The Climate Change Agreement: Bridging Gaps through Science

Despite US opposition to the Kyoto Treaty on Climate Change, the world reached an historic agreement in Bonn, Germany on implementing the treaty. Although the major industrial countries must ratify the treaty, it looks likely that a majority of countries will do so and thus the process of controlling man-made climate change can begin. The agreement reached in Germany is a triumph for the scientific process, which should be recognized and extended to other areas. Man-made climate change is not only of tremendous importance but of tremendous complexity. The basic theory of how human society is warming the environment by burning fossil fuels was first put forward more than 100 years ago. But theoretical models of the earth’s environment are only a few decades old, and remain imperfect. At the same time, the climate itself is subject to long swings in temperature, rainfall, and other patterns, unrelated to human activity. Separating the human factor from natural factors is daunting. All the more remarkable, then, that the world reached an agreed approach to this issue. Not only is the science complex and uncertain, but individual countries have different interests. Tropical countries may be hurt by global warming, while colder countries like Canada and Russia could benefit. Coastal countries may be damaged by rising oceans, while inland countries may be relatively unaffected. Coal and oil producing countries may be hurt if the world cuts back on fossil fuels; producers of other kinds of energy, such as hydroelectric power, might benefit. In short, there are numerous interests and much uncertainty about the underlying process of climate change. How, then, did the world reach agreement, albeit on only a first step in a decades-long process of action? Diplomats deserve credit for making compromises or trade-offs. But enormous praise is also due to the scientific community, which operated with skill and objectivity despite aggressive lobbying by industries, environmental groups, and countries with different interests and points of view. Scientists organized the process of analyzing climate change in a way that put the evidence first, forcing politicians to confront reality. The details of this vast scientific effort are notable, because they provide lessons for addressing other global problems. In 1988, two UN Agencies established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a vast network of scientists devoted to assessing the scientific knowledge about climate change, and the links of climate change to human society. Hundreds of scientists participate, and every effort is made to ensure objectivity, fairness and scientific excellence in judging the evidence. Every five years, the IPCC prepares a report for the global political leadership, known as Assessment Reports. The Third Assessment Report is now being finalized. Parts of the report have been released and widely discussed, confirming the growing evidence of large man-made effects on climate. Various industry groups with vested interests in the use of coal, oil, and other fossil fuels attacked the theory of climate change, seeking to undermine the scientific credibility of the IPCC. Some scientists, sometimes from outside the field of climate studies claimed that the evidence of man-made climate change did not really exist, or was exaggerated. Others accused the IPCC of political biases. The stakes were high because the Kyoto Treaty promises to lead to significant long-term changes in the role of the energy sector and in the kinds of energy technologies adopted in the future. Without doubt there were, and remain, vast scientific uncertainties, so it was easy to make the public claim that little evidence exists upon which to take action. When President George W. Bush came into office, interest groups continued to fight the IPCC. The Bush administration initially claimed that the science of climate change was too uncertain to guide policy. To the administration’s credit, the President then asked for a special committee of America’s National Academy of Sciences to review the work of the IPCC. The Academy reported that the IPCC had fairly and accurately represented the scientific evidence on climate change as it exists. Because of the careful, thorough work of the IPCC, the world has been able to move beyond the usual name-calling and partisan debates to reach an understanding of the real stakes in man-made climate change. Even though some powerful business and regional interests may be affected adversely by global actions to limit man-made climate change, the credibility of science triumphed over vested interests. All of this depended on scientists using their talents properly, and organizing their effort in a transparent, professional manner. It is too early to declare victory in the control of man-made climate change. That will require efforts over decades. But the world has made a start. Even though the US is not yet a party to the new agreement, the weight of science will push America to play a more constructive role in the future, even if American politicians continue to fight the process. In our interconnected and technology-based global society, questions of scientific complexity will increasingly affect our lives. How should we fight AIDS? Should we pursue genetic modification of crops to improve agricultural systems? How should we manage the scarcity of fresh water in parts of the world? How can we preserve biological diversity? In each case, politicians and diplomats will be needed to bridge divergent interests in a cooperative manner. But we will also need to get the most accurate and objective scientific information to help us choose the best course of action. The IPCC demonstrates that scientists from rich and poor countries can work together in a systematic process to provide objective information, even on complex topics with widely divergent interests.
http://prosyn.org/llT2b0f;
  1. Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images

    The Brexit Surrender

    European Union leaders meeting in Brussels have given the go-ahead to talks with Britain on post-Brexit trade relations. But, as European Council President Donald Tusk has said, the most difficult challenge – forging a workable deal that secures broad political support on both sides – still lies ahead.

  2. The Great US Tax Debate

    ROBERT J. BARRO vs. JASON FURMAN & LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS on the impact of the GOP tax  overhaul.


    • Congressional Republicans are finalizing a tax-reform package that will reshape the business environment by lowering the corporate-tax rate and overhauling deductions. 

    • But will the plan's far-reaching changes provide the boost to investment and growth that its backers promise?


    ROBERT J. BARRO | How US Corporate Tax Reform Will Boost Growth

    JASON FURMAN & LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS | Robert Barro's Tax Reform Advocacy: A Response

  3. Murdoch's Last Stand?

    Rupert Murdoch’s sale of 21st Century Fox’s entertainment assets to Disney for $66 billion may mark the end of the media mogul’s career, which will long be remembered for its corrosive effect on democratic discourse on both sides of the Atlantic. 

    From enabling the rise of Donald Trump to hacking the telephone of a murdered British schoolgirl, Murdoch’s media empire has staked its success on stoking populist rage.

  4. Bank of England Leon Neal/Getty Images

    The Dangerous Delusion of Price Stability

    Since the hyperinflation of the 1970s, which central banks were right to combat by whatever means necessary, maintaining positive but low inflation has become a monetary-policy obsession. But, because the world economy has changed dramatically since then, central bankers have started to miss the monetary-policy forest for the trees.

  5. Harvard’s Jeffrey Frankel Measures the GOP’s Tax Plan

    Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and a former member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, outlines the five criteria he uses to judge the efficacy of tax reform efforts. And in his view, the US Republicans’ most recent offering fails miserably.

  6. A box containing viles of human embryonic Stem Cell cultures Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images

    The Holy Grail of Genetic Engineering

    CRISPR-Cas – a gene-editing technique that is far more precise and efficient than any that has come before it – is poised to change the world. But ensuring that those changes are positive – helping to fight tumors and mosquito-borne illnesses, for example – will require scientists to apply the utmost caution.

  7. The Year Ahead 2018

    The world’s leading thinkers and policymakers examine what’s come apart in the past year, and anticipate what will define the year ahead.

    Order now