Gretchen Elsner is biking from Athens to Atlanta to speak before the FEC about the campaign donations Spectra Energy has made in state where it wants to put a pipeline. Read more about her ride here.
This year’s EcoFocus Film Festival includes several films related to climate change, including Population Boom and Into The Gyre. We’re particularly excited about Thin Ice, a documentary that follows geologist Simon Lamb on a search to understand the science behind climate change. The film follows scientists, from biologists to physicists, who are investigating the climate to demonstrate the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change. The EcoFocus presentation will be followed by a panel discussion with three UGA scientists whose work involves climate and climate effects.
From USA Today, on 5 February, 2013: “An analysis released by the Agriculture Department said that although U.S. crops and livestock have been able to adapt to changes in their surroundings for close to 150 years, the accelerating pace and intensity of global warming during the next few decades may soon be too much for the once-resilient sector to overcome.”
Read the full Report: Climate change could devastate agriculture.
A September, 2012, study commissioned by Oxfam and carried out by the Institute of Development Studies investigates how weather extremes induced by climate change might affect food price volatility in the future. among their findings:
Between 2010 and 2030, average world market export prices:
• For maize could rise by 177%, with up to half the increase due to climate change;
• For wheat could rise by 120%, with around one-third of the increase due to climate change;
• For processed rice could rise by 107%, with around one-third of the increase due to climate change.
Tim Gore, climate change policy adviser at Oxfam, states, “Rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns hold back crop production and cause steady price rises. But extreme weather events – like the current U.S. drought – can wipe out entire harvests and trigger dramatic food price spikes.” While the United Kingdom and the United States are predicted to be affected by these changes, the most vulnerable are the world’s poorest people, who already are spending up to 75 percent of their income on food.
Here is a link to the report:
Andrew J. Hoffman of the University of Michigan has a piece in the Stanford Social Innovation Review entitled “Climate Science as Culture War” that discusses the difference between scientific consensus on global climate change (there is one, internationally) and social consensus on global climate change (there isn’t one, in the US, and the sides seems to be polarizing.) As data accumulated and “global warming” became “climate change” (and there’s good discussion of different constituencies react to this sort of terminology) the issue became less scientific and more entwined with entrenched values and value systems.
You’ve doubtless heard this argument in many contexts: once people have made up their mind on a divisive issue they seek out news sources that confirm their position and any new facts are interpreted in ways that reinforce, rather than challenge, the established belief. With this in mind, Hoffman says the task of changing the public’s perception of “uncertainty” falls less on climate modelers to produce more compelling data and more on social scientists to communicate the scientific consensus effectively. He asks:
If the public debate over climate change is no longer about greenhouse gases and climate models, but about values, worldviews, and ideology, what form will this clash of ideologies take? I see three possible forms.
The Optimistic Form is where people do not have to change their values at all. In other words, the easiest way to eliminate the common problems of climate change is to develop technological solutions that do not require major alterations to our values, worldviews, or behavior: carbon-free renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration technologies, geo-engineering, and others. Some see this as an unrealistic future. Others see it as the only way forward, because people become attached to their level of prosperity, feel entitled to keep it, and will not accept restraints or support government efforts to impose restraints. Government-led investment in alternative energy sources, therefore, becomes more acceptable than the enactment of regulations and taxes to reduce fossil fuel use.
The Pessimistic Form is where people fight to protect their values. This most dire outcome results in a logic schism, where opposing sides debate different issues, seek only information that supports their position and disconfirms the others’, and even go so far as to demonize the other. University of Colorado, Boulder, environmental scientist Roger Pielke in The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics describes the extreme of such schisms as “abortion politics,” where the two sides are debating completely different issues and “no amount of scientific information … can reconcile the different values.” Consider, for example, the recent decision by the Heartland Institute to post a billboard in Chicago comparing those who believe in climate change with the Unabomber. In reply, climate activist groups posted billboards attacking Heartland and its financial supporters. This attack-counterattack strategy is symptomatic of a broken public discourse over climate change.
The Consensus-Based Form involves a reasoned societal debate, focused on the full scope of technical and social dimensions of the problem and the feasibility and desirability of multiple solutions. It is this form to which scientists have the most to offer, playing the role of what Pielke calls the “honest broker”—a person who can “integrate scientific knowledge with stakeholder concerns to explore alternative possible courses of action.” Here, resolution is found through a focus on its underlying elements, moving away from positions (for example, climate change is or is not happening), and toward the underlying interests and values at play. How do we get there? Research in negotiation and dispute resolution can offer techniques for moving forward.
Hoffman ultimately finds hope in the example of changing public attitudes that drove legislative action on cigarette smoking (much as the Climate Reality Project has in this video). The comparison is apt, given the medical community’s unease with assigning clear causation, which mirrors climate scientists’ careful statements about the relationship between individual weather events and climate change, writ large.
There are good strategies here for reaching the folks who remain undecided (or are uncommitted to their decision) about climate change here, too. Read the whole article at SSIR’s website.
Climate Communication is a non-profit science and outreach project funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the ClimateWorks Foundation. Climate Communication operates as a project of the Aspen Global Change Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the scientific understanding of Earth systems and global environmental change.
The AMS-NOAA State of the Climate 2011 report.
A recent article by Bill McKibben is a must-read on the
This special to CNN (Posted today) by NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane
Lubchenko is addressing extreme events and climate. As a member of
Jane’s advisory board, I know that we have been urging NOAA to be
responsibly responsive rather than passive. I am pleased to see this
Real Climate has a great “start here” page for anyone who’s interested in learning about climate science and climate change.