27/04/2017

When Political Fantasy Trumps Scientific Fact

Millennium Alliance for Humanity and BiosphereJulian Cribb

March for Science Portland, Oregon US | Another Believer | Wikipedia | CC BY-SA 3.0
During the 1930s, around ten million Russians and Ukrainians starved to death in a horrific event known as Holodomor. Historians have attributed this disaster in part to the quack theories of Trofim Lysenko, Stalin’s hand-picked boss of Soviet agricultural science.  It was a disastrous case of politics distorting the objectivity of science, for its own ends.
Today, ‘Lysenkoism’ – the deliberate suppression of science by politics – is alive and kicking, not in totalitarian states, but in supposedly enlightened democracies such as the United States and Australia.
In its course, scientists in both countries are being purged, intimidated, their funding axed, their institutions dismembered and their findings suppressed – all because the objective scientific evidence they discover doesn’t support the political delusions of ruling elites and their corporate masters.
The aim is to keep the well-evidenced facts of climate change out of the media and public eye by choking off the flow of trustworthy information. The method is simple: shoot the messenger. In the case of Lysenko, some 3000 Russian biologists, including the great Nikolai Vavilov, were persecuted, purged, forced to recant their science, sent to the Gulag or in some cases, actually shot.
Trofim Lysenko
Trofim Lysenko was an obscure Ukrainian plant breeder who rejected Mendelian genetic theory, and claimed he could revolutionise agriculture by transmitting superior acquired traits from one generation of wheat to the next. With the USSR facing crop failure and widening hunger, his claims impressed the leadership of the Communist party, including Stalin, who appointed him director of Genetics for the Academy of Sciences. From this power base, Lysenko began systematically to eliminate his rivals – all those who adhered to the science of genetics.
Cunningly, he invited scientists to speak at prestigious conferences, then purged all whose views departed from his own. This set back the delivery of improved crop varieties, which could have prevented starvation, by a generation or more. Not until the mid-1960s did the USSR cut itself loose from Lysenko’s crank theories, and food self-sufficiency began to recover.
Today, public-spirited scientists in America and Australia are being purged for similar reasons – for speaking out about the evidenced truths of science in the face of right wing politics which denies those truths and wants them stamped out.
In the US, Trump is in the process of:
  1. Drastic cuts to science funding
  2. Placing his own ‘Lysenkos’ at the head of key Federal agencies and departments
  3. Abandoning the US commitment to the world plans to limit greenhouse emissions
  4. Revoking Obama’s measures to prepare America for climate change
  5. Applying political censorship to the public science statements of government departments and agencies
  6. Deleting public advice about climate change and US carbon emissions from government websites.
His main instrument of enforcement is a $7 billion cut to the science budget affecting, among others, the US National Science Foundation, the Environment Protection Agency, the National Oceans and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA), NASA, the Department of Energy, the US Geological Survey, the Departments of Agriculture and of Energy, all of which are involved either in climate science, environmental or renewable energy research.
“Make no mistake: these numbers would be crippling to much of the federal science apparatus,” Matt Hourihan, director of budget and policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science commented.
Drinking from the same stagnant well of anti-science, Australia’s LNP government has overseen the purging of CSIRO climate and water scientists and the closure of its atmospheric research division, as well as ongoing moves to cut down renewable energy funding and science, delaying tactics over climate action and ongoing efforts to open up new sources of carbon pollution such as the Adani mine and gas extraction.
Redundancies at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority – significantly in its climate change group – suggest that coral science is also on the hit-list, as the Government moves to suppress public discussion of the devastation to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. A new twist is the proposal of  ‘technofixes’ – like pumping cold water onto tiny parts of the Reef – with little or no real impact, but providing a political smokescreen to justify continued inaction and fossil fuels development.
Commenting on the Turnbull Government’s recent science statement, Dr. Peter Tangney of Finders University lamented “the current government’s track record of endorsing scientific research and promoting investment only when it is politically expedient to do so, and ignoring or seeking to discredit science when it is not.”
Ordinary people are sometimes amazed at the ease with which politicians lie about issues like climate change. The answer is that, in the heightened adversarial context of today’s politics, the only ‘truth’ many of today’s diminutive politicians acknowledge is political expediency – not facts.
The problem with scientific facts is they cannot be manipulated or discarded quite as easily as political ‘truths’. They are supported by hard evidence –often truckloads of it– by peer review, and by scientists making confirmatory findings all around the planet. Faced with such solid certainties, the recourse of desperate politicians is now to shoot the messenger, to try to intimidate or shut down public good science and gag it when it tries to warn us about what is really happening to our planet.
Lysenkoism was the manifestation of a Soviet political delusion that ended up costing millions of lives. The historical irony is that the same sort of irrational, ideology-based delusion has now captured Australia’s Liberal and America’s Republican parties.
Climate denial is a contemporary political fantasy that will cost billions of lives, in the famines, disasters, refugee tsunamis and wars that will accompany an unchecked 4-5 degree rise in global temperatures by 2100. No intelligent government on the planet supports it – only the blindly irresponsible.
It is time we all stood up for our scientists. They are only trying to serve society by giving us the facts. We may not like the truths they deliver – but suppressing them will not make those facts less real.
On Earth Day, April 22, there were protests across America and Australia and around the world in  defence of science. Over 600 communities took part to speak up for reason and rationality in the face of the politicians’ denialism and suppression. On April 29, the People’s Climate Movement provides another opportunity to support a vision for a future that protects our families, our communities, and the climate –to speak for our grandkids, who otherwise will pay the price of the current ruinous leadership.

