Is the climate emergency all that bad? Could it be a real boon for some parts of the world?
Jo Evans, deputy secretary for the Department of Environment and Energy, told a Senate hearing on Monday that deciding whether climate change is “bad” is “a judgement call and a matter of opinion”. She even went so far to say that some parts of the world may find climate change working to their “advantage”.
A quick search of Evans’ LinkedIn reveals she has only ever handed out one endorsement, recommending Mark Bonner — the climate change policy director at the controversial Minerals Council of Australia — for providing “well researched and argued policy advice”.
According to the post, Bonner and Evans worked together on a project in 2017 — before Bonner’s stint at the Minerals Council started.
The Minerals Council is renowned for being a major climate change denier — recently making InfluenceMap’s list of the world’s top 10 biggest climate policy opponents. Clearly, any kind of association with the council doesn’t bode well for those, like Evans, working in the environmental sector.
And while the public service is technically non-political, Evans’ comments fall into line with Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s views: just last week he accused the UN of unfairly pushing Australia to meet higher emissions targets, and has previously blamed the media for misrepresenting Australia’s climate change record.
To be fair, “If you want frank and fealess advice that backs your gut-prejudices, you have to stack the deck giving that impartial advice”.
Public servants must protect the status quo of their ministry and phrase their reports in the language of the Minister of the day. Jo Bonner is being very bold in using the term “climate change” to a government that denies the phenomenon. Further, by applying value terms such as good and bad, she risks implying that the government should actually do something about it. There are rumblings deep in the monolith; you can hear the teacups rattling.
Jo Evans, not …
An easy mistake to make Roger, as it does sound like their heads are interchangeable.
Does not sound impartial or considered.
‘Climate change is OK because Canada, maybe’ is extraordinarily persuasive stuff.
Imagine getting all the way to the top of a department just to argue like that.