young mother in Adelaide. Natasha, your country needs you!
Back to earth. Toby, what exactly is your policy alternative to the ETS framework? Simple rejection in the senate, and that is it? Job done? Will you propose a credible policy for the uptake of nuclear energy? How will such a policy dovetail with the outcome of Copenhagen, which will be an ETS protocol, of indeterminate rigour?
Dont get me wrong Leon, Toby, et al @CSP. You are a genuine expression of grass roots disgust at the pollies fellow-travelling with the ecotopians, an attitude I share, and I wish your experiment all the best. Who knows, it may grow like topsy, and you might be forced to rethink its narrow focus, and maybe even change its name, if necessary.
Phil, I am not politically wise, I have never been a member of a political party before, and I doubt i will be again. I am sure you are right that the csp needs more than a single issue. We are aware of this from what I have seen during the planning stages . I am not however in any way controlling the bus or trying to. I joined simply because I am so worried about the consequences of an ETS and big brother taking control of our lives. I also worry that so many people are stupid enough to think it will actually accomplish anything. I thought long and hard before joining but decided it would be cowardly not to put my name to something that I felt so deeply about. The CSP will have other policies and issues but for me it is all about the bullshit surrounding climate and the futility of an ETS.
An earlier thread about the decline of the west has a ring of truth about it. Europe has been in decline for a while now and they are the ones driving the AGW bus with their kyoto protocol and IPCC. Europe will bring the rest of us with it if we allow it.
I have little respect for politicians and government. Although I do recognise the need for government!
I would advocate the use of nuclear and believe we can enrich our country further by selling it and storing the waste products securely. We should become the next “middle east”.
Given current technology, as oil reserves run down, it is inevitable that nuclear will play a significant role. I have little time for wind or solar until we are able to store their energy.
I hope my membership will help to achieve the 500 members we require to actually try and bring some rationality back to the debate. But anything I say should be taken as my words and not those of the parties. As stated I am politically naive. But perhaps having a policy of assessing costs and benefits of issues in the senate would be a good place to start, with a non political bias ( is that possible!?) that is not just focusing on what the public wants to hear, and what will get them reelected.
Can an ETS change the climate? common sense suggests no way…but common sense is not very common is it!
Wutra,
I find your ideas on volcanoes interesting. Do we know (website?) exactly how many undersea eruptions occur each year, and where? Or are there abyssal black smokers about which we know little, or nothing?
Hello again Wutra,
I have partly answered my own question, but you may know more:
http://www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06fire/welcome.html
I find this some of the most interesting research around. How about the Eifuku, releasing liquid CO2? Or the 800 nautical mile Mariana Arc. That beats ABC images of power station cooling towers. Luke and SJT won’t like it – too close to the jugular?
“Luke and SJT won’t like it – too close to the jugular?”
Won’t like what?
Wutra,
Ok, and as Professor Plimer pointed out, ignoring the geological evidence leads to all sorts of erroneous conclusions though it seems Green Davey has made an interesting discovery – though poor old SJT seems a little confused over it.
A questioner during the Plimer – Warden debate pointed out that while volcanoes might emit more CO2 that humanity could produce in a decade, such volcanoes also emit aerosols which cause dimming. Plimer’s response to that question was that he would be most interested in observing the 85% of submarine volcanic eruptions emit aerosols into the atmosphere.
So it seems our IPCC and it’s camp followers are geologically a little more than dim.
Phil,
Why not call it the ‘Black Smoker Party’? That might fit in with your personal habits. A plank in the party platform might be to use nuclear waste to block hydrothermal vents, so halting global warming.
“A questioner during the Plimer – Warden debate pointed out that while volcanoes might emit more CO2 that humanity could produce in a decade, such volcanoes also emit aerosols which cause dimming. Plimer’s response to that question was that he would be most interested in observing the 85% of submarine volcanic eruptions emit aerosols into the atmosphere.”
Can you point to where the CO2 is bubbling to the surface? Because at the present, the oceans are actively absorbing, not emitting, CO2.
SJT,
Plimer was wondering about the aerosols being emitted to the ocean surfaces from submarine volcanism and their subsequent transport to the atmosphere by wind, presumably, and not CO2.
You do know what an aerosol is, do you not?
The rest of your statement is scientific nonsense.
