Adjustment of the legislative framework, stopped at 6 months, again showed signs of life in Washington. This week, senators and industry groups were discussing a compromise bill on the introduction of mandatory controls over carbon emissions. And although the green activists around the world waited for American action 20 years now, no hurry to celebrate. Even if the discussion would result in the law, it will be only a pale shadow of past hopes.
Trouble in Copenhagen - one of the reasons. So much effort is applied in such a modest result. The recession changed everything. Most managers can take care of the planet, but in reality they think more about their benefits, especially in hard times when they do not want to bear additional costs. Unpleasant arguments of the American Health Ministry did not help: it is not very convenient time for the bill, which needs the support of both parties. Prevented even the cold winters of the northern hemisphere. When on earth are two feet of snow, the threat of global warming seems not so relevant.
Hence the three questions. As far as science is not accurate? Do I need to adjust policy measures? And what should be done to avoid such confusion in the future? Underlying all three questions is another story. The problem lies not in science itself, but in the way that politicians use to instill public confidence in it, while the scientific issues are often simply can not be one hundred percent certainty.
What was right and what is not
When the government to think seriously about climate change, in 1989 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had made strides in this direction. The Expert Group was established to involve scientists in solving the problems associated with climate change, and in order to compel the government to rely on the conclusions of these scientists. This greatly helped the fundamental science. There have certainly timed how about the revaluation extent of the problem, and due to its underestimation. The reports shed light on recent developments in climate science. Predicted different scenarios: from moderate global warming by 1.1 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, before the infernal 6.4, and illustrated that all the uncertainty approach.
However, the ambiguity of science runs counter to what they want policy. They and their voters prefer certainty. So the "6 months to save the planet" will soon find support than "there is a high probability, but completely impossible to be sure that serious climate change could harm the biosphere, depending on the level of economic growth, population and innovation." Politicians, like journalists, tend to simplify and exaggerate. Therefore the British government and allowed advertising using children's slogans: "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Extreme weather conditions caused by climate change have led to drought.
Such an approach in the short term could cause some voters to support measures to combat climate change. However, the assumption that British children face a future realities of the desert, very dangerous. This week the British advertising standards committee condemned the Government for infantile advertising.
In November, shortly before the climate summit in Copenhagen, discovered a large stock of e-mails from researchers and Climate Center Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, for some unknown reason snared. Letters discovered the truth about the reluctance to share data, greatly spoiled the mood, if not put into question the freedom of information Britain in principle, but also showed an aggressive attitude toward peer assessment instruments colleagues and a clear desire to insure the science to politicians. Around the same time, it became clear that in the last IPCC report stated that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 instead of 2350. The initial reluctance of the group to solve this problem was a mistake, and the study further problems in the group raised the question of how they work.
How bad is it? Skeptics point out that each error has a tendency to exaggerate the extent of climate change. Distortion scientists strengthened the position of those who refute the evidence so that politicians could not spend money to combat carbon emissions. Thus, the shameful mistakes of scientists changed the perception of the problem. They, however, did not change the science.
As the results of the briefing, the majority of respondents still believe that the warming caused by human activities. Sources of doubt that seemed plausible in the past, namely: the temperature discrepancy between the measurements of the satellite and on the ground, doubts about the warming, which could be reduced due to water vapor, were largely dispelled, though, and need to work on it more. If temperature measurements over the past 1000 years are not significant, they have very little to the overall history. If there are problems with the measurement at weather stations, you can use data from ships and other sattelitov.
Insurance catastrophe
There remain large uncertainties, but there are arguments in favor of action, not vice versa. If it were known that global warming will be limited to 2 degrees Celsius, then the world may have decided to live with it. But the range of possible outcomes is huge, and one of them - catastrophic, and the cost of its prevention is relatively low. Just as the landlord pays a small amount of insurance to protect their homes from misfortune, the world must do the same.
Our newspaper does not see the point in changing their views on the subject. Science is helping the Government realize the moment when you need to resort to action. IPCC to suffer from the feeling that they are a tool of politicians. The greater the distance between them - the better. And instead of children's approach and similar advertising, the government should treat voters as adults. Climate change does not require a creative approach to promote concrete action, uncertainty and fear, and so are good motivators.
Economist
No comments:
Post a Comment