Links

Retirement Savings At Risk From Climate Change: John Hewson

Fairfax - Clancy Yeates

Australian retirement savings could be put at risk unless regulators force the financial sector to be more transparent in managing the investment risks created by climate change.

That is is the view of former Liberal leader John Hewson, who is calling for regulators to take a much tougher line on how the financial sector handles the risks associated with global warming.
Dr Hewson, chair of the Asset Owners Disclosure Project, made the call as new rankings showed many of the world's 500 largest asset owners, including some of Australia's biggest superannuation funds, were taking a more active approach to protecting their portfolios from climate change risks.
Even so, the AODP's annual rankings still labelled many financial giants as "bystanders" in their response to climate risks, and Dr Hewson said mandatory disclosure of climate risks was needed to prevent an "Australian train wreck".
Because of the country's high carbon intensity at a time when vital trade partner China is also trying to shift towards renewable energy, he argued Australia was particularly exposed to "systemic financial risk" caused by climate change.
"With the Australian government missing in action, the RBA, APRA and ASIC must drive change in fund and company reporting. Failure to do so may cost us our retirement savings," Dr Hewson said.
The AODP, a not-for-profit body that produces the annual ranking, is part of a growing international push among investors and regulators for greater action to avoid the risks of a "carbon bubble".
Former Liberal party leader Dr John Hewson says regulators must require financial firms to disclose their climate change risks. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
Much of this activity is focused on greater disclosure, in the belief more information would allow markets to "price in" the risks created by climate change.
The survey by the AODP said there had been a 19 per cent increase in the number of pension funds, insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds that were taking action in response to climate change. Yet there were still 201 asset owners that were ignoring climate risk, and 187 judged "bystanders" – those taking only the first steps in acknowledging these risks.
Avoiding a 'carbon bubble' is front of mind for a growing number of investors. Photo: Simon Bosch
Australian funds were ranked among global leaders, with the Local Government Super fund reclaiming the top position, First State Super in third place, and Australian Super ranked 18th.
For the first time, the survey also ranked the world's 50 largest asset management businesses.
With the Australian government missing in action, the RBA, APRA and ASIC must drive change in fund and company reporting
John Hewson
The only Australian manager included in this list was Macquarie Group, which the AODP report gave a D or "bystander" rating on its management of climate change risks, partly because the bank did not complete its survey.
Macquarie said it "rejects any suggestion it does not recognise the financial risks of climate change," pointing to its disclosure of carbon exposure, and its large investments in renewable energy.
"As a significant global asset manager, Macquarie is fully committed to ensuring environmental risks are identified and managed responsibly in our business activities and relationships, and each member of staff shares the responsibility for identifying and managing these risks as part of normal business practice," a Macquarie spokeswoman said.
"As one of the world's largest investors in renewable energy, having invested or arranged over $A14 billion into renewable energy projects since 2010, Macquarie is particularly aware of the opportunities and responsibilities that will continue to accompany the transition to a low-carbon economy."
Macquarie was this month given the green light to buy the United Kingdom's Green Investment Bank in a $3.9 billion deal, despite some critics doubting the bank's commitment to carrying out the company's environment goals.
The AODP ranked asset owners and managers on the basis of their governance and strategy, portfolio risk management, and their metrics and targets.
The report comes after a committee including Coalition, Labor and Greens Senators last week recommended several policy changes to improve how financial risks of climate change are disclosed to investors.
The Senate inquiry, which reported on Friday, said the corporate watchdog should review its guidance to directors on climate risks, while the Australian Securities Exchange should provide guidance on when disclosure of climate risks was needed.
The inquiry also said the government should review the Corporations Act to consider whether financial reporting obligations should be changed to force companies to make a "holistic" consideration of the viability of their business model.
In February, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority executive board member Geoff Summerhayes​ also said it would keep a closer eye on how banks, insurance companies and asset managers responded to the financial risks of global warming.