What about the “Progress Party” to signal an Enlightenment heritage? Also, a bit of humility. The key in all this is to allow science and philosophy to reflect on each other. Science also has an aesthetic – hence the idea of a paradigm, or internal and sometimes false consistency. Before we point out that others are trapped in a paradigm, lets admit that its always a possibility and hence not be too quick to claim “true science” for the skeptics. Getting to the truth is always tough and vigilant work.
Phil,
You smoker you, that means you are kicked outside the pub on the footpath. Try not to breathe in the 3Nitrobenzanthrone from the passing trucks, buses and other diesel powered traffic. Crusaders never mention it it is apparently above reproach.
As an ex smoker I still stick to , “Get off the Tax Tit and ban them ,or shut up”
I digress. Briefly others are right – Scientists are easily confused, in the public mind, with Scientists.
Sorry ,unless someone has taken the time not taken by the public ,to get to know you , you may be just another author of a new report on tooth decay.
Many voters might be very sceptical of something with such a name.
How about a reference to food ? Half of Madagascar’s arable land gone to ethanol , things like that.
Vast tracts of food producing land being decommissioned in Australia- on shonky river science .
Australian money off to bulldoze native vegetation in 3rd world places to grow food ,wierd..
Perhaps the right candidates might break through the ignorance barrier on such things.
Steer clear of GM food, as a person with the odd allergy , it is ‘sus’
And as others have said, steer clear of the sort of sponsorship now cruelling the major parties
good luck
The problem might be that people are asking themselves…… “Will such an outfit get a lot of votes and a bunch of Senators…” Thats not the issue in my view. I think its really about education, education education. One might it like the votes if they arrive. But its really about getting the main parties to change their act so as to stop leakage from there own voter-pool. And also to try and get your crowd identified with the good name of science instead of these irrational posing lunatics. Like imagine the left coming up with the following mantras “The science is settled” “Climate Change is real” and all that. And this actually stooging people. So much so that when you start talking about the issue the average punter tells you this is not what the scientists are saying.
The party, or indeed the association, would be a success just so long as people thought that what the scientists were saying was what the party was saying. Which indeed would be (hopefully) what the scientific EVIDENCE was saying.
Giving the thumbs down on this idea on account of soothsaying to do with the capture of future votes is besides the point. Look at the communists. They seldom got a great deal of votes. Yet their influence was everywhere. There they were. Breathing slogans into every dummies mind from the centre-right all across the spectrum. It all comes from Lenin having this idea to put up a high barrier to entry.
Its worth putting a group together with a high barrier to entry. The point being to exercise influence more generally and to get a swag of votes perhaps, but as a secondary matter. I think you ought to see if you could get something started. If not a party a lobby group. If not a lobby group some sort of strategy group.
I mean these lunatics really seek to do us in. They are not going to stop their wrecking-ball from internal dynamics alone.
Mr. G. Turkey-Bird.
I have rumbled you – ‘fess up now, you are really Luke in deep cover as an agent-provocateur.
little will, what is your source for saying the oceans are currently net absorbers of CO2?
“little will, what is your source for saying the oceans are currently net absorbers of CO2?”
It’s well known.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html
Phil
As was previously put on this blog, education is the key. The willing ignorance displayed – especially by the media – and senior ministers in the Rudd government – about ‘Carbon footprint’, ‘Carbon Reduction’ etc is incredible (these people know basic chemistry, and should not peddle such garbage).
And as a geologist who has pulled up very large (stinking) sulphide rich, submarine chimneys (and seen them spewing out all manner of material), I am not sure about the engineering involved with putting nuclear waste to plug up these interesting geological precipitates (could make a good Masters thesis?), but I am sure we will have underwater base metal mines soon. Mother nature – she will not quit smoking – would be a good banner at the party launch.
I don’t think it’s as simple as that little will;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
Even if you think all the increase in CO2 is human caused doesn’t mean that the warming seas have not been net emitters of CO2 because the biosphere has increased by about 25% over the last 30 years.
That paper is indeed a good example of “sticking your neck out”. He has entered the world of fantasy, and has not actually revealed anything, as he himself admits. It’s typical of the stuff Watts accepts without question. Also incorporates the ‘detrending’ hack that McLean also uses to make decisions about trends.