Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Uncategorized

On Think Tanks: Christian Kerr & Greg Lindsay

By

Today’s email from Crikey includes a note from Christian Kerr about last week’s 30th Anniversary dinner for Sydney-based think tank, The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS). I also attended the grand gathering, but this is how Christian reports it:

I‘ve been to many gatherings of the great and good, but I’ve never attended such a high calibre function as the Centre for Independent Studies’ 30th anniversary dinner in Sydney last week.

More than 600 guests crammed into the ballroom of the old Regent down on George Street – some of the most powerful and influential men and women in Australia.

The Prime Minister spoke, but it was the comments of the Centre’s founder and chief executive, Greg Lindsay, that were most interesting:

You’d be amazed at the range of think tanks that exist worldwide. Take just one example, the Albanian Liberal Institute. What does Albania conjure up in your minds? One image I have is the super highway from the airport as described by PJ O’Rourke. I think it was eight lanes. What a highway. Trouble was, it went for only 300 metres.

Albanians wish to be neither the butt of jokes nor the poor relation on the continent any longer. A think tank is an important part of the new world for them. The institute there has a staff of three and a budget of $50,000. The three main principles that it promotes are individual rights, the market economy and the open society. Sound familiar? It should, and it’s exciting. That story, or something like it, is being told in almost every country in the world.
Indeed, if you visit the website of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, you’ll even find a DIY guide to starting a think tank of your own.

Rivalry can be fierce. John Roskam, the head of the Institute for Public Affairs, was at the CIS do, but just a few blocks away Gerard Henderson and the Sydney Institute were hosting a rival show. That was pretty spectacular, too. Their guest speaker wasn’t someone you hear from everyday – ASIO boss Paul O’Sullivan.

Think tanks are a $US500 million industry worldwide. About $US300 million of this money goes to the United States think tanks, but the leftover is still significant.

Where does the money come from? Lindsay doesn’t name the CIS’s donors. In response, however, he points out that the CIS doesn’t accept government funds or undertake specially commissioned, “tied”, research. Funding is an issue for think tanks worldwide. A wide range of donors is needed to maintain independence, and for differentiation.

It’s easy to see how think tanks can become second-class agents of business. And it’s also easy to see how potential donors want think tanks to be virgin wh*res – how they fancy their purity of thought but want them to take the money and get dirty.

Interestingly, though, the global trend amongst think-tanks of the centre-right appears to be for a majority of funding to come from private individuals, not corporates.

The CIS has 24 staff and an annual budget of $2.5 million. As Lindsay said on the night, it has provided “words which have helped define the contemporary language of public debate”. To continue its work, a fund was launched on the night with the aim of raising $10 million. The money is already coming in.

Entrepreneurship in ideas is clearly booming – but it appears that the details of donors will be one subject the think tanks are silent on.”

There is often comment at this blog about my being an employee of the much smaller think tank, The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). What amazes me is the extent to which there seems to be a general ignorance of why people like me work for the IPA and enjoy a meal with people from the CIS.

Like Greg Lindsay, I agree that there is a need to promote individual rights, the market economy and the open society. These things don’t come naturally.

What should also be abundantly obvious is that people who work for think thanks tend to be fiercely independent by nature and will question those who seek to impose top down regulatory approaches on principle.

Of course such regulation is usually pushed by organisations that claim to be working for the public good, organisations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Greenpeace and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but as George Orwell reminds us, “Saints should be presumed guilty until proven innocent”.

Ann Novek & A White Swan

By

Ann Novek was once a medical student, but quit to work as a wildlife rehabilitator. She works mostly with birds, and has a special interest in helping birds affected by oil spills.

Here’s a picture of a swan being cleaned after an oil spill, Ann’s in the yellow jacket.

AnnNovekBlog2.JPG

She’s also a Greenpeace Nordic volunteer involved mostly in ocean issues and a new reader and commentator at this blog.

Ann lives somewhere in Sweden and has her garden fenced to keep out cats making it a “little bird heaven”. I assume the fence also keeps out the the many roe deers which according to Ann roam around in people’s gardens in Sweden eating tulips and apple trees.

In Brisbane, in Australia where I live, it is possums that roam around gardens eating roses and destroying vegetable gardens.

—————————————————-
Ann, thanks for sharing the photograph and something about yourself.

More Confident & More Precise: Next Year’s IPCC Report

By

The IPCC is intending to release its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in three parts next year. Part 1 is likely to be launched in early 2007 and focus on the physical basis for climate change. Part 2 is likely to be released mid year and focus on impacts of global warming while Part 3 will be released later in the year and focus on how to mitigate climate change.

In this week’s journal Nature (Vol 441, 6-7, 4 May 2006) there is information about the climate change predictions in the current draft of Part 1, including:

“The current draft, which represents the message that the scientific authors want to present to policy-makers, contains few statements that will surprise climate researchers, but its tone is much more confident than that of its predecessor, published in 2001. And that, say researchers, will make it harder for sceptical politicians and lobbyists to attack climate predictions.

