Cut those waste-of-time academic projects? Not a moment too soon.
If the Coalition wins the election they want to refocus the Australian Research Council (ARC). The first “wasteful” project mentioned is about adapting to climate change through public art. What a good omen…
Some ARC funds appear to be nothing more than disguised government advertising. That has to stop.
MILLIONS of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants for obscure research projects – such as the role of public art in climate change – will be scrapped or redirected to find cures for dementia and other diseases as part of a Coalition crackdown on government waste.
And a further $1.1 billion is expected to be returned to the budget bottom line from the scrapping of the carbon tax, under the Coalition election promises costings to be released today.
The Daily Telegraph can reveal that as part of the Coalition’s budget savings measures, a dedicated team will be formed under its proposed Commission of Audit to re-prioritise about $900 million in annual Australian Research Council grants.
The Daily Telegraph can reveal that a list of the types of grants that would no longer be funded under new and more stringent guidelines for the ARC included an RMIT project on Spatial Dialogues: Public Art and Climate Change which sought to explore how people could adapt to climate change through public art.
Coalition sources also cited as waste several grants worth more than $1 million into philosophical studies including the meaning of “I” through a retrospective study of 18th and 19th century German existentialists.
Perhaps we can suggest a few wasteful grants from the ARC grants list
- ARC Discovery Projects are listed here
- ARC Linkage Projects are listed here (Linkage just means the projects are co-funded by another department or another group as well).
Grants from the most recent round, copied below, include ones aiming for cultural transformation, climate governance, and a discussion of legal paths used to try to stop the use of coal. Lawyers who want to help the UNFCCC stop a major Australian industry can apply for grants from the ARC?
Why are we spending $800k to transform our culture?
Who decides what kind of culture we ought to have? Who voted for broader “societal change”?
————————————
DP130102229 Kashima, Prof Yoshihisa; Paladino, A/Prof Angela; Sewell, Dr David K PSYCHOLOGY The University of Melbourne
Project Title Collective self-regulation: the case of climate change mitigation
Total $410,137.00
Project Summary
Solutions to contemporary societal problems such as climate change mitigation require cultural transformations, namely, widespread changes in the ideas and practices of community members. This project will examine how people may achieve this in part by regulating their own temptations and actions for the good of the community.
—————————————
DP130100845 Kashima, Prof Yoshihisa; Robins, Prof Garry L; Kirley, Dr Michael G; Kashima, Dr Emiko S;
Peters, Dr Kim PSYCHOLOGY The University of Melbourne
Project Title Co-evolutionary dynamics of culture and social structure
Total $414,444.00
Project Summary
Solutions to contemporary societal problems require cultural transformations, namely widespread changes in the ideas and practices of community members. This project will establish a new social scientific framework for the analysis of such transformations. Outcomes will aid future policy planning to steer the course of broader societal change.
—————————————
This project shows just how deep the ARC-nanny-state funding goes
Why are research funds used to help pay for lawyers to assist in stopping our largest export industry, and possibly to advise activists on legal action to further UN aims based on a scientific assumption that has not been audited and for which there is no empirical evidence?
DP130100500 Peel, A/Prof Jacqueline; Osofsky, A/Prof Hari M
Project Title: Transition to a clean energy future: the role of climate change litigation in shaping our regulatory path LAW The University of Melbourne
Total $250,000.00
Project Summary
As the world seeks a clean energy future, courts in Australia and other key fossil fuel-producing nations, like the United States, are increasingly hearing cases seeking to block the use of coal due to its climate change effects. This project critically assesses the role such climate litigation plays in generating regulatory momentum to address climate change.
In an earlier publication Peel and others explain how litigation can be used to get new laws to respond to inadequate law-making activity (“inadequate” as defined by whom?). Isn’t this funding designed to oppose the democratic process?
“Litigation is often thought of as a forum for enforcement of the law, rather than as a site of potential regulatory development. In the climate context, however, litigation has often been used in a strategic fashion as a response to inadequate law-making activity by government and to prompt wider policy change.”
