Lot's Wife Edition 5 2015

10
POLITICS
BY BEN
NEVE
Let’s depoliticise
the science
Every night I listen to the PM program on ABC Radio on the way
home from university. Once in a while I hear the confident voice
of the ABC’s so called ‘environment reporter’, Jake Sturmer,
narrating the environmental issue of the day. When this happens I
rejoice: finally a news item about the environment, instead of drug
smugglers, criminals, paedophiles or celebrities. But my elation is
often short lived, for the news stories are usually not long enough
to be of any significance. Mr Sturmer’s reports follow a predictable
routine, in that they always begin with a tagline, followed by a
quote from the government, and end with a critical response from
the ever-whinging opposition. Most of the time it doesn’t even
last for more than a minute. I struggle to recall a time when the
scientific details were ever included, and after the story is over I
often feel frustrated rather than informed.
This style of reporting is typical of most media outlets, and
not just the ABC. Apparently it is more important to include
quotes from both sides of the government than to report
the issue itself. Instead of detailing the very real challenges
climate change presents and the responses to it, news items
generally contain a member of the government defending
their climate policy, and a member of the opposition
viciously attacking it. For issues such as taxation or welfare
this might be appropriate, but environmental issues are
complex and have profound consequences for the whole
nation. These issues deserve better coverage than the
traditional political ping pong.
Take for example the renewable energy target (RET). The
facts about this issue are clear: climate change poses a
threat, too much of our base-load power comes from coal,
and the RET is a strategy to reduce emissions. It’s not hard
to grasp the situation, yet the issue was so politicised that
it became more like a game of veritable political tennis than
a debate. For months the Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane
wrangled with the senate, the energy industry and his own
party. The government and opposition were bickering over
how many Gigawatt hours to legislate and failed to realise
the purpose of the RET; it’s a market based instrument which
encourages the creation of renewable power sources, not a
bargaining chip in a game of political point scoring.
Another over-politicised issue is wind turbines.
Recently the government appointed a ‘national wind farm
commissioner’ to supposedly scrutinise the possibility
(or as I stress the hypothetical nature) of adverse health
risks arising from living near wind farms. This is despite
repeated reviews and research from the National Health
and Medical Research Council that there is no credible
evidence to suggest exposure has an impact on a person’s
physical or mental wellbeing. If the government can make
such appointments why not create a coal commissioner?
Coal-fired power plants emit sulphur dioxide and other
particulate matter, which do have documented, adverse
respiratory health effects. The appointment of this wind farm
commissioner smacks of a politically motivated agenda
and seems not a decision with any scientific basis. Issues
such as climate change and wind farms should always be
debated, but if parties approach the conversation from a
pre-determined ideological platform it taints what should be
constructive cooperation.
As with all scientific research there is a margin of error,
an inherent level of uncertainty associated with results, and
several politicians have latched onto this fact to pursue their
own ideological goals. Some people interpret the existence
of a lack of complete certainty as a need to overturn the
consensus. Somehow they think that if climate change can’t
be definitively proved, or the risks of wind farms completely
ruled out, they have an obligation to disprove climate
science altogether or exaggerate the health impacts of wind
turbines. This is an irresponsible, entirely unhelpful approach
to scientific progress and political decision making. To
engage in debate is a key part of politics, but argument
should not come before evidence or science. In the case of
environmental issues progress should come before political
motives.
Image Courtesy of:
www.flickr.com/photosbilly_wilson