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.

The story by Katharine Wroth and David Roberts lists the top 10 “green stories of 2008” with “Obamania” as number 1 on the basis: 

“[Obama] has already assembled a seasoned green team, with Clinton EPA administrator Carol Browner in a new executive office to coordinate energy and climate efforts. Three key positions — energy secretary, White House science adviser, and NOAA administrator — will be occupied by highly regarded professional scientists who have raised alarms about climate change — respectively, Steven Chu, John Holdren, and Jane Lubchenco.

“There will be a champion of environment justice and green jobs, Rep. Hilda Solis, as labor secretary, and a new White House Office of Urban Policy.

“Two close allies, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman, are in key environmental positions in the House of Representatives, and Dems have 58 or 59 seats in the Senate, where most green legislation has gone to die.”

Oklahoma Senator and Republican Jim Inhofe, the only outspoken climate change sceptic in Washington, won a third term.

Internal polling in London found Ken Livingstone’s green policies, such as new charges for gas-guzzling cars, alienated older voters, while the environment was at best a low priority for others, suggesting that, as families’ budgets shrink, so does their willingness to pay to save the planet. ‘My colleagues will say Labour has got to be brave on green issues, but the public are really feeling the pinch,’ said one senior minister.
–Gaby Hinsliff and Jo Revill, The Observer, 4 May 2008

U.K. voters resoundingly rejected the Labour Party in local elections last week. It was no capricious shift, but a citizen revolt against trendy carbon and nanny-state taxes that empower only bad government. For Labour, it was the worst election in 40 years. Every tax and intrusion imposed by Labour in recent years was justified as being for voters’ “own good.” Ending global warming, reducing carbon footprints, lowering carbon emissions and raising public funding of renewable energy – all were excuses used to hit the voters’ pocketbook with more taxes. Yet none of these taxes improved the quality of life.
–Investor’s Business Daily, 2 May 2008

Oh dear! The inevitable is happening. The ‘global warming’ trope is unravelling on a daily basis – scientifically, economically, and politically. The wheels are coming off the hysterical bandwagon, and it is not going to be a salutary sight watching the politicians and the media junkies jumping cart and trying to throw mud in everyone’s eyes.
–Philip Stott, 3 May 2008

Global warming is a new religion and blasphemy against that religion is not a laughing matter. The high tide of unthinking adherence to this new religion has been reached and I think it may well be in the coming years the tide will gradually recede but it will be a very glacial progress.
–Nigel Lawson, The Guardian, 3 May 2008

But, of course, people aren’t interested in these kinds of facts. They want the religion. They want the sweet moralistic feeling of telling someone to stop doing something. They want to be able to rage about Chelsea Tractors and Tony Blair’s flights, and they want to give vent to their feelings of disgust at the whole triumph of Western consumerist capitalism.
–Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph, 11 January 2007

For the first time in years, voters seem skeptical that solar, wind, ocean waves and currents, biofuels and other so-called renewable sources of energy can replace gasoline, petroleum-based diesel, home heating oil, natural gas, and propane to any significant degree in the foreseeable future. Among ordinary middle class, working class and poor voters, global warming appears to be a non-issue. More and more hard-pressed people are more afraid of pauperization than the manmade greenhouse gases that supposedly cause climate change.
–China Confidential, 3 May 2008

Failed asylum seekers are sneaking out of Britain – because they are fed up with the poor healthcare and bad weather. Scores have been caught trying to break past border controls in recent weeks, according to immigration staff. Les Williams, a chief immigration officer for the UK Border Agency, said: “We cannot explain exactly why they are trying to go, but when some of these people were questioned they said they wanted to go to a warmer country as they are fed up with the English weather.”
–The Daily Mail, 3 May 2008

Those who have knowledge, don’t predict. Those who predict, don’t have knowledge.
–Lao Tzu, 6th Century BC Chinese Poet

CCNet 71/2008 – 4 May 2008 — Audiatur et altera pars

There are a hundred reasons why Boris Johnson should not be Mayor of London. But his dinosaur views on the environment alone are enough to show what a disaster he would be for our city. The man who backed Bush against the Kyoto treaty and who doesn’t believe there’s a risk from passive smoking cannot be trusted with our future – or even, really, with his own. He’s a 19th century man in a 21st century city
–Sian Berry, Green Party, 25 April 2008

