Here’s the latest example of why communicating climate science is so important.  From a petition filed by Texas asking the EPA to reconsider its Endangerment Finding that “the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases–carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆)–in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”  Note the central roles played by CRU “Climategate” and recent errors identified in IPCC 2007:

“Despite the Endangerment Finding’s remarkably broad impact, EPA’s Administrator relied on a fundamentally flawed and legally unsupported methodology to reach her decision. And although the Administrator is legally required to undertake a scientific
assessment before reaching a decision that is supposed to be based on scientific conclusions, the Administrator outsourced the actual scientific study, as well as her required review of the scientific literature necessary to make that assessment. In doing so, EPA relied primarily on the conclusions of outside organizations, particularly the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”).

EPA’s reliance on the IPCC’s assessment to make a decision of this magnitude is not legally supported. Since the Endangerment Finding’s public comment period ended in June, 2009, troubling revelations about the conduct, objectivity, reliability, and propriety of the IPCC’s processes, assessments, and contributors have become public. Previously private email exchanges among top IPCC climatologists reveal an entrenched group of activists focused less on reaching an objective scientific conclusion than on achieving their desired outcome. These scientists worked to prevent contravening studies from being published, colluded to hide research flaws, and collaborated to obstruct the public’s legal right to public information under open records laws.

In addition to the improper collusion and cover-ups revealed by the release of these emails, since the public comment period ended, some of the IPCC’s methodologies and conclusions have been discredited. Not surprisingly, respected scientists and
climatologists from around the globe have roundly criticized and correctly questioned the IPCC’s process, while calling for programmatic reforms.

Indeed, there has been worldwide fallout from scandals enveloping the IPCC. In Britain, four separate investigations have been launched, and the British Broadcasting Corporation has convened an inquiry into the journalistic appropriateness of its IPCC coverage. India has announced that it will create its own climate change institute rather than rely exclusively on the IPCC. And the United States Department of Commerce has created a new Climate Science Institute—though it has remained noticeably silent on the scandals plaguing the IPCC.”

climate science, climategate, EPA, ipcc Hide

The COP15 was certainly a worthwhile experience all-around for me personally.  Before I left I was incredibly skeptical that anything positive would come out of the conference.  I left the conference not only skeptical but also angry and fearful; angry that just about any group with an agenda used climate change as an impetus for promoting their cause and fearful that in this environment something would actually be drafted.

Well something was in fact drafted and that was the Copenhagen Accord, a pretty short document about 5 pages total.  After reading this document a certain phrase came to mind, altruistic hubris.  I say altruistic because I try not to doubt the intentions of individuals or organizational bodies especially ones I have no immediate personal relationship with and also the people I did meet overwhelmingly seem to be there for the positive reasons.  The arrogance, however, is evident simply in the wording with phrases like “…with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.”  Just to take a step back, this language is one of management of the global temperature, a role I think no one or body should be in charge of.  Of course the counterpoint is that we have already “controlled our climate through emissions” so we have to do something.  I agree to the extent that we necessarily should reduce emissions but temperature is a marker of increased emissions and not a necessary consequence.  What if we do go above 2C, can we wholly attribute the gradual 2C rise solely to anthropogenic emissions?  If not (because climate attribution ultimately comes down to probabilities not absolutes), then does it make sense to hold temperatures below 2C?   So when documents are drafted describing the necessity for controlling global temperatures this should give us pause at the arrogance of understanding of the climate system.  The issue is emissions, in my humble opinion, and that is what should be the focus not the language of geo-engineering global temperatures at all.

Apart from the outcomes and documents, of course the thing that made the conference truly enjoyable in the end was hanging out with the Michigan delegation.

No tags Hide

As COP15 comes to a close without a clear path forward forward from  Kyoto,  it is difficult not to become dismayed at the growing gulf between the urgency of climate science and the pace of international negotiations.  While it provides little solace, there is little doubt that the economic calamities of the past two years played a significant role in the ultimate fate of the conference.  Out of fear that we were on the precipice of another Great Depression, economic and social concerns have been the primary focus of many of the world’s legislatures, particularly countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States. Considering that the swift response to the failure of the banks last fall seems to have averted the worst of these fears from being realized, it is hard to argue with this approach.

At the same time, when historians reflect upon the three year process which culminated in COP 15, I feel many may see another connection between these two events: a similar inability to understand complexity, a propensity to discount the future, and an failure to properly value risk.  One can only hope that we don’t need to have the ecological equivalent of the collapse of Lehman Brothers to drive us to act.

Our world is complex, and we better get used to it.

The roots of the economic meltdown can be found in the increasingly complex instruments created to diversify risk.  While these instruments succeeded in diversifying risk, they also created numerous negative feedback loops.  These unintended consequences weren’t seen by these best and brightness in the financial industry, let alone those whose jobs it was to regulate them.

The complexity of the challenges posed by climate change makes the financial crisis look like child’s play in comparison. For example, the underlying science requires modeling on some of the most sophisticated  machines ever developed by man, and laying the ground work for a low carbon economy will require the most coordinated global political interaction humanity has ever attempted. These political decisions will impact nearly every aspect of our daily lives as individuals and the global economy as a whole.

I feel that it is this degree of complexity and challenge that makes the issue so difficult for the majority of people to truly appreciate. As a species, we have spent the vast majority of our evolutionary history evolving to address the threats which were most immediately pressing: those posed by the our local surroundings in the immediate future.  Contemplating, appreciating, responding, and yes, sacrificing, to avoid a global threat which will play out over decades is unfortunately not something we have the coding for.

While the United States and other developed countries have come a long way in protecting our planet since the birth of the environmental a half century ago, it is nearly impossible to cite an example of legislation which was passed prior to a major catastrophe such as Love Canal, Bhopal, or the discovery of a giant hole in the ozone.    In each case, the complex chemicals we created caused unforeseen consequences which had to be redressed after serious harm was done.Unfortunately, in the case of climate change, we don’t have a chance to “fix it after breaking it” like we have in these other cases.

(more…)

No tags Hide

Posting for a colleague in the School of Natural Resources and Environment:

“A portion of the SNRE faculty band, the Ecotones, just recorded a version of “Senate Baby” (to the tune of Santa Baby). It’s a musical plea for the US Senate and our delegates in Copenhagen to 1) pass the bill at home and 2) the treaty in Copenhagen.”

And here it is…

No tags Hide

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

Yesterday I got into an exchange with a person who posted a comment wishing the curse of a pox to the students writing on the UoMichigan COP15 Blog . It reminded me of Joseph Welch’s question to Senator Joe McCarthy, “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” (Welch-McCarthy Exchange from American Rhetoric)

In the United States we devolve into something that is more like tribalism with sides taken based on the color of your uniform or who pays you the most. Discussion is based not on ideas and solutions, but on who makes a statement. Issues are advocated, and ideas are placed into extremes that take on attributes such as good and evil, for and against. The other side is wrong, and their intentions are of hidden control or hidden profit. This threatens our credibility and our viability.

Read the whole entry “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

No tags Hide