- The role of litigation in multilevel climate change governance: Possibilities for a lower carbon future?. Environmental and Planning Law Journal. 30:303-328. 2013
Imagine a conservative government funding lawyers looking at ways to use litigation to reduce UN influence, to block the use of government funds to subsidize the renewables industry, or to use legal cases to assist citizens wanting to respond to onerous or overly burdensome legislation? The only difference between them being that the conservatives could argue that it was in Australian citizens interests to reduce subsidies, reduce foreign unelected bodies influence and to help provide a balance and check against overactive government.
The abstract to the publication (May 2012) about Climate Governance (linked above):
Abstract
As international negotiations struggle to deliver timely, binding commitments to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to safe levels, the environmental legal community has begun to
contemplate the scope for climate governance ‘beyond’ the international climate change
regime. Many see merit in a more decentralized, disaggregated approach, operating across
multiple governance levels. This article examines the development of climate change law in an era
of multi-level governance. It analyzes several case studies of current manifestations of multi-level
governance in climate change law, including the fragmented global emissions trading system,
developing arrangements governing forests and land-based sinks, the growth of climate litigation
establishing transnational liability principles, efforts to ensure adaptation to unavoidable climate
change, and the emergence in federal systems of a decentralized approach to climate change
regulation. The article concludes by considering whether the emerging multi-level system of
climate governance is adequate to meet broader international goals of climate change mitigation
and adaptation.
Activists for bigger government get taxpayer funded legal advice on how to get what they want. The playing field is tilted towards growing the government ever larger. This is why even if the Conservatives defund these type of projects now, there will still be paid positions going right up til the next election working against citizens who want a smaller government. (The funding listed here is paid in parts from 2013 -2015).
The other publications of Peel are listed here.
—————————————
The election has not been won or lost yet.
H/t To Brice. 🙂
It is the prerogative of the Crown, through its delegated Ministers to make and review the law. It is the job of the courts to interpret and administer the law as it stands.
They are suggesting that the separation of powers – a key constitutional safeguard – is being, and should be, subverted. I can’t speak for Australia, but that would be a serious matter in the UK.
210
Sorry for the divergence but this is from commentor the sunshine grocer Thu 05 Sep 13 (11:27am)at the Andrew Bolt Blog:
I’d love to know more about their internal policies of bias … seems like the prejudice is well entrenched throughout the ABC.
310
If I were in attendance with the three magpies, I’d tell them it’s just possible that Lord Monckton’s eyes bulge because he sees the holes in the (C)AGW arguments and can’t believe the stupidity of people, like yourselves, who buy into that crap. With luck, that would have made three pairs of eyes fall out of their sockets.
10
Don’t have to look far to find some doozies:
Yes we are now trying to connect horribly flawed GCM models to weather… embarrassing to say the least. The following looks like money to be well spent…
It’s SciFi all right… Oh and looky here … a couple of familiar names:
100
More sociology bunkum:
130
outstanding questions!
Who decides what kind of culture we ought to have? Who voted for broader “societal change”?
The really sad part is I don’t think the advocates of ‘broader societal change’ even know what that would entail.
Where’s the evidence of a better culture and a better society that has undergone ‘broader societal change’ via political decree and legislation? I can only find societies who went through a great deal of unnecessary pain and heartache.
When there are genuine rebellions against foreign authoritarianism (such as The American War of Independence) there is evidence of benefits to society…but that’s not we’re talking about here is it?
180
Debbie,
There is a whole bunch of people being churned out by our universities that get to decide, they are of a higher moral standing than the rest.
If culture is changed by legislation and political decree then you have socilism, for a brief period as you head towards communism.
Think Greens in both instances, they always take the moral high ground and you are wrong simply because they are right, look at the Greens policies (raise taxation on rich to give to poor etc).
Another waste of money is the Greens gave the “greens” (no relation) at Adelaide Uni 5K for jumpers (green one i think) and the rest was spent on a piss up, now how many uni’s in this country with a green uni political party time 5K?
