Twenty years ago, on this day, December 8, 2003, the Australian chief scientific adviser was being asked to explain about how he squared offering impartial advice with his other day-job of … working for Rio Tinto.
Questions raised over chief scientist’s Rio Tinto role 8 December 2003 – Reporter: Andrew Fowler (no longer on ABC website). See also Scorcher by Clive Hamilton
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard clearly did not give a shit about climate change, and wasn’t bothered who knew it.
Formal scientific advice channels to Australian Prime Ministers had started in 1989 with the Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council, under Ralph Slayter. And one of the first things they talked about – well, climate change (link).
What I think we can learn from this
Australia is essentially a quarry with a state attached to it; not so much a banana republic, as a coal republic. But we will persist with our pretences…
Fun fact – Labor are not that much better. In 2011 Penny Sackett resigned because Gillard et al. were not listening. This is not about personalities or dispositions – political parties are there to manage the state for “better” capital accumulation.
What happened next
Batterham eventually stepped aside.
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..