By Dr Chris Edmond
IT’S certainly been an eventful few months since I last wrote a column. Very much out with the old and in with the new for 2024.
Since the vote of no confidence was announced, there have been extensive column inches given over to discussing our political system, personality politics, and the benefits – or otherwise – of political parties. The general consensus, which I don’t fundamentally disagree with, is that our system is too vulnerable to policy by individual whim rather than evidence and consensus.
In any case, democracy relies on understanding the will of the people. While political parties may be one way of achieving this, I do have concerns that a party system, particularly with a majority party, would naturally exclude minority voices. It will certainly be interesting to watch whether our new government – a slightly awkward combination of independents and a party not naturally politically aligned with them – can hold together and create a unified strategic direction.
Whoever forms our government, and whatever the structure, I generally have a few principles that guide my own thinking:
1) The role of government should be to support and facilitate citizen action, not to dominate it – I believe people come together in unpredictable, creative, enterprising and wonderful ways given the opportunity and space.
2) Where government does need to intervene, policies should target the greatest good for the greatest number, while also levelling the playing field to support disadvantaged groups.
3) Policy should be based on evidence, and it’s okay to change policy when the evidence changes.
4) Policy should focus on the long-term – we should want to leave the world in a better state than we found it.
Science, like policy, should be evidence-based. Science relies on the objective evaluation of evidence, through experiment and careful observation, and the constant evolution of theories to better understand reality. The scientific method purposefully discounts authority – it matters not if a paper is written by a Nobel Prize winner, or PhD student, good science is open to critique and criticism (as is good policy making come to think of it).
Having a keen interest in public health, I am also well aware of how research sponsored by drug companies, gambling companies, alcohol and fast-food manufacturers and similar have all resulted in skewed academic output that has had a tendency to minimise the harms of their relative industries and products. Being open about such conflicts is a key feature of scientific evidence and its evaluation.
On that basis, I took particular interest in the recent letters and articles from members of the Jersey Climate Forum referring to two Nobel prize winners, among 1,800 other scientists, supporting a declaration from the Global Climate Intelligence Group that there isn’t, in fact, a climate emergency.
Unfortunately, that isn’t how science works. Many of the 1,800 or so who signed the declaration either do not work in fields related to climate change, have clear links to fossil fuel industries, or are no longer active in scientific work. Whenever scientific arguments are based on opinion or personality, rather than evidence, they can usually be quickly rejected. The chair of Jersey Climate Forum also happens to have involvement with an oil and gas exploration firm.
On the other hand, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with representatives from 195 countries, has over many years objectively assessed the best available science and warns that we are approaching climate breakdown. In Jersey, our government responded by listening to views through a Citizen’s Assembly, and settled on meaningful goals through a Carbon Neutral Roadmap. This approach was both scientifically and democratically valid.
Our previous Environment Minister then took further action, including consulting on a Marine Spatial Plan (possibly the most well researched and structured government document I have read on any topic) and Offshore Wind infrastructure.
Where politics and science overlap can be a controversial space. While science can be uncertain, the policy response is also open to a range of political pressures, including financial. But we should aim not to confuse the two and politicians need to keep a clear head, be aware of conflicts and balancing the needs of the many, not the few. Deputy Jonathan Renouf did an excellent job in this area and was also able – as he did with the tree law – to reflect and change direction when required.
In contrast, last week saw Dr John Constable, energy director at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, give a presentation on behalf of the Jersey Climate Forum, extolling the virtues of fossil fuels as the engine for economic growth and decrying a fall in energy consumption in the west (identifying energy consumption as the marker of societal progress). I note Dr Constable makes a great deal in online presentations of his Cambridge education (a PhD in English). I too have a Cambridge degree (in medicine), but wouldn’t for a second think it relevant to this debate. What Dr Constable does seem to be particularly accomplished at is mistaking association for causation throughout his analyses of the drivers of economic and societal growth.
In any case, while fossil fuel use certainly resulted in great innovation and progress over recent centuries, we now live in a different world – wealth increasingly centralised in a few individuals and corporations, a broken food system and public health crises, and now global turmoil and frequent major weather events. Increasing shareholder value and GDP should not be the be-all and end-all in this current world. We must consider evidence-based policy options that benefit the majority as well as the planet – and we seemed to making good progress under the previous Environment Minister.
Unsurprisingly, Dr Constable is not without his own conflicts of interest. His organisation is based out of 55 Tufton Street, London, linked to powerful pro-Brexit, free-market libertarian organisations with opaque funding and significant controversy.
I prefer for my policymakers, and their advisers, to have respect for both the scientific process and democratic values. Our previous Environment Minister was doing an excellent job in that respect, and I hope our new government can continue in the same vein.
-
Dr Chris Edmond is the founder and medical director of WorkHealth (CI) Ltd, a dedicated Jersey-based occupational health provider. He is also a director at Jersey Sport and Jersey Recovery College, and adviser to the Jersey Community Foundation. He writes in a personal capacity.
