The Problem with Climate Policy Economic Modelling
One of the worst habits of Australia’s political journalists is angrily demanding economic modelling of climate policies and then blankly refusing to interrogate them. The requested presence of a big PDF provides a neat little escape from thinking critically about a problem like climate change, a crisis truly unsuited to the habits and desires of political journalism.
History of Climate Policy Economic Modelling in Australia
There is a long-running precedent for engaging with climate through the economic modelling frame. Ahead of the 2019 federal election, a weary Bill Shorten was hounded by then Channel Ten (now Sky News Australia) reporter Jonathan Lea, who demanded to see “costings” for Labor’s emissions reduction target of 45% by 2030. Lea’s questions triggered a sort of flocking behaviour from other journalists and a slew of articles admonishing Labor for not “costing” its policy.
Fast forward six years and the ABC’s David Speers is worried that Peter Dutton hasn’t released any detail on his claim that reserving gas domestically and opening up a raft of new gas fields will bring down prices. “There’s still no press release, let alone any modelling, to explain exactly how this ‘gas reservation’ policy will work”. Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien has been hounded, repeatedly, on when the Coalition will release its modelling.
Challenges with Economic Modelling in Climate Policy
Everyone needs to take a pause and ask why exactly we want to see an 80-page PDF filled with charts, numbers and jargon. Is it a meaningful or useful window into the way that climate policies manifest in human society? What the hell do you get out of that document?
As the Australia Institute’s Richard Denniss wrote a decade ago, the entire concept of economic modelling is deeply flawed.
In most cases, economic modelling isn’t used to help us understand the costs and benefits of major projects or policy changes. It is used to conceal them. Rather than outline and discuss the wide range of winners and losers, debate the pros and cons, and make transparent decisions, economic modelling allows all of the messy bits to be hidden.
What is clear from experience is that these modelling exercises generate a sheen of false precision and faux-empiricism.
Examples of Misleading Economic Modelling in Climate Policy
The Coalition’s modelling of its nuclear policy, for instance, was written by Frontier Economics, shared as a PDF, and came packed with a bunch of wild assumptions (such as the collapse of the aluminium manufacturing sector). It has spawned endless discourse around whether the modelling accurately reflects the real costs of capping renewable energy and relying on fossil gas and nuclear power.
Labor’s oft-repeated promise to cut power bills by precisely $275 by 2025 was drawn from modelling by Reputex, published at the end of 2021. The gas-induced power price crisis obviously played a major role in denying that eventuality, but it’s worth noting that renewable energy in the National Electricity Market is also far lower than what Reputex assumed it would be: 39% at the end of 2024, rather than just above 50% as assumed in its 2021 report.
Impact of Economic Modelling on Climate Policy Decisions
While Labor’s “Capacity Investment Scheme” has breathed a bit of life back into renewable energy construction, it didn’t come soon enough to maintain the industry’s rapid pace during the latter years of the renewable energy target scheme. That delay caused a dip in new clean energy in the middle of Labor’s first term, and a stagnation in the once-rapid increase in clean energy percentage in Australia’s grid (and the first systemic rise in power grid emissions since the Abbott years).
This is reflective of a broader trend in which misleading information takes on the form and aesthetics of peer-reviewed and carefully controlled research. There are references, charts, acronyms and jargon: it feels like science.
Conclusion
Generative machine-learning tools like ChatGPT have been a boon for disinformation that targets people who self-identify as “smart” — that is, someone who reads research papers and knows how numbers work.
FAQs
What is the problem with demanding economic modelling for climate policies?
Journalists often demand economic modelling for climate policies but fail to critically analyze them, leading to a superficial understanding of complex issues.
How do economic modelling exercises impact climate policy decisions?
Economic modelling exercises can generate false precision and conceal the wide range of winners and losers in climate policy decisions, leading to misleading outcomes.
What are some examples of misleading economic modelling in climate policy?
Examples include the Coalition’s modelling of its nuclear policy and Labor’s promise to cut power bills, both of which have been criticized for inaccuracies and flawed assumptions.
# Investigating the Use of Fabricated Scientific Papers in Environmental Debates
In a concerning turn of events, an Australian anti-wind group has been exposed for using a generative tool to fabricate an entire scientific paper that falsely claims offshore wind farms are responsible for the deaths of whales. This deceptive tactic not only misleads the public but also undermines the credibility of genuine scientific research in the field of environmental conservation.
## The Impact of Misinformation on Policy Debates
It is crucial to recognize the significant impact that fabricated scientific papers can have on policy debates, especially when they are used to support a particular agenda or sway public opinion. These false narratives not only distort the conversation but also divert attention away from meaningful discussions and critical analysis of the real issues at hand.
### The Role of Misinformation in Shaping Public Perception
Misinformation, such as the fake study linking whale deaths to wind farms, has the potential to shape public perception and influence decision-making processes. When presented with seemingly scientific evidence, individuals may be more inclined to believe false claims without questioning the source or validity of the information.
### The Need for Transparency and Accountability in Research
In light of these disturbing revelations, it is essential for researchers, policymakers, and the public to prioritize transparency and accountability in scientific research. By holding individuals and organizations accountable for spreading misinformation, we can uphold the integrity of the scientific community and ensure that evidence-based decision-making prevails.
## The Power of Investigative Journalism in Exposing Deception
In a recent collaboration with a Canadian journalist, a bucket of machine-generated misinformation about Norway’s fossil gas reliance was uncovered. This discovery highlights the critical role of investigative journalism in uncovering deception and holding those responsible accountable for their actions.
### Unveiling the Truth Behind Deceptive Practices
By shining a light on deceptive practices, journalists play a vital role in uncovering the truth and exposing falsehoods that threaten the integrity of public discourse. Through diligent research and fact-checking, journalists can dismantle misleading narratives and provide the public with accurate information to make informed decisions.
## Conclusion: Upholding the Integrity of Scientific Research and Journalism
As we navigate the complex landscape of environmental debates and policy discussions, it is imperative to uphold the integrity of scientific research and journalism. By challenging misinformation, promoting transparency, and fostering critical thinking, we can safeguard the truth and ensure that evidence-based decision-making prevails in shaping our collective future.
### FAQ
#### Q: How can individuals distinguish between genuine scientific research and fabricated papers?
A: Individuals can critically evaluate the source, methodology, and credibility of scientific papers by cross-referencing information, consulting experts in the field, and looking for reputable publications.
For further insights and discussions on this topic, feel free to reach out to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Your input and perspectives are valuable in fostering a robust dialogue on the importance of upholding scientific integrity in environmental debates.