date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:30:39 +0000 from: Nick Brooks subject: Re: Science Article to: dust-health , Tim Mitchell Mike This seems OK as far as content is concerned ­ no obvious howlers, although a few comments on specific elements below. And itıs good to see something going from the UK government to a US journal that tackles the Bush administrationıs deliberate sabotage of mitigation efforts. From a UK perspective the closing paragraphs seem rather tame, but considering the audience the pitch is probably appropriate. I know you requested comments just on the science, but I can't resist commenting on the role of this kind of material in the climate change debate, so I'll start with some general comments before moving onto specifics. The article is very much along the lines of trying to persuade on the basis of scientific evidence, with implied political pressure (if we can imagine any pressure from the UK on the US being at all relevant). While this might strengthen the hand of those who are seeking action by the US administration, it to a certain extent is missing the point ­ the debate about climate change is only partly one about science and evidence; when dealing with those wielding power and influence, particularly in the US, we must recognise that this is an argument about ideology and vested interests, not science. A failure to recognise this is the reason that progress on the issue is so slow. We will not change the minds of those interests that are determined to ignore climate change by presenting more evidence ­ their collective will is set and will not be broken by scientific facts or moral arguments. Evidence is not sufficient persuasion and the question remains as to where leverage can be exerted. The US government demands proof of substantial future risk before it even considers acting on climate change. A threat to its national security has to be proved beyond all doubt, unlike in the spheres of terrorism and military security, where hundreds of billions are spend to deal with poorly defined, or undefined, threats that may just appear in the future. This fact alone should illustrate that the facts are more or less irrelevant. The US will only act to serve its immediate interests as perceived by a narrow governing elite, and it is only the discomfort of this elite that will change policy. Economic sanctions and political isolation might have some influence, gentle persuasion and presentation of evidence will not. David King will be pilloried in the right-wing media in the US (if they are aware of what is published in Science), and ignored by the administration. He is preaching only to the converted. I know this is bleak, but I believe this to be the nature of the situation. Iım not against the publication of such articles, indeed I applaud them, but we must not overestimate their impact. A few specific comments follow. Iım always wary of claims (p3) that we are entering a period of unprecedented warmth. I do not know what the mean global temperature was in the Holocene climatic optimum, but research suggests tropical sea-surface temperatures some 5-6 degrees higher than present. Even a smaller change would of course be catastrophic for many societies today, but unless there have been serious comparisons between today and the mid-Holocene and we can say with confidence that anthropogenic warming scenarios exceed such palaeoclimatic conditions such claims may come back to haunt us. Later in p3 the role of rotting vegetation exposed by melting permafrost could also be included as a potential positive feedback. There is a very brief mention of vulnerability on pp3-4, very much from the top-down climate impacts perspective, assuming no adaptation (reminds me of the work that demonstrates that the world will be bankrupt by 2065, when economic damage from climate-related disasters will exceed world GDP, based don current trends). There is a lot more that could be said about vulnerability, but perhaps the precipitation of conflict by water scarcity could be emphasised. This is likely to occur in all the regions that Americans are scared of - the Middle East, North Africa, the Sahel etc. This type of conflict tends to be internal, between different social groups within a country (eg nomads and settled farmers in Niger and Chad), and can lead to a political vacuum where all sorts of unsavoury characters can flourish - I believe the fashionable term is "failed state". Good conditions for al Qa'ida and its ilk. That might catch some attention. P4 - there is a statement quantifying reductions in flooding associated with carbon stabilisation - this would make a lot more sense if the associated timescale was specified. The flood projections on p5 assume no coastal realignment, and is thus a bit like the bankrupt world example above - it illustrates a point but we cannot assume no adaptation. Also, are not some flood plain areas already, or about to become, uninsurable in the UK? p6 - surely all coasts have the potential to experience erosion? Insertion of the word "significant" or "serious" might be good here. pp7-8 The concept of emissions intensity might be more widely understood in the US than in the UK, but it is not transparent - indeed it was invented by the Bush administration deliberately to mislead people. I think total emissions should be referred to here, or the rate of increase of emissions. p8 - The US government is not "unaccountably" failing to tackle global warming - the reasons it is failing to do so are obvious, and are to do with ideology and the self interest of those in and close to the administration. p9 - Technology transfer and capacity building are not the holy grail for developing countries that many think. While they can help, responses to climate change are likely to be most successful if they are based on local conditions and indigenous traditions, for example of land management. Often the state and international institutions simply prevent people from adapting in a way appropriate to their circumstances - the solutions do not necessarily come from the developed world. Finally, I would reiterate that this paper does not address the really important political obstacles to change. Furthermore, the evidence presented relates overwhelmingly to the UK - the fact that the UK will suffer will not convince those who need to be convinced in the US that action is needed, as they are not concerned with the impacts on other nations. It is hubris to think that the UK is sufficiently influential to have a significant impact on US policy, particularly acting in its tradition role as an "honest friend" of the US. It is better to work with the many groups within the US that share our concerns than to appeal to those at the top of this administration, although of course it is not an either or situation. I realise some of this sounds disheartening, but this is still a positive step in a very long journey, and I wish David King well in his efforts here. In the meantime I'll support mitigation, but pragmatically devote all my research efforts to adaptation! Nick -- Dr Nick Brooks Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: +44 1603 593904 Fax: +44 1603 593901 Email: nick.brooks@uea.ac.uk http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/welcome.htm (personal site) http://www.tyndall.ac.uk (Tyndall Centre site) http://www.uea.ac.uk/sahara (Saharan Studies Programme) -- On 13/11/03 9:33 am, "Mike Hulme" wrote: > Tim and Nick, > > Sir David King - government chief scientist - has asked the Tyndall Centre (me > et al.) to check and comment on this draft manuscript which he is planning to > publish in Science ahead of the high-level climate change seminar next > February in Washington he is chairing and speaking at (to try to knock a few > American heads together about climate change). > > As a prelude to our work together for DEFRA on stabilisation projects, could > both of you have a read through his text and let me have your comments by the > end of Friday (i.e., tomorrow). Obviously the tone and message are his - what > he wants us to make sure is that he has made no factual errors and that the > referencing is as strong as it can be. > > I am going to put together my response on Saturday, so would appreciate any > i/p from you before then. > > Many thanks, > > Mike > >> From: King MPST >> To: "'m.hulme@uea.ac.uk'" >> Subject: Science Article >> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:21:32 -0000 >> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) >> >> Dear Professor Hulme >> >> Please find attached the draft science article by Sir David. Many thanks for >> agreeing to comment and helping us to identify the references. >> >> <> <> >> >> Regards >> >> Michael Evans >> >> _____________________________________ >> Michael Evans >> Private Secretary to Sir David King >> Chief Scientific Adviser to H. M. Government >> Room 472 >> Office of Science and Technology >> 1 Victoria Street >> London >> SW1H 0ET >> >> Tel: ++ 44 (0) 20 7215 3824 >> Fax: ++ 44 (0) 20 7215 0314 >> >> >> >> >