140
Ha ha! 🙂
Higher moral standing 🙂
Good one Crakar. . . . Loved it.
I think Saturday’s results may deliver what Australia has decided about those ‘higher moral standards’. 🙂
70
University staff can be cut. Too many “sustainability” and “environment” operatives. vis e.g. this Press Release from UWA.
In order to “save trees”, they’re encouraging the gullible to spend $10 on reusable coffee beaker (I’m sorry; they’re not “cups” if they don’t have a proper handle). A colourful, plastic beaker for $10.
Reusable? Given how careful students generally are with personal hygiene, I see no problem lurking at all with the reuse of a warm, moist drinking vessel. /sarc
Estimated number of trees “saved” after 4 months: Four (4).
Convince me that that statistic of reduced sales of coffee in disposable cups is caused by the (unspecified) sale of branded, reusable petri dishes.
I note, as I compose this message, that the Church of Climatology is currently in session on the Oak Lawn at UWA, organized by the
deludeddisciples of the AYCC.160
The drop in coffee cups used is probably less than the rate of drop in student numbers during the semester.
100
Jeez Bernard, you, me and Jo are graduates of UWA. What the hell has happened to the place?
40
It’s always been something of a circus. Very few clowns were running the circus back then; but the clowns’ guild eventually managed to place their agents in positions of actual power.
Engineers used to be able to retreat to their side of the Oval, but now that Environmental Engineering has infiltrated every corner, beginning (I guess) via JImberger’s water research in Civil Engineering, there is no refuge and undergrad’s have to keep their heads down lest they have to pay a shirtload more money to complete their degree.
As the last B.E. will soon be escaping from academia; new Engineering students have to “enjoy” both a graduate and post-graduate course while running of the gauntlet for a minimum of 5 years of persistent indoctrination that only the stubborn and the insane can resist.
Henry Lawson wrote:
UWA no longer seems like a place that could produce many good Engineers. 🙁
10
But how will we know if future public art installations will float in rising sea levels if we dont do the research?
/sarcasm off
140
Some will float regardless, winning the booby prize.
121
If they float – it’s witchcraft!
00
I remember in the early 1980s when Malcolm Fraser’s Razor Gang got stuck into the Public Service. No more paydays where you were paid in cash. No more tea ladies. Later on no more typing pools as you did it yourself! Ah the good old days!
This time, The Department of Climate Change has to go, of course.
161
given the funding is being sought on account of INCREASES IN EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS WHICH AREN’T OCCURING, why not scrap all this funding?
5 Sept: The Conversation: Who should fund Australia’s adaptation to climate change?
by Roger Jones, Professorial Research Fellow at Victoria University
Disclosure Statement
Roger Jones has received funding from both the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation Research.
We’re already seeing an increase in extreme weather, and climate models predict we’ll see more in the future, costing us potentially billions of dollars…
In light of this, the shadow minister for climate change Greg Hunt announced A$9 million for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility in Queensland, or NCCARF.
NCCARF has come to the end of its first five years of funding without renewal, and has been running on a skeleton staff. The funding announced by the Coalition may give the facility a new lease on life, but when it comes to adapting to climate change, is this enough?…
Victoria is the most organised state, funding the Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation Research supported by the state adaptation plan, with South Australia closely behind.
However, in Queensland, one of Campbell Newman’s first actions as premier was to close the Office of Climate Change…
Given the damage and loss currently being experienced from extreme climate events, adaptation is too important to be a political orphan, or a bargaining chip between the commonwealth and the states.
http://theconversation.com/who-should-fund-australias-adaptation-to-climate-change-17595
About the author:
Roger Jones is a Professorial Research Fellow at the Centre for Strategic Economic Studies (CSES) at Victoria University, joining VU in early 2009. Previously he worked for CSIRO for thirteen years. Trained as an earth scientist, he now applies an interdisciplinary focus to understanding climate change risk, bridging science, economics and policy, particularly in developing methodologies for assessing adaptation and mitigation strategies for managing climate change risks. These have been used widely in Australia and internationally, contributing to the Australian Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, the United Nations Development Program Adaptation Policy Frameworks and a range of individual projects. He is a coordinating Lead Author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group II Fifth Assessment Report Chapter on Foundations of Decision-making.
