In a story in the Washington Post, President Bush's top science advisor, John Marburger III, admits that human activity is producing too much carbon dioxide and that it could induce disasters even before the Earth is warmed by two more degrees C.
From the article:
The IPCC outlined a range of environmental impacts that could transpire if temperatures rise 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above 1980 levels. These include placing between 20 and 30 percent of all species "at increasing risk of extinction" damaging most coral reefs; and
"increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts."
Yet Margburger and the Bush administration refuse to join other leaders of the world community in their commitment to limit warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. What is his excuse? It "is going to be a very difficult one to achieve and is not actually linked to regional events that affect people's lives."
He's right about the first part of his statement - it will be very difficult to achieve, but the second part of his statement is completely illogical. Global climate is simply the sum of all the regional climates, so global climate change is inherently defined by the collection of changes to regional climates.
Maybe what he was trying to say is that he isn't concerned about climate change because wealthier people (and wealthier countries like the U.S.) are expected to be less devastated by climate change. Many people agree that the poorest people of the world are going to suffer the most from climate change (though the wealthiest people of the world are largely responsible for climate change.)
So maybe the real reason the Bush administration is dodging commitment to prevent or even mitigate climate change is: "It is going to be very difficult to achieve, and we don't care about the global effects of climate change - only the effects it will have on the U.S; and we'll just deal with those when they come." Well, even if you agree with this globally irresponsible, tyrannically isolationist view, do you really trust the Bush administration to be able to deal with it's own domestic climate disasters (think: hurricane Katrina)?
Finally, the title of this blog promised some good news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101802452.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Unlike the Bush administration, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment has acknowledged the importance of addressing climate change. On the grounds that coal-fired power plants emit carbon dioxide, they refused to offer a permit for the construction of a new power plant. In contrast to the Bush administration, the Kansas state government made a bold statement to the energy industry that the people want clean energy, not just cheap energy.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Good News, Bad News on Climate Change Policy in the U.S.
Labels:
alternative energy,
climate change,
policy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
At the risk of straying too far from the climate change topic, this ties in to the greater 'political interference in science' debate. In 1995, funding was shut off for the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). OTA used to analyze technical information and break it down for policymakers to digest. This left Congress lacking in access to a source of science and technology information independent of the executive branch. The Office of Science and Technology Policy, which Marburger heads, is what remains. There has been concern in the scientific and science policy community that OSTP 'toes the line' for the administration, instead of objectively analyzing science and then making recommendations based on the science. Marburger has vigorously denied claims of political interference in science at government agencies, but we've seen evidence to the contrary. The same issue arises at with the position of Surgeon General. Does the public expect the Surgeon General to be able to make recommendations without political pressure? Idealistic though it may be, that's certainly what I want to see. The same goes for Marburger's position. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has done a much better job (though not perfect) at insulating their work from political pressures.
Thanks for the background and your perspective on the communication between science and policy makers in the U.S. government.
Your point about the IPCC leads me to believe that governments (and the general public) need an effective way to communicate with the "general consensus" of the scientific community. Currently, the magazines, Hollywood, politicians, and religious leaders seem to be the primary means of communication between the scientific community and the general population. But because each of those have their own agenda, the general public usually gets a twisted view of science rather than an accurate view of scientific consensus. Maybe we need more organizations like the IPCC to more clearly communicate the "general consensus" that arises in various scientific fields.
I couldn't agree more! COPUS- the Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science- is organizing a group of stakeholders to work together to better communicate science to the public. It's a good first step on this front.
Also, I just read report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071172.pdf) published by the GAO (Government Accountability Office) that contained this statement (that I agree with).
"While no single body can be said to speak for all of science, the National Academies and other scientific associations such as those listed above often act as surrogates when the opinions of the scientific community, or particular disciplines within science, need to be ascertained."
'Those listed above' are:
Academic Journals: American Economic Review, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Econometrica, Geophysical Research Letters, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, Journal of Atmospheric Science, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Physical Oceanography, as well as the journals Nature and Science.
Scientific Societies: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Ecological Society of America, Geological Society of America, International Council for Science, and the U.S. National Academies.
Post a Comment