Copenhagen: red herring or lame duck?

Published in The Australian Financial Review

The Business Council of Australia and the Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull are in conflict over when the Parliament should vote on an emissions trading scheme (“Copenhagen a ‘red herring'”, 25 August). All sides are divided. Copenhagen is not a red herring but a lame duck because everyone is focused on the wrong vote.

A vote by experts is the only robust way to measure expert opinion on the science and economics of global warming. Without it no one has authority to represent the experts and the most basic questions of climate change science and economics will remain unanswered. Vested interests will determine the outcome. It may be a dangerous overreaction or expensive and useless under-reaction to the actual threat.

The public has a right, and policy makers an obligation, to really know expert opinion on the issue. And the expert opinion that matters is the current consensus of experts and its sensitivity to change. Accurate reliable measurement of this consensus is a critical bit of scientific data missing from the debate.

The IPPC attempts to be the authority on the science. However the IPCC’s measurements of scientific opinion are neither robust nor objective, regardless of intention. The use of working groups is an efficient way to condense peer reviewed scientific papers and other material into a single less technical report. However this process does not guarantee that the authors of the scientific papers endorse the IPCC reports. The process also excludes the views of many scientists qualified to comment on the published research. Without the vote doubts remain and its voice weakened.

Financial derivatives risk theory is based on robust arbitrage pricing formula. Yet the “rocket scientists” in banking led the world into an economic fire storm with an unscientific risk measure called value at risk, without real debate or a vote. Neither the climate scientists or economists have risk measurement models remotely as accurate as the financial scientists — another reason not to repeat the same errors in open debate and opinion measurement.

The Parliament should require scientists and economists to vote online before it votes. Have all relevant scientific and economic bodies invite their members to participate in a regular global and secure vote. Give every expert equal control over the voting agenda. Make the voting records, credentials and funding sources of each expert transparent. Let the vote to run continuously enabling experts to revise their votes any time. Technically there is no risk or reason to delay a vote. It could start today.

Published version - AFR - 3 Sep 2009

Tags: climate change, e vote, emissions trading scheme, evote, global warming, online vote, Online voting, Value at Risk, VAR