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
Ross McKitrick published the solution years ago. First measure the temperature, then later impose the tax (or refund) in proportion to the temperature change.
But, if you impose a tax, how do you guarantee that the recipients spend it in ways that reduce GHG? Name me a way, other than nuclear electricity (or hydro when sites are appropriate), and I’ll not be so sarcastic.
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 23, 2010 at 7:19 pm
AND Anthony
This is the best paper on atmospheric CO² I have ever read. It is short on detail in part but that does not detract from the logical progression within the paper. It is how all climate papers with public access should read and while the idiots over at RC spend infinite time on discussions of how to communicate and at what level, this guy just does it.
Lets have a thread please ANTHONY. Please, Please.
Kwik, Because the “Govt.”, like academia, is not a uniform mass, there are some good apples, and unfortuntely, too many bad. Maybe, just maybe, the good apples are getting the upper hand. Yes, CRU is (was) working for D of E, perhaps also the source of the Climategate emails also works there still too. You know of course of cases of EPA and NASA scientists (sometimes contractors) being fired for holding contra-AGW views. I bet for every such case there are 100 just trying to hold onto jobs. Just a guess.
Lucy Skywalker: July 23, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Funny thing about the warmist track record of communication, I keep on hearing them accusing the skeptics of the very sins of which they are, overall, guilty and of which the skeptics are, overall, NOT guilty, or only guilty in tiny amount by comparison. Like taking money from Exxon. Like unfair representation in the media. Like being unscientific non-experts not knowing what they are talking about.
Leftists only have two techniques in debate:
1. Lie
2. Tell the other side to shut up.
Here’s all you need to know about the Earth’s climate:
1.) It goes through all sorts of natural cycles.
2.) Humans have no effect whatsoever on these natural cycles, or the climate itself.
3.) No amount of talking will convince me otherwise, only solid proof will suffice.
I can save these dudes a ton of money:
1) Gather accurate data on temperatures and CO2 for 30 years
2) Evaluate the data in 2040
3) Make decisions
In today’s Orwellian world, if you hear the gov talking about “better communication”, it always means “more effective and devious propaganda”.
When conclusions are based on scant inputs, results are wrong.
Example #1: The IPCC’s mission is to quntify the effects of anthropogenic global warming. So, when natural inputs are ignored (which account for more than 95% of the input), why would you expect the answers to be correct?
Example #2: When the NAS looks only to GHG as an input to quantifying climate change, and ignores the titanic effects of the Sun, Moon, Earth, planetary mechanics and their miriad interactions (which are responsible for ALL climate cycles), why would you expect the answers to be correct?
RoyFOMR says:
July 23, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“Just gotta love this all-and-zero set encompassing meaningless platitudes.
We want better data. Why? Are you admitting that what you’ve served up so far is questionable? If so, that’s admirably honest but, please, don’t offer up my current admiration as condoning your previous statements.
Do not swear that the mistakes of the past are somehow vindicated by your aspirations,“ […]
RoyFOMR, that is the BEST 15-word-string I’ve seen in quite some time. And it applies generally; that’s how politicians manage to get reelected the world over.
When will voters learn?
2010: “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.”
====
This is the concrete implementation of the grand Leninist conspiracy begun by Margaret Mead and the late [snip] Stephen Schneider in 1975. Here’s part of their original proposal:
“Whether they be citizens of a free enterprise state, a socialist state, a dictatorship or a hereditary monarchy, they need inforation to make decisions, either for an intelligent choice among alternatives or for guidance in carrying out decrees by their ruling group. Even in the most arbitrary and authoritarian forms of government, a comprehension on the part of the leadership and an understanding on the part of the people are both essential. Unless the peoples of the world can begin to understand the immense and long-term consequences of what appear to be small immediate choices – to drill a well, open a road, build a large airplane, make a nuclear test, install a liquid fast breeder reactor, release chemicals which diffuse through the atmosphere, or discharge waste in concentrated amounts into the sea – the whole planet may become endangered.”
=====
Same language.
At that time, of course, they hadn’t yet invented the Warming Goblin; they were still looking for a natural phenomenon that could serve to scare the Unwashed Masses into “needing” a total dictatorship.
[reply] The man is not yet laid to rest. Have some sense of decorum please, for the sake of his family. RT-mod
Jane Lubchenco ; Is your Phd in “NewSpeak” ? Looks like it.
Having failed to improve the signal, Mr. Watts could still render a commendable public service by recusing himself from the debate, thus reducing the noise.
Re reliable data: Intelliweather maps on the WUWT sidebar need to do something about their color coding. I have pointed this out on several occasions. Note today, 76F is cool blue in Seattle but 66F in Los Angeles is warm yellow.
Here is a level-headed analysis of what we’re facing.
Prof Richared Lindzen puts it all in perspective:
MEMO
TO: The NATIONAL ACADEMIES
FROM: Joe The Plumber & Co., EDITOR IN CHIEF, PUBLISHER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, etc.
REF: Date: July 22, 2010 202-334-2138; e-mail ; RELIABLE INFORMATION AND BETTER COMMUNICATION…
You write –
WASHINGTON — “A comprehensive national response to climate change should be informed by reliable data… etc., etc.”
____________________________
See my corrections and comments –
WASHINGTON — “A national response to climate”… (Delete all that follows ‘climate’. Your paper and proposals get a Big Fat ZERO!!! WHY do we need a National response to ‘climate’? Don’t we already have a bunch of these? Everything that follows ‘climate’ is redundent, superficial, stupid!!!!!!!!!!!! You’re an idiot! We already have enough departments, agencies, and fools doing the very thing you’re proposing!!!!!!!!!– Pack you bags and get out of here. NOW!!!!)
JTP&Co
_____________________________
[snip – flamebait ~mod]