“People won’t be punching holes in the science,” says Jay Gulledge, a senior research fellow at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia. Emily Shuckburgh, a climate researcher at the University of Cambridge, UK, agrees: “If you’re a sceptic, it’s difficult to see where to attack on the modelling side.”

One critical number in previous reports has been the sensitivity of the climate to increases in greenhouse-gas levels. In 2001, scientists estimated that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels would cause an increase of 1.5–4.5 °C, but acknowledged that this range was little more than a best guess. The draft 2007 WGI report describes how new models and data sets allow the range to be properly quantified. It estimates the effect of doubling carbon dioxide as a rise of 2.0–4.5 °C and, for the first time, suggests a single most likely figure: 3 °C. This estimate is already widely accepted by climate scientists.

Another set of predictions that have become much more robust are those about ‘commitment’ — the ongoing climatic changes that would be expected even if greenhouse-gas levels could be stabilized. The existence of commitment was acknowledged in the last WGI report, but no number was given in the policy-makers’ summary. In contrast, the 2007 summary stresses that even if greenhouse gases level off now, warming will continue at about the current rate for several decades.

The error bars have also shrunk substantially on one of the biggest uncertainties in 2001 — the role of aerosols such as soot from fires, which exert a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight. In addition, certainty over politically important statements about whether climate change has already been observed has increased. Data on twentieth-century changes in precipitation and sea-level rise are now more precise, and the risk of ocean acidification is detailed for the first time. Such assertions are likely to be seized on by environmental groups if they appear in the final document.”

If you have a password, you can access the draft here: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/wg14ar-review.htm .

Archibishop Comments on “Hysterical” Global Warming Claims

By

According to yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald, Australia’s most influential catholic, Archibiship George Pell, in a speech to US Catholic business leaders, said Western democracy was … suffering a crisis of confidence as evidenced by the decline in fertility rates and that:

“Pagan emptiness” and Western fears of the uncontrollable forces of nature had contributed to “hysteric and extreme claims” about global warming.

“In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.”

Elephants to Sweden?

By

There has been an interesting exchange between Ann in Sweden, David in Tokyo, and others following my blog post of 23rd April titled ‘Norway to Kill More Whales’.

The discussion has now moved from whales to elephants.

I lived in Kenya from 1989 through to late 1992 and visited Zimbabwe and South Africa. It was evident back then that there were too many elephants in southern Zimbabwe, while they were being shot out of Kenya.

I have previously mentioned the book by Raymond Bonner, ‘At the Hand of Man: Peril and hope for Africa’s Wildlife’ (Alfred Knopf, New York 1993, pp 322) which is about the early history of conservation groups in Africa and how their staff in Africa supported trade in ivory. But the fundraisers and executives at their headquarters in Europe and the USA wanted bans … lobbying for a ban on ivory generated membership and donations.

I’ve copied the following comment from David, because it does raise the very real issue of how ‘Africa’ can and should manage its elephants. Elephants can be so destructive and require so much space, and ‘Africa’ is being denied the opportunity to make money from ivory – which could give elephants a local value and in this way aid conservation of the species?

David wrote:

Ann,

Sorry, but your statements do confuse me. 🙂

Countries like Kenya are more than welcome to manage their elephants how they see fit.

However, they campaigned to have a ban on the ivory trade put in place because they had failed to manage their elephant populations, consequently suffering from poaching etc. The problem was, when the ban was imposed in 1989, it led to other nations being forced to abide by the ban even though their circumstances were different.

While Kenya had failed miserably to look after her elephants, nations in Southern Africa had been doing a fine job, and their elephants were in good shape. Here’s the thing – there is a demand for elephant products. Rather than ban this trade, why not permit it, make money from it, and with those funds manage and regulate the industry for the good of conservation?

Read about Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE approach to conservation here:

“While economic incentives are indispensable, the programme preaches and practises sustainable consumption as a vehicle for development. This is the language the Zimbabwean people and their ancestors have been practising since time immemorial.”

Unfortunately, NGO groups from the Western world seem to care more about African elephants than they do about African people.

Remembering that all parties agree that conserving elephants is a priority, which do you give more importance Ann? African elephants or African people?

As for relocation, nations in Southern Africa should be under no obligation to relocate their (valuable) elephants to Kenya, a nation which has failed abismally to look after theirs (unless Kenya wishes to pay?).

Even in Kenya, the elephant levels are growing these days – but for how long will the ecosystem be able to sustain continued growth?

Then what? Ship elephants to Sweden perhaps? 🙂

Westerners seem to love them so much, let’s see how they enjoy having them overrunning the local neighbourhood.

David

Thousands of elephants were culled in South Africa last year.