State of denial

Some people think that the term "state of denial" applies solely to how the Bush administration avoided telling the truth about Iraq to the public, to Congress and often to itself.

Others in Malta argue that it applies rightly or wrongly to hunters and Malta Drydocks workers.

But if we argue that way we would end up in a state of denial ourselves too.

I saw this happen before the summer recess when within the span of 20 minutes one Cabinet minister tried to reassure the House that government has done more than its fair share to address the climate change issue while another one argued in sharp contrast that we would be only kidding ourselves were we to con ourselves into believing that alternative energy could in any way mitigate our near total dependence on oil.

One would only be doing so at his own risk were one to choose to downplay the importance of climate change.

Recently an eminent person argued that both British Labour and the opposition Conservatives have seized on the issue, devoting even more time to the ozone layer than to British troops in Iraq. While an analyst of a leading influential magazine claimed that the world is now more worried about climate change than a repeat of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. I say so without in any way implying that I support nuclear energy in the Mediterranean in general and even more specifically to address our own energy security needs.

But the worst case of a "state of denial" one can come across is when we come face to face with the so-called global warming deniers. I was somewhat perturbed that one of them even turned up by way of a contribution by a regular columnist of the Maltese governing party's daily newspaper.

While in Malta we have even had a well-heeled pro-government lobbyist quoting the Daily Mail, of all newspapers, against the climate change issue, the most preoccupying fact is that it is common knowledge in environmental circles that the arguments of climate sceptics have largely been moulded by a number of conservative think-tanks, mainly but not exclusively US-based.

Worrying indeed is that in the same way atheistic books like The God Delusion are breaking all best-seller records on both sides of the Atlantic, a number of climate-sceptic books including the ironically titled An Appeal To Reason by Nigel Lawson have been riding high in the sales charts.

Those who think that these could be just views from the fringe are mistaken. It has recently been established that four out of five of Amazon's top sellers on climate were penned by deniers.

I distinguish between the views of genuine global warming deniers and those moulded by conservative think-tanks for one simple reason. That the driving force behind these books, "studies" and articles are hidden-agenda-led.

A journal called Environmental Politics argued that far from being a true grass roots movement, "environmental skepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement".

A recent academic survey of environmentally sceptical books found that 92 per cent were linked with these think-tanks, which include the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

In a free world where a free press dominates, everyone should be ideally entitled to their own point of view, but the whole rationale earns itself an added sinister new dimension when one realises that industry-funded front groups have been leading an anti-environmental backlash, "changing the tenor of the political debate on environmental issues and bombarding the media and the public with disinformation".

The world's largest energy companies are still reported to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund European organisations that seek to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on global warming and undermine support for legislation to curb emission of greenhouse gases. Data collated by a Brussels-based watchdog reveals that one particular multinational oil company has actually put money into projects that criticise the Kyoto Treaty and question the findings of scientific groups.

When I recently asked a leading US-based environmentalist how come Texas-based oil companies are trying to influence opinion makers in Brussels rather than on their own home turf, the reply I got was that Europe - rather than the US - is considered to be the driving force for action on climate change.

I repeat, there is nothing wrong in freedom of expression, but when certain - not all - EU-focused think-tanks are heavily funded by corporations one cannot blame anyone for raising serious concerns about their agenda and independence.

Mr Brincat is the Malta Labour Party's spokesman on the environment.

leo.brincat@gov.mt