40
who funds these junkets, & when was there biodiversity outside a “changing climate”?
City of Joondalup: 2013 International BiodiverCities Conference
9-11 September
Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate
The City of Joondalup in collaboration with the ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability and the Western Australian Local Government Association is pleased to be hosting the 2013 International BiodiverCities Conference.
This three day conference will be held on the 9-11 September 2013 at the Joondalup Resort, Perth, Western Australia. Not only will you get to enjoy an extensive conference program but it will be Spring and wildflower season, a perfect time to visit Western Australia to see the diverse array of native wildflowers bloom in spectacular colour…
The first day of the conference will be opened by Professor Tim Flannery, awarded the 2007 Australian of the Year Award for his outstanding contribution to research on climate change and the environment…
Our keynote speaker line-up to date: …
http://www.joondalup.wa.gov.au/Live/Environment/BiodiversityConference2013.aspx
20
4 Sept: Bellingham Herald Politics Blog, Washington State: by Ralph Schwartz:
Going to global warming school
This blogger will come back armed with more climate truth.
This Thursday and Friday I will be out of the office and in Seattle instead, participating in the Metcalf Institute’s Climate Change Seminar for Journalists. I was fortunate enough to be selected for this free two-day seminar with speakers who are luminaries in science, environmentalism and even on the local scene…
Some of you will be disappointed to learn that Dr. Don Easterbrook isn’t on the speaker list…
A rundown of the lucky journalist-participants in the seminar, with bios, can be found here (LINK)…
(2 COMMENTS)
COMMENT #1: I’m gonna assume that opposing viewpoint won’t be discussed?
You’re a hack that claims to be a journalist
COMMENT #2: Sponsored by the grantham foundation, huh? How objective. Ralph, you’re a tool. Writing advocacy pieces for the lackeys of the herald is no way for a self-respecting journalist to make a difference. You’re an errand boy for a tabloid…
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/09/04/3185215/going-to-global-warming-school.html
20
5 Sept: WUWT: Statistical proof of ‘the pause’ – Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
Commentary from Nature Climate Change, by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comments
10
The election has not been won or lost yet.
It’s not over until someone sets fire to the dwarf.
50
What would Tyrion do?
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f69/johndborra/tyrion-lannister-1024.jpg
Can’t spell pimp without imp /nod
20
abc needs to correct the typo in the first mention of the carbon price rise factored in:
4 Sept: ABC Lateline: Coalition will repeal carbon tax in government
GREG HUNT: The tax goes from 424 to $38 on their own budgetary estimates, reinforced only a few weeks ago…
GREG HUNT: What we see from the Labor Party is a $58 billion tax instead between now and 2020 and they’ve got a choice. They have to say do they stand by the fact that it’s going from $24 to $38 and therefore a 50 per cent increase in the tax or will they miss their budget projections…
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3841419.htm
30
Some great news…….
Coalition is not just cutting, but ending green waste:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/coalition_is_not_just_cutting_but_ending_green_waste/
This is a good start, but, THEY MUST ABOLISH THE DEPARTMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE as a high priority.
That alone would save hundreds of millions of dollars!!
82
The current alp(Australian LIARS PARTY)/greens (REDS) have wasted taxpayers money on CRAP like “public art in climate change” !
UNBELIEVABLE!
Thank god that this is being defunded …..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/coalition_to_switch_funding_from_warmists_to_people_with_other_illnesses/
82
It’s OK to have a laugh a some of the crazy research subjects, but it conceals a greater problem.
Broadly speaking, academic freedom is a subset of freedom of speech. I will defend to the point of ridicule and inconvenience their right to research what they want, and I am even willing to have some of my taxes pay for some things I personally find risible. Over my lifetime I have seen some projects which were, on the first reading, fairly silly, but which proved later to be only a little ahead of public opinion. One which I recall in the early 1980s, on the ecology of roadsides attracted a fair bit of ridicule, but who would question its relevance today?
