Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 6, 1989, the Hawke government got a briefing from people who knew what they were talking about. Nobody can say they were not warmed. Sorry, warned ….
“Prime Minister’s Science Council – “Global Climatic Change – Issues for Australia”
Two topics of considerable importance both to the Government and to the nation are being discussed at today’s meeting. They are global climatic change and the issues it raises for Australia, and resources for science and technology and their utilisation.
Also included in your press kits is a paper describing recent developments in government policies for science and technology and significant actions taken since the may statement ‘ Science and Technology for Australia’. Global Climatic Change Issues for Australia
This morning the Council is discussing the scientific evidence for the greenhouse effect and considering the effects of possible changes.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that even having a “science council” was a relatively new thing. Politicians tend not like to be told that what they’re doing is going to have bad consequences. They would rather be able to pretend that nobody told them. The leader of this group was Ralph Slayter, who had been around for yonks and had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up no later than 1969 and possibly a lot earlier. Hawke was facing an election in a few months, so being able to dress himself up as responsive and aware were going to help him with green votes. (Am I too cynical?)
What I think we can learn from this
There is an interplay between the science, the scientists, the politicians and the politics. The idea that the politicians must also always “listen to the science and the scientist” is a comforting one, but reality is far harder because there isn’t one settled science. You also have a difference between production science and impact science and anyway the whole thing is shot through with questions about appetites for risk and what you are finally aiming at. The claim that politicians should be under the thumb of scientists is “risky” shall we say.
What happened next
Various science panels have persisted. Famously under Howard the chief scientific advisor role was part-time and it was filled by someone who also simultaneously working for the mining company Rio Tinto. In 2011 the chief scientific advisor quit and the assumption is it is because she wasn’t being listened to and not enough action was being taken on climate change
But ultimately the people to blame for that are the citizens of democracies not getting stuck in and being democratic actors. But then, that brings us back to bureaucracy and the neoliberal state and neoliberal societies and and what’s that line by Brecht about the government being very disappointed in the people and abolishing them in electing a new one (this was after the East German workers’ uprising in 1953).
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs