Well who doesn’t? Trouble is there just isn’t a good track record so far. And a GHG accounting system? Oh, that’s gonna hurt.
Date: July 22, 2010 202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>
RELIABLE INFORMATION AND BETTER COMMUNICATION NEEDED TO GUIDE U.S. RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
WASHINGTON — A comprehensive national response to climate change should be informed by reliable data coordinated through climate services and a greenhouse gas monitoring and management system to provide timely information tailored to decision makers at all levels, says a report by the National Research Council. The report recommends several mechanisms for improving communication about climate science and responses and calls for a systematic framework for making and evaluating decisions about how to effectively manage the risks posed by climate change.
“Global climate change is a long-term challenge that will require all of us to make many decisions about how to respond,” said Diana Liverman, co-chair of the panel that wrote the report, co-director of the Institute of Environment at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a senior research fellow at Oxford University. “To make choices that are based on the best available science, government agencies, the private sector, and individuals need clear, accessible information about what is happening to the climate and to emissions. We also need information on the implications of different options — especially to assess whether policies are effective.”
The federal government needs to establish information and reporting systems — such as climate services and a greenhouse-gas accounting system –that provide a range of information on climate change and variability, observed changes and causes, potential impacts, and strategies for limiting emissions or adapting to impacts. Although the report does not specify a particular agency to lead federal efforts, it emphasizes the importance of coordination across the federal government and with state, local and private sector decision makers. Leadership might come through executive orders, existing units such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy, an expanded U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program, or new entities, the report suggests.
The new national system for providing climate services should inform decision makers and assist them in managing climate-related risks, the report says. It would coordinate data among several agencies and incorporate regional expertise. Information should be timely, authoritative, and based on rigorous natural and social science research and tailored to government- and private-sector users at the national, regional, and local levels, the report says. For example, agricultural producers trying to decide which crops to grow need timely seasonal forecasts, data on likely outbreaks of diseases or pests, and advice about long-term strategies for adapting to climate impacts; and forest and park managers need information to control fires and plan for longer-term ecosystem management.
The report identifies several key functions that should be included in climate services, such as enhanced observations and vulnerability analyses on a regional scale, sustained interaction with stakeholders and research to understand their needs, an international information component that provides data on global climate observations and impacts, and a central accessible web portal that encourages sharing of information. These functions might be overlooked if the services are based only on existing federal capabilities, the report says.
The proposed comprehensive greenhouse gas management system for monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions should include a unified accounting protocol and a registry to track emissions at a detailed level. Monitoring is essential for developing effective emissions policies and verifying claims that emissions have been reduced, the report says. Such a system could build on the existing expertise of agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy.
These systems should also be designed to evaluate and assess state and local government and private-sector responses, many of which already are occurring. For example, more than half of Americans live in states, counties, and cities that have enacted a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and many private companies are taking significant steps to reduce their carbon footprints. Federal policies should not unnecessarily supersede measures already being taken regionally or locally, the report says.
To effectively manage the serious risks posed by climate change, decision makers need to account for many uncertainties about the severity of impacts and options for responding to them and be able to modify their choices based on new information and experience. Therefore, decision makers in the public and private sectors need to implement an iterative risk management strategy that adapts to new information, conditions, or technologies that could affect climate change policies, the report says. To that end, the government could also review and revise programs such as federal crop and flood insurance in the light of the risks of climate change. The study panel endorsed steps already taken by federal financial and insurance regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission to require disclosure requirements for climate change risks.
Although public beliefs and attitudes about climate often shift from year to year, recent opinion polls indicate that many Americans are concerned about climate change and want more information about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, the report says. It identifies several barriers to communication about climate change and recommends some strategies for overcoming them, such as urging federal agencies to support training for researchers on how to communicate complex climate change information and uncertainties to different audiences. In addition, a national task force of educators, government leaders, policymakers, and business executives should be established to improve climate change communication and education.
Consumers can play an important role in responding to climate change by choosing to reduce their energy use and selecting more energy-efficient products with lower emissions. The federal government should review and promote credible product standards and labels for consumers that provide information about energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, the report says. The government should also consider establishing an advisory service on these issues targeted at the public and small businesses.
The report is part of a congressionally requested suite of studies known as America’s Climate Choices, which also includes three other recently released reports. An overarching report to be released later this year will build on all four reports and other materials to offer a scientific framework for shaping the policy choices underlying the nation’s efforts to confront climate change. For more information, visit http://americasclimatechoices.org.
The project was requested by Congress and is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee and panel members, who serve pro bono, are chosen by for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Research Council’s conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Copies of Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).
# # #
source: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12784
Fantasy and hubris — a deadly combination.
The project was requested by Congress and is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Let’s get this straight once and for all time: IT IS FUNDED BY U.S. TAX PAYERS!!
Milwaukee Bob says:
July 23, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I agree with Bob here. How can you talk about better communication, when you can’t even communicate who is paying for the charade?
…..to climate change should be informed by reliable data…..
What? If we do NOT have reliable data – how do we KNOW there IS climate change?
Oh, that’s right. We run it through a computer and that turns it into (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain) “reliable” data – – – then what do we need a….
oh, never mind. it’s just another few billion dollars….
This may surprise some, but combined with the recent D of E decision on CRU funding, this actually looks like a desire for reality in data sets and a certain amount of due diligence on part of the Govt. science establishment. Now that the biggest money factor (cap-and-trade) is removed, maybe science can proceed. Under optimal (realistic) conditions, the old figure-heads will maintain position, but lose influence. But it’s the thought that counts….
I guess that this is Global Warming’s united front. This will be the official government position on the issue. All data will be pre-screened to present the governments position. No dissension allowed!
Bruce says:
July 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm
But Bruce;
We know Hansen is working for the government.
We know CRU is working for the government.
We know what they’ve been up to the last 10-20 years……
Are you saying the government wants something else now? Why?
the problem shows up when activists decide what hte reliable data is as opposed to something silly like oh, reading the thermometers
Adapt, adapt, adapt.
There is only 1 thing to do: adapt.
Roll with it.
Do not stand in front of a moving mountain of climate. It will win.
“Global climate change is a long-term challenge that will require all of us to make many decisions about how to respond,” said Diana Liverman, co-chair of the panel that wrote the report, co-director of the Institute of Environment at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a senior research fellow at Oxford University. “To make choices that are based on the best available science, government agencies, the private sector, and individuals need clear, accessible information about what is happening to the climate and to emissions. We also need information on the implications of different options — especially to assess whether policies are effective.”
It seems to me that they have already made up their minds that climate change is driven by co2 emissions and that the solution is to MANAGE emissions– never mind that NOBODY knows what drives major changes in climate or what the long term effect of any policies they adopt might be. They can barely forecast the weather one week ahead. Such hubris! One thing is sure it will cost plenty and probably bankrupt the economies of any country trying to manage the climate. Good Luck.
Here’s a champion of “communication”.
She’s now the head of NOAA.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5350/491
Science 23 January 1998:
Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science
Jane Lubchenco
[excerpts]
I propose that the scientific community formulate a new Social Contract for science.
This Contract should express a commitment to harness the full power of the scientific enterprise in discovering new knowledge, in communicating existing and new understanding to the public and to policy-makers, and in helping society move toward a more sustainable biosphere.
A sustainable biosphere is one that is ecologically sound, economically feasible, and socially just.
The Contract should also be a strong call for the investigation of complex, interdisciplinary problems that span multiple spatial and temporal scales; to encourage interagency and international cooperation on societal problems; and to construct more effective bridges between policy, management, and science, as well as between the public and private sectors.
The new Contract should extend well beyond research and training activities.
Some of the most pressing needs include communicating the certainties and uncertainties and seriousness of different environmental or social problems, providing alternatives to address them, and educating citizens about the issues.
In parallel to initiating new research, strong efforts should be launched to better communicate scientific information already in hand.
Clearly, the interfaces between the environment, human health, the economy, social justice, and national security are ripe for developing and entraining into the policy arena.
In view of the overarching importance of environmental issues for the future of the human race, all graduates from institutions of higher learning should be environmentally literate.