Links

Adani Coalmine At Heightened Risk Of Becoming A Stranded Asset, Report Says

The Guardian

Carmichael project likely to be ‘cash flow negative’ for most of its operating life, according to Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis
People protest against Adani’s Carmichael coalmine outside the Indian high commission in Canberra. Coral scientists have argued the coal needs to stay in the ground if the Great Barrier Reef is to be protected from the impacts of climate change. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
The risk of the controversial Adani Carmichael coalmine becoming a stranded asset has increased in the last 12 months, according to a new report.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), says the Carmichael project is likely to be “cash flow negative” for the majority its operating life, even with concessional loans.
The IEEFA’s new report, Adani’s Remote Prospects, warns Adani Enterprises is not in a strong financial position.
It has thrown into doubt the wisdom of lending the project $1bn worth of taxpayers’ dollar through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF).
It comes a week after John Hewson, a former Liberal party leader, warned the Carmichael coalmine was already a “stranded asset” and the last thing the Turnbull government should be doing is lending Adani $1bn.
The report, released on Tuesday, shows Adani Enterprise Ltd’s equity market capitalisation has declined from over US$10bn in 2015 to US$1.9bn, while its net debt has grown to US$2.5bn.
Adani Enterprises Ltd owns the Carmichael coal project via its Australian subsidiary Adani Mining Pty Ltd.
It shows Adani Mining has current debt of US$1.1bn secured against shareholders’ equity of a negative A$236m, with the company only remaining solvent due to the ongoing annual support of its Indian parent entity.
“[Which is] a serious financial risk for any existing or prospective external creditor or supplier,” the report warns.
The report also shows the leveraged nature of Adani Enterprises is mirrored across the whole Adani Group. Since early 2015, it says the Adani group has seen estimated net indebtedness rise by US$3bn to US$15.9bn.
The report argues that, beyond the estimated A$1.4bn already sunk in the Carmichael coalmine project, the project may require a further A$5.3bn of investment to get the project operating, and Adani Enterprise will struggle to contribute equity to the project.
“The project risks over-stretching the balance sheet of Adani Enterprises to an extreme degree, creating a high level of financial risk to both shareholders and potential financiers,” the report warns.
Tim Buckley, the director of energy research at IEEFA, a former top-rated equities analyst at Citigroup, said the Carmichael project had the fundamentals of a “feckless entrepreneurial scheme equivalent to those last seen in Australia in the 1980’s”.
“Absent massive taxpayer subsidies, no independent investor would give the proposal a second glance given its strategic and financial predicament, particularly set against a rapidly declining market for seaborne thermal coal,” Buckley said.
“Adani took a calculated business risk on this speculative project in 2010 but the world has changed.
“No longer strategically aligned nor financially robust, today it is less a gamble, more a shot in the dark,” he said.
In December last year, the government’s NAIF granted Adani “conditional approval” for a $1bn loan to Adani to build a rail line between its proposed Carmichael coalmine and the Abbot Point shipping terminal in Queensland.
The rail line, if built, would allow Adani to build the country’s biggest coalmine and open up the Galilee Basin to further mines by linking them to an export terminal.
Coral scientists have argued the coal needs to stay in the ground if the Great Barrier Reef is to be protected from the impacts of climate change. The economic benefits of the proposed mine are also disputed.
Hewson, a professor in economics, has criticised the Turnbull government for considering lending Adani nearly $1bn in taxpayer money via the NAIF.
Hewson said the fund should only be used to help projects become commercially viable but the $1bn would be used by Adani to build a railway to a coalmine that Australia’s major banks have refused to fund.

Links