On the other hand, there needs to be some balance. Perhaps simply restaffing the research Council with a better balanced mix of reviewers, but leaving the decisions without political influence is the answer.
44
Academic freedom you say? Tell that to the hundreds of academics who missed out on THE LIMITED FUNDS AVAILABLE because so much of it was flushed down the toilet of global warming.
I believe in freedom of speech and academic freedom too, but when institutions have been infested with sandal wearing, tree hugging ‘progressive’ leftards, it’s time to pull their chains, even if it means a restriction on their ‘academic’ freedoms.
I’d much rather the freedom of having a say into where my hard earned tax dollars go.
90
You get what you vote for. Unfortunately in the UK, we have a whole other level of bureaucracy above what we can control, based in Brussels. They have taken the system of paying the ngos to lobby for the changes the bureaucrats themselves want to extremes. The only way to sort out the mess is to scrap the lot and start again from scratch.
120
Don’t need to redirect that cash to find signs of dementia — cures may be harder.
70
Priceless!!!
40
From Der Spiegel. It seems that if you want “renewables2 to work – you need more “brown coal” power stations.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html#ref=nl-international
40
Not content with slashing the budgets of government departments, the Coalition are keen to clamp down on the budgets of private industry too:
Where are these companies that have money growing on trees? Apparently the Liberal-in-name-only party believes it can run companies better than the company’s own management. Well quit your day jobs, politicians, and go and do something productive for a change like company management! Seems the capitalists hate the unions so much they will even create greater regulation on capitalists to hobble Union collective bargaining. Credit to the IPA for noticing the irony.
Of course the “liberal in name only” party have devised more ways to advance totalitarian socialism under the guise of “protecting the children”. Tip of the hat to MattB for noticing this very recent announcement:
So BOTH the Labor and Liberal-in-name-only party believe they know how to run a company better than the company managers, and how to raise children better than their parents.
Somehow everything will get better under an LNP government?? How??
It’s all well and good that a few hundred mill of climate research waste will be cut out, but the Liberal-in-name-only Party is giving money with one hand while taking money and freedom with the other.
04
Look no further than the car manufacturing industry. Holden and Ford have received hundreds of millions in subsidies, only to spend most of it on overly generous pay rises to the strong unionised workers.
FFS, these companies don’t even have the right to hire and fire workers without union approval.
So there you go, a couple of companies with money growing on a tree species called taxus payersus
40
That’s how GM management managed to stuff up the company completely. Give in to union thugs because it is easier than fighting. Obviously there weren’t any Kipling fans in management.
It would be better to abolish the Fair Work Commission and let wages and conditions be set by agreement between an employer and employee. In Australia in 2013 nobody needs to work in a job where they don’t like the pay and conditions. Anyone is free to find another job or start his or her own business.
30
Well perhaps my numerous detractors will be reassured that I and the rest of the thinking universe were far too quick to rush to judgement on this Coalition Internet filtering announcement. We’re not sure how it happened, indeed there is zero explanation for how their policy was “poorly worded” or how it somehow accidentally tragically unmistakenly ended up saying the policy was the exact and total opposite of what they intended, but the Party Faithful may rest assured that the policy has been re-worded.
See, they said “opt out”, but hehehe, gosh darn it, they really meant “opt in” all along. Honest.
Now if they could refrain from using 11 million people as a focus group for testing totalitarian policies that would be very much appreciated.
00
You have no idea what “useless academic climate projects” are. I would record some of the United States projects here, although people would vomit all over the floor, so I will withhold this experience.
30
I’m beginning to think Stephan Lewandowsky is smarter than I thought. (On reflection, how could that not be true?) Maybe he saw the writing on the wall and got out of Oz while the getting was good.
