Cow Farts and Cancer Sticks.
Cow Farts and Cancer Sticks.
Who to believe - the lobbyist, or the scientist?
What do you do if you’re a new government minister and the science is in. All of the evidence and facts are clear, but they’re not to your liking? They’re inconsistent with your policy positions and/or your spending priorities.
Well, first off you could just stand back and watch as the fourth estate goes to the wall. That could be quite convenient in terms of lessening the impact of facts.
Or you could simply deny the science, and quote some alternative facts. If they come from an “industry funded” scientist, then all the better. Clearly if a sector is funding scientific research then they must be taking whatever the issue is quite seriously.
But sometimes cynical people get a bit suspicious of industry experts who might have ulterior motives.
Could it be that a scientist funded by the tobacco industry might not be telling the full story? How about a certain consultancy in Wellington who were prepared to say Nicola’s tax plan was sound? Even as every independent expert fell about laughing at how far fetched, how extreme it was in its better than best case assumptions.
Perhaps instead of confronting the science i.e. getting into an unpleasant debate where it might appear that you’re acting more like an industry lobbyist than a representative of the people, it’s easier just to say we don’t have enough information yet. We need to wait until all the facts are in.
That way it can appear as if you’re open minded to following the science, but just not yet. You need to be really sure before you jump in to making changes.
It’s worked for Big Tobacco for years. Delaying tactics, stalling government control measures or other actions, despite the fact that to anybody who didn’t work for a tobacco company the evidence was quite clear. The science was in.
But did such evidence give Dr Reti pause for thought? Did he say, “the more people that give up smoking, the better. There’s clear evidence that programmes like Smokefree are helping.”
Not exactly. I suspect that Casey Costello came whispering to him that a lot of people are giving up already, and that might be enough. That actually the cost of cigarettes, and the proposed reduction in the number of outlets selling them, was stressing smokers out.
Dr Reti being the modern practitioner that he is knew that stress was an important consideration. Right up there with lung cancer and emphysema. So he decided on a balanced approach of not making it too difficult for people to get cigarettes, lest it cause them anxiety.
Obviously stress and anxiety should be treated very seriously. Unlike a certain medical practitioner, a Minister of Health, who is blasé about people stopping smoking.
There are some in our parliament who are not simply delaying the acknowledgment of accepted science, but who were elected on the basis that they denied science and supported the rights of people to believe whatever alternative they like. Even if their choices and actions impact others.
Because that’s what the whole anti vax anger was. It wasn’t, as they claim, that they didn’t want to be forced to vaccinate. No they wanted to not vaccinate and keep doing whatever they liked. No matter how many people might get infected, and now they have their representatives in parliament.
Although when NZ First ministers make decisions on their portfolios I’m pretty sure they aren’t thinking of those people.
I imagine that when Shane Jones decides whether there should be cameras on boats to capture evidence of what they’re doing, that his primary interest is in keeping whoever is buying dinner happy. Not worrying about fishing industry practices or sustainability.
We see similar industry friendly consideration from National’s Simon Watts, our Climate Change Minister.
He plans to have a review, saying it “will increase understanding in ... methane science” and put the debate to bed. Well Simon the science is in, this debate is over and is soundly sleeping. Don’t wake it up.
As indicated in the article, “The Climate Change Commission chairperson and office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment both say the science of methane's warming is already well settled, and it is now a political choice what to do.”
The Minister believes that his review, as opposed to all of the other scientific research available, should settle matters. Saying, “the independent review [will] hopefully put to bed, for now, the debate about how potent this gas is and how it contributes to climate change.”
That word “independent” concerns me, even more than “potent gas”. What does he mean? Does he mean independent from scientific experts?
Apparently this “independent panel” has not been announced. But they will decide whether the current 2050 targets for methane from our farms will contribute “no additional warming” to the atmosphere. A determinedly unambitious target.
You’ll have to excuse my cynicism if I suggest that this review seems to be more about kicking the can down the road, yet again, to keep the farmers happy, than it is about addressing climate change.
Farming groups have been calling for a target of 'no added warming' - likely lower than the current one - saying it would be fairer and more in line with what carbon emitters have to do.
Unlike methane, carbon dioxide stays around, heating the planet, for centuries after carbon pollution has stopped. Even once carbon emissions reach net-zero in 2050, old emissions will still be heating the planet.
Farmers argue they should also be allowed to keep heating the planet with their emissions after 2050, or they are doing more than carbon emitters.
For these farmers, and for this coalition, Climate Change seems to be about doing as little as possible.
The barest minimum of what is politically expedient, to be seen to be doing something, rather than just dragging their heels. Even if it’s wasting time producing a pointless report that the experts say is not required as there has been no change in the scientific understanding.
Of course things are much simpler if you can simply ignore the evidence. Like David Seymour.
The researchers can show all the statistics they like proving that providing school lunches to kids is achieving the measurable improvements desired. But if the ACT man is philosophically opposed to hungry children receiving a free lunch then he can always find a way around it.
In this case Seymour said “show me the data”, and when they did it turned out that he wasn’t much interested in scientific data or evidence after all. It was almost as if it was just a stalling tactic, providing plausible deniability of simply being cruel and greedy.
Seymour doesn’t seem to place much value in scientific evidence. I’m not suggesting he doesn’t believe it, just that he doesn’t care about it particularly.
Whether it’s statistical evidence showing inequalities in our systems and hence a need for measure to address that. Or ignoring medical advice and recommending that parents with sick kids just go ahead and send them to school anyway, because he’s bored with Covid and so are his supporters.
It is of course vitally important to David that children attend school, and not take part in things like protests about climate inaction.
Then there is his deputy, Brooke van Velden. Who was unmoved in this interview about the fact that the Aussies have twice as many workplace safety inspectors as we do, and half the deaths. Could the two possibly be connected Brooke?
Well it’s hard to say for sure. As we see more and more from this government, any given issue is not as simple as it might seem. There could be “a range of factors” at play.
Now National wants to deregulate the construction industry, again. Less rules mean more profits, simple as that. Some of us might remember the last time that party decided to deregulate that industry, when we got the whole leaky homes crisis.
There were people who got wealthy developing properties more cheaply with cladding and untreated timber. Timber that turned to mushy weetbix when water inevitably got inside. Leaving home owners with retirement dreams gone, in huge debt, or unable to sell a house that they no longer want to live in.
The worst of capitalism, which this government seems hellbent on encouraging. Some get very wealthy, at the expense of others who are hurt.
It’s always the same - people vs profits. Whether it’s keeping people safe from dodgy building practices, protecting people from losing their lives in the workplace, or even, unbelievably, rolling back programmes encouraging people to stop smoking.
But all of that, as awful as it is, pales in comparison with ignoring the science on climate change.
If we want to do something about the existential crisis that is going to impact the quality of life of our mokopuna, then we have to listen to the scientists. Now.
And we’ve got to get these lobbyists the hell out of our government, whether they are MPs or they’re in their ears. There are far too many foxes in this hen house.
Please support my writing by becoming either a free or paid subscriber. This is how I earn my daily living so when you purchase a subscription you’re paying me to keep doing this. I really appreciate being able to bring this writing to you. Thanks. 🙂
When interviewed by the Guardian about ( one of Aotearoa's top fresh water ecologists ) Mike Joy's assertion that we don't have a Clean Green NZ anymore and that many/ most rivers in NZ were unswimmable and undrinkable due mainly to dirty dairy practices John Key famously said he could come up with any number of " scientists " that would say the opposite to Mike. I wouldn't be surprised if John had a word in a few influential ears and although Mike still has a job at Wellington University you don't hear too much from him as a scientist or expert these days.
A bit like how you didn't hear much from John Campbell for years after the famous " I want that left wing bastard gone ".
Experts and scientists currently must be very worried with this government about raising their heads above the parapet. When you see the old guard of English, Joyce, McCully, Sowry and Bridges given cushy jobs on insultingly high salaries then you just know the Old Boys Network ( and now the influence of the Atlas Network ) is in full command of the steering wheel. Next it will be Paula Benefit.
Heaven help us we are on the Fast Track to oblivion.
Trustworthy Science is about peer reviewed research, objectivity, rigor and evidence. We ignore it at our peril. There is no such thing as alternative facts to science that is trustworthy and peer reviewed. That concept is nonsense and concerning.