Unbiased debate needed

Effusive thanks to Prof Philip Lloyd for pointing out in his letter (German energy problems, January 31) my reliance on “a very old Reuters report” of July 5 2016, in rebutting Rob Jeffrey’s ode to coal and nuclear in last week’s Business Day. And more thanks still for directing me to his fulsomely quoted shiny new article by Dr Fritz Vahrenholt, published by The Global Warming Policy Forum on January 10 2017.

Dr Vahrenholt, a chemistry PhD (not a climatologist) who used to work for Shell, is a prominent climate-change denier who joined the Academic Advisory Council of the aforementioned Global Warming Policy Forum in July 2014. Of course, back then they were the GWP Foundation, set up by ex-chancellor Lord Dominic Lawson, only changing their name to forum after the Charity Commission ruled that the GWP Foundation, whose financial backers are a closely guarded secret, had breached rules on impartiality, blurred fact and comment, and demonstrated a clear bias.

This academic advisory council, which started out headquartered in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, has been described as a “who’s who of current climate-change sceptics”, while with regard to their methods, it has been noted that “in [the US] Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate-change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science”.

Which, of course, brings us back to Rob Jeffrey, Prof Philip Lloyd and Dr Vahrenholt.

“Wind is expensive!” and “Energiewende is an economic disaster!”, they scream. Again, the huge external costs of coal and nuclear are ignored. More ridiculously, Germany is portrayed as analogous to SA. Yes, currently wind power requires subsidies in Germany, a conscious ethical decision by the German people, and perhaps it would here. But let us reiterate that the Northern Cape has abundant sunshine throughout the year, The Bokpoort facility has demonstrated that solar power is 100% dispatchable, and costs are likely to continue tumbling for the forseeable future.

Debate is wonderful, but it would be of great assistance to me, and your readers, if Business Day could do more to publicise the partisan agendas of those who are given free rein in your opinion pages, rather than disingenuously labelling them as “independent economic consultants”, when their published work reveals them to be anything but. Simon Rhoades Vredehoek