Powerful tools in communicating knowledge to inform policy and management decisions are scientific assessments from credible groups of scientists. Assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Ozone Assessment, and the Global Biodiversity Assessment have provided excellent guidance to policy-makers, especially when they summarize certainties and uncertainties and specify the likely outcomes of different options.
It is time for the scientific community to take responsibility for the contributions required to address the environmental and social problems before us, problems that, with the best intentions in the world, we have nonetheless helped to create. It is time for a reexamination of the agendas and definitions of the “grand problems” in various scientific disciplines.
We can no longer afford to have the environment be accorded marginal status on our agendas. The environment is not a marginal issue, it is the issue of the future, and the future is here now. On behalf of the Board of AAAS, I invite you to participate vigorously in exploring the relationship between science and society and in considering a new Social Contract for Science as we enter the Century of the Environment.
“We also need information on the implications of different options — especially to assess whether policies are effective.”
So what are the odds that “doing nothing” is on the list of options? My guess is somewhere between zero and absolute zero.
“support training for researchers on how to communicate complex climate change information and uncertainties to different audiences”
Obama can teach that class. Won’t be one word of truth in it, but that’s not the point anyway.
Watch out! The Calamitologists still rule. The non-elected administrators will put in all the infrastructure needed by Cap & Trade, then Congress will pass that in the lame-duck session in November-December.
I trust these people as far as I can throw a wet mattress up an elevator shaft.
“Although public beliefs and attitudes about climate often shift from year to year, recent opinion polls indicate that many Americans are concerned about climate change and want more information about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions, the report says.”
==============
Yes, they want transparency.
The current Administration ran on a platform of transparency.
I don’t think this Administrations definition of “transparency”, means what they think it means.
Sounds like a new EPA.
If Anthropogenic Global Warming is what they are concerned about, then that is what they should declare their efforts to be geared toward.
“Climate Change” means anything to anyone, and is a coward’s way out of responsibility for what they are doing.
“Global climate change is a long-term challenge that will require all of us to make many decisions about how to respond,”
No it isn’t.
It’s a lucrative (for some) make work scheme. In reality, it can be ignored.
That’s not to say it should not be the subject of erudite study, of course. But enough with the end of the world is nigh scenarios. No more ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘may’ press releases.
“.. greenhouse gas monitoring and management system..”
You see, it is not that the forcasted effect of CO2 was in error, the fact is that we have been overstating the amount of CO2 since January. Since the level of CO2 has actually dropped by 26% it would of course be expected that the global temperature anomoly would drop by 26% from 0.6 C to 0.44 C.
The science is setteled, it is just that we need better greenhouse gas monitoring. NASA has recommended that they be sited here in my office so I can watch them carefully and make sure the results are correct.
The new and improved results of the global CO2 levels will be published along with the global temperature anomoly numbers on a monthly basis.
/sarc
“…framework for making and evaluating decisions about how to effectively manage the risks posed by climate change.”
What ‘risks’ are they talking about? Do they mean theories of ‘may,’ ‘possibly,’ ‘could,’ might,’ etc?
Without a definition of ‘climate change’ what value does and of this have?
These people are weaker than truck-stop coffee.
There are plenty raw data that is available to the public. It is the subjectively analyzed and changed data sets that is the communications problem. Setting up another subjective communcations clearing house will only make it worse.
Pay your carbon tax here, extra extra pay more taxes we will decide how much based on Hansen’s manned thermometers. Data set, very transparent so transparent in fact you cannot see the adjustments only how much your new tax is. Corollary when did you stop abusing your carbon footprint and by how much so we can recalculate your new tax. Think of the children!
Boy are they in for a shock!
Has the Met Office last winter not taught these people any lessons. People in the UK prepared for a warmer than normal winter instead they got the worst winter in over 30 year, grit ran out in many countys and there were tens of thousands of exess winter deaths.
When the forces of Green has wrought thier devastation on Western economies, and production & commerce have ground to a halt, that is when the forces aligned against the West will stike. While the Iron is Green. Green Light…Go.
The Green thinks it will bring peace and utopia. It will bring war out of self-imposed impoverishment.
The world is not a nice place, and it hasn’t gotten there yet.