Climate Change Problem Needs 'Criteria for Success'

Climate Change Problem Needs 'Criteria for Success'
By DAVE FISHER/ecoRI News staff   http://www.ecori.org/

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Communicating on climate change is a difficult thing to do. There is a lot of science and math that inevitably leads to the MEGO — or my-eyes-glaze over — reaction in a large portion of the populace. It's even more difficult in the wake of the lack of response to the problem from our elected leaders.

That was the topic of an all-day seminar, sponsored by the Knight Foundation on Journalism, held last week at the Bartos Theater on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

This map shows a worst-case scenario of what southern New England's coastline would look like if all of the polar ice melted. (Map by Paul Jordan, URI)

Panelists in the first discussion — titled "What is the Meaning of Policy Failure on Climate Change?" — included Ronald Prinn, Noelle Selin, Naomi Oreskes and John Reilly.

Prinn, director of the Center for Global Change Science at MIT, unleashed a rapid-fire assessment of the future of climate change, in which he laid out several scenarios. The first was a dire picture of the future Earth, one in which no policy is adopted by the United States, the current champion when it comes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

“Even if it is a 50-50 split,” he said, referring to the man-made vs. natural occurrence of global temperature rise, “we have a severe problem.” His proposed scenarios don't get much rosier, even with massive reductions in GHG emissions.

The dangers of global temperature rise he indicated were the loss of sea ice, which reflects the sun’s energy rather than absorb it like sea water; the instability of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, which, if completely melted, could create a nearly 40-foot sea level rise; the decreased function of the deep ocean as a carbon and heat sink, a function that is hindered by decreased sea ice and increased flow of fresh water into the sea; the instability of the permafrost and Arctic tundra, which together sequester 1,670 billion tons of carbon — greater than 200 times our current emissions levels; the shifting of climate zones, which would have a disastrous effect on natural habitats and food systems; and the increased destructiveness of hurricanes and other weather events that have already increased 2-3 times in force since the 1960s.

“Climate change, without a national and global policy,” he said, “is a gamble with low odds of winning.”

Selin, assistant professor of engineering systems and atmospheric chemistry at MIT, stressed the necessity of identifying the consequences of action or inaction on global climate change and the need for the expansion of intervention options.

She pointed to the climate’s effect on air pollution, particularly the increased mobilization of particulates, ozone, persistent organic pollutants and mercury to the heat sink that is the Arctic. “Mitigation techniques in particular areas may be less effective due to regional temperature fluctuations," Selin said. “The climate has changed, and will continue to change. Effective policy will require that we understand the atmosphere as a system that has natural and human impacts, as well as natural and human responses.”

Best known for her book "Merchants of Doubt," Oreskes, professor of history and science studies at the University of California, San Diego, said one of the reasons that it's so difficult to get conservatives on board for climate change policy is that it puts forth the perceptions of increased market influence by the government and a decrease in personal liberty.

“Adaptation is necessary,” she said,” but mitigation is urgent. Why we have failed (to enact policy) is a social science question. Better physical science is unlikely to resolve this failure. Better social science might.”

Reilly, an agricultural economist and senior lecturer at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, said one of the biggest problems with a lack of cohesive policy on climate change is the non-existence of targets and goals.

“We have to define our criteria for success,” he said.

He posited that these criteria should include short-term targets and long-term goals; chosen targets have to have positive cost-benefit ratios; a method of measuring progress in the short-term; the cost efficiency of targets and goals met; and understanding the complexity of a negotiable problem.

“Tax subsidies for green technologies are impermanent from one administration to the next," Reilly said. "We seem to be at a deadlock about who (globally) pays for these mitigations and adaptations. We need to figure out what we can reasonably expect, not only from a policy perspective, but from a progress perspective as well.”