In the US we pay for our education system (K through 12) primarily via property taxes. I’ve often pondered how I could justify forcing my childless neighbor to pay for my child’s education. The best answer I’ve come across is that the US is a Republic where the citizenry elect officials to enact, adjudicate and enforce the laws we must all live by. An educated populace is necessary for such a system to work. Since everyone benefits from our form of government, everyone must pay. Fair enough–at least with respect to funding reading, writing, mathematics, history, economics, science, etc. But the connection between a high school football team and/or a marching band and the continued existence of our Republic is a stretch. I’m not against football, marching bands, or a million other activities. I just believe those activities should be funded not by the general populace but by the people who benefit and participate in them. I raised three girls who competed on the high school swim team. The effort definitely benefited my girls, but I see little if any benefit to my childless neighbors. Since my girls benefited and my neighbor didn’t, shouldn’t I, and not he/she, pay the costs?
I read once (I believe in a Rex Stout Nero Wolfe mystery) that governments spend money for three reasons: (1) because they need to, (2) because they want to, and (3) because they have it to spend. If I ran the world, governments would spend money for (1), and occasionally, but infrequently spend money for (2); but they would be barred by law from spending money for (3). Spending money simply because “it is there” rapidly deteriorates into “vote buying”–where the damage far outweighs the benefits.
Good luck Australia. May your upcoming election stem the tide of socialism that to me seems to be taking over the world.
70
Hi Jo,
James Delingpole has a post (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100234054/if-you-still-believe-in-climate-change-read-this/) that highlights a paper by Jamie Whyte, Quack Policy – Abusing Science in the Cause of Paternalism that should be mandatory reading for all concerned with scientific research.
There is also a good defense of this paper by Christoper Snowdon, The Bluff of Evidence Based Policy
20
And after the disgraceful research grant process is cleaned up the next arena is taxpayer funded University courses and/or HECS-HELP funding of students to undertake ‘mickey mouse’ courses.
40
and while we are about it, limit the intake of ‘law’ undergraduates.
30
Over at the taxpayer funded ‘theconversation‘ a post titled, “Who should fund Australia’s adaptation to climate change?”
.
This is about the shadow minister for climate change Greg Hunt announcing A$9 million for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility in Queensland, or NCCARF.
My question to the author, who is funded by NCCARF and active in comments:
“In 4 years since it’s bi-partisan inception, NCCARF has produced 200 papers relating to climate change. I encourage you to show me I am wrong, which I will gladly acknowledge, but perusing though the list, and clicking on some (not all yet), NONE so far address the adaption to a cooling climate, which is a possibility. The current “pause in warming” was unseen, for example. Link to 200 papers at this GU link:”
.
Nothing yet. Why fund a science department geared to a pre-determined outcome? That is not science.
40
A question that Jo didn’t ask and one I really should delve about to answer is “What is the percentage of the total ARC funded grants per year that relate to some aspect of climate change in the period 1993 to 2012?” Years are chosen not to cherry pick as SkS often accuses others of doing but is a randomly selected 20 year period. Personally I’d bet there’ll be a hockey stick in there somewhere
40
RE:
as climate change mitigation require cultural transformations, namely, widespread changes in the ideas and practices of community members. This project will examine how people may achieve this in part by regulating their own temptations and actions for the good of the community.
Because they realize anyone with common sense is going to tell them to piss off. Therefore they need creative methods to fool or brainwash people into doing what they otherwise wouldn’t.
00
congratulations australia,hopefully you will now lead the rest of the world into understanding of the great global warming swindle.
i have just sent a letter or complaint to the bbc in the uk for their selective tv coverage of the oz election.
the only reference to the major policy of scrapping the3 carbon tax was a quick mention that john abbott was a climate sceptic.
considering this was a major issue in the pre election debate i cannot understand how the bbc could avoid this.
in my opinion it was a deliberate attempt to stop the general public in the uk from learning that a major government within the developed world was taking an opposing view to that of co2 induced cAGW.
10
[…] change’. This message was amplified by the Murdoch press and climate denial bloggers such as Jo Nova. More recently, Government cuts to CSIRO funding have been reported as resulting in major […]
00