Under a climate change denier like Boris Johnson, we would have to fear for our futures, and for the jobs of all the hundreds who work for us. We would also have to fear for the physical security of the city itself, under the assault of unmitigated global warming, were others to follow Johnson’s ‘lead’ on climate change.
–Jeremy Leggett, SolarCentury, 25 April 2008

The prospect of Boris as Mayor of London is just so scary. The prospect of Boris taking over London’s Climate Change Action Plan is even scarier. He may have learnt not to reveal his full contrarian bigotry on climate change, but he really doesn’t get it, and would rapidly scale back or completely get rid off the ambitious targets in the Action Plan. And that would be a massive set back. I just hope all the environmental NGOs can rally the troops in London in a pro-Ken campaign, even if they can’t come out and explicitly endorse him.
–Jonathon Porritt, Sustainable Development Commission, March 2008

Boris Johnson claimed a remarkable victory in the London mayoral contest on Friday night to cap a disastrous series of results for Gordon Brown in his first electoral test as Prime Minister. Mr Johnson’s landmark victory, a result that would have been almost unthinkable six months ago, was the most symbolic blow to Mr Brown’s authority on a day that left the Prime Minister facing the gravest crisis of his leadership.
–Andrew Porter and Robert Winnett, The Daily Telegraph, 3 May 2008

[The defeated] Mr Livingstone made clear he views 1 May as a referendum on his policies to tackle climate change and protect the health of Londoners. Aides claimed it would be the first election in British history to be decided largely on environmental issues.
–The London Evening Standard, 25 March 2008

Londoners now face a stark choice. Boris Johnson is an environmental vandal, whose main contribution to environmental policy was as a cheerleader for George W Bush’s disastrous decision to oppose the Kyoto climate treaty. The election is neck and neck and everyone who cares about the environment needs to vote with the first and second preferences for myself and Sian Berry if we are to stop Boris Johnson wrecking London’s environment.
–Ken Livingstone, 25 April 2008

The hypocrisy of the Europeans over Kyoto is staggering. They attack America in hysterical terms, and yet the 15 EU countries have never come close to meeting their own eight per cent target for cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. They have not even agreed which countries should cut the most. If America were to meet its Kyoto targets now, it would require a cut of 30 per cent in emissions, and how, exactly, is that supposed to work in the current economic downturn? It would exacerbate the recession, and when Bush says no, he is doing what is right not just for America but for the world
–Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph, April 2001

In the former North Queensland Shire of Douglas, amalgamation was overwhelmingly unpopular. Sentiment variously denounced the state government dictate as a death-knell for both the World Heritage rainforests of the Daintree and also the prestigious charm of Port Douglas.

In what appeared to be an allaying of concerns (assented to a mere nine days before the election) the Queensland Government enacted the Iconic Places of Queensland Act (IPQA), which identified the local government area of Douglas Shire as ‘Iconic’. In effect, IPQA rendered a Clayton’s amalgamation over the former Douglas Shire.

Voters in the region’s newest northern division, comprising the former Douglas Shire, effectively rewarded the Queensland Government for neutralising amalgamation via IPQA, by ousting the super council’s incumbent conservative leader and giving contender, Ms Val Schier, the majority of support.

Ms. Schier’s ‘grassroots’ campaign had relied largely on doorknocks and community events, reiterating the sentiment of IPQA, prioritising protection of the region’s heritage, tightening planning guidelines to restrict development and creating greater transparency.

Former Mayor of the Cairns City Council, Kevin Byrne, said he was effectively destroyed at the polling booths by residents in the northern beaches suburbs and the former Douglas shire who believed he had a ‘bulldozer waiting at the gates’.

By contrast, Daintree Cape Tribulation electors voted more strongly for the incumbent Mayor and perhaps more significantly, against contender, Val Shier, than any other community throughout the entire amalgamated Cairns Region. It could be argued that no other Queensland community had suffered more under the politics of extreme environmentalism and that amalgamation had offered hope for a reprieve. However, Iconic legislation was foisted particularly onto the rainforest communities and in demographic familiarity, the majority of non-rainforest-based electors within the division voted, yet again, to save the Daintree.