Climate Change, Propaganda & Conflict of Interest
The price and scarcity of energy now, in comparison to even 20 years ago when in abundance and cheap, deserves more than a cursory glance at how we ended up in this position.
We need to get used to already huge, but still growing, power prices, heavy industry blackouts (great for an economy on a precipice) and even household blackouts.
I still remember well an elective subject in my 1st year at University, called “The Ecological Development of Man” (today would say “people”). “Technology flourished because energy was cheap”, underpinned the Industrial Revolution and all development since.
After 40 years in research and advertising, I have learned a thing or two about propaganda – no, not some social narrative for a radical and nasty political position. Rather, the influence on and movement of, broad social attitudes and beliefs in the population.
Growing up in Caloundra, on the Sunshine Coast, instilled in me a love of the ocean and the environment in general. I have always been an “environmentalist”, long before it became such a strong topic of public interest. I can remember when people didn’t give stuff about littering and polluting. My initial career choice was to be a Marine Biologist, but in 1980 jobs were virtually non-existent, outside of academia. There is no doubt the human population has had a poor to devastating impact upon the environment (though “Climate Change” is only one area of concern, it receives the most coverage and support).
The “propaganda” to change the zeitgeist, where now concern for the environment is top of mind, is definitely a good thing. When I first moved to Sydney, the fishing in Sydney Harbour was said to be “doubly better” than most other places in NSW – the fish had two heads. But seriously, the harbour was terribly polluted. It was only public pressure that “forced” politicians to focus on not just the harbour, but the environment and pollution in general. Watch the great ABC comedy “Yes Minister/Prime Minster” – if the civil service wants to win their argument, they need only say “there are votes in it). I could go on for a “month of Sunday” listing all the positive initiatives over the past 20 years which have benefited the environment.
BUT now we have Climate Change. It has become a religion. From individuals worth billions trying to buy power companies to shut down their coal mining and use (“let them eat cake”), through to so many businesses which now advertise they are, or headed towards, being carbon neutral. Want a “fight” at a dinner party? Just utter “I think climate change is bullshit” and watch the crowd ignite like a stick of dynamite. It has become a “not negotiable” position – we MUST reach “net zero” by 2050 (though I doubt many would know what “net zero” means).
Climate change is not fantasy, it is fact. But how the developed world, in particular, chases net zero with no consideration of its impact on the majority of the world’s population, is an issue rarely, if ever addressed. The goal of net zero by 2050, a goal both major parties took to the recent election, seems to be not negotiable. A “done deal”.
Climate change is not in doubt. But how far has it really gone, how bad is it and are we facing a genuine, imminent climate emergency? The level of propaganda over the past decade or so makes such a question seem to be blasphemous. Therefore, it is hard to estimate the genuine level of agreement within the population. What proportion of people genuinely wonder, but are cowed into silence?
Our school and university students have been inundated with propaganda – as Abraham Lincoln said “the philosophy of the school room in one generation determines the philosophy of government in the next. (The teachers and tertiary lecturers know this well, as did Antonio Gramsci way back in the early 1900’s).
In 2008 I spoke at length to a Professor of Geophysics (I cannot name him or the university at which he was on the academic board). He told me about the ground swell of propaganda that had already swept over academia. Tenure is the goal of most academics – gain a lecturing and research position, preferably at a well-regarded university. To gain tenure, publication of articles in peer-reviewed academic journals are a prerequisite. I was stunned to be told that publication of an article that did not support the “climate change and emerging catastrophe” theory was all but impossible!
“Look at the science” is the familiar cry. This from the population who are overwhelmingly scientific illiterate. In 1977, 78 & 79, at the University of Queensland’s Biology Department (was and still is one of the premier biology departments in the world) we studied the impending mini-ice age. How has this has now become a global warming crisis ? – not science, but propaganda at work?
Professor Peter Ridd, a highly regarded Geophysicist was fired from James Cook University for his criticism of a study conducted by 2 Marine Biologists. His dismissal was for being “non-collegiate”, not for being wrong. A typical example of what happens to anyone, irrespective of their credentials and whether they are correct, who goes against the overwhelming narrative.
“Peter Ridd has lived by the Great Barrier Reef for most of his life. He knows it and he loves it. Nothing is so important than its protection and preservation. For more than three decades the Reef and the marine region of which it is a key part have been central to his scientific research.
The conclusion of this measured, evidence-based study is that it is essential that the health and vitality of the Reef and its environs should be jealously protected. Equally, there is little in its present condition, analysed in the perspective of more than half-a-century, to warrant the alarm and even hysteria which too often mark any discussion or debate about the Reef and the policies promoted by governments purportedly to safeguard its well-being.”
Putting aside the credibility of the science at play, the religious pursuit to eliminate fossil fuels, even as transitional, fails to address:
The reality of achieving net zero by 2050. (The European Commission estimates between €180 billion and €470 billion will be needed before green hydrogen can make up 13-14% of the EU energy mix in 2050).
What will take the place of fossil fuels to fill the huge void? Sunshine and wind are free, but using them as power sources is not, in fact far from it. A decade of huge power price rises is from the subsidies of renewables, not the cost of fossil fuels.
Businesses, and high net worth individuals, around the world have invested (bet) huge amounts of money on the decarbonization of the developed world’s economies. Arguably, combined forms one of most complex and biggest tasks and investments, of all time. (Call me a cynic, but when high-net worth individuals and large businesses with massive investments in renewables, which will provide huge returns, but no money or interest in Nuclear, I cannot help but wonder about the conflict of interest.)
The huge potential financial windfall of finance for smaller, less developed countries.
Solar, wind and hydro currently accounts for 24% of the national power grid. Where will the other 76% come from, if nuclear is not on the table? Hydrogen is still in its infancy, and the point at which it is requires large amounts of energy (fossil fuels) to convert to energy.
Hydrogen is difficult to contain and highly dangerous. One of the most explosive natural substances, it is invisible when burning.
Why, in Australia with the world’s largest uranium deposits, is nuclear energy not being considered as an enormously efficient, cheap, and almost limitless source of power, that has no CO2 emissions. Chernobyl was 26 years ago, in a low-tech facility and the Fukushima plant was built near an ocean with a high probability of earthquake tsunamis.
The push for a majority of electric vehicles by 2030 is equally as fanciful. If you live, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, next time you are caught in a peak (3 hour) traffic jam, have a look around and imagine how most of these vehicles will be electric in just over 7 years?
The new Government has a Climate Change Minister. Then again, they have a Minster for Women, when no person of any political significance can answer the question “What is the definition of a woman?” Like something from Faulty Towers “let me introduce you to the minister of, can’t really say what”.
The success of The Teals at the recent election is a significant indicator of strong public concern, though their electorates are not representative of the population. (Hence the “let them eat cake” quote). What we are witnessing, are political and ideological solutions to a problem of physics and engineering. The emotion dominating the logic.
I am sure this article will cause much gnashing of the teeth, even outrage. I probably run the risk of being “black balled” (can I use that expression now?), by many large companies with “highly developed” social policies. So be it. I am from a generation that places freedom of speech and thought above all else (within basic common sense constraints, not the MeToo fanaticism who want to cancel Picasso). The following link is an article by Graham Hand that should be compulsory reading by all who believe we must reach net zero by 2050, without any consideration of the impact and possible alternative solutions:
Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?
As the great Bob Dylan sang “Money doesn’t talk it swears”, there are so many wealthy individuals who stand to make far greater fortunes from the fossil fuels.
