A Climate of Conflict
Paul Cumes view of climate conflicts in his painting "Global Warming" (2001)
As the twelfth round of climate change negotiations wrapped up in Nairobi in November, 2006, the rhetoric on climate change got more intense. The debate has been increasingly polarized by interest groups that continue to challenge each other's credibility amidst the publication of a British government report on the economics of climate change, authored by Sir Nicholas Stern.
Indeed the conflict has been stepped up a notch in the United States by a recent lawsuit filed in California in which scientists who are skeptical of global warming are being targeted, thus giving further credence to allegations of scientific censorship. The state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have asked automobile companies to produce all communications they have had with fifteen scientists critical of global warming theories, whose research has been cited in court documents.
At the same time, proponents of global warming have also been raising concerns about censorship but not by scientist but rather by policy-makers. In a much-publicized revelation, NASA scientist Jim Hansen has claimed that the US government has been constraining his public communication ever since he parted ways with the Bush administration on climate change.
Another interesting aspect of climate change has been its propensity to create divisions even within environmental ranks. This is largely owing to the time sensitivity of policy responses, which has led some environmentalists to consider climate change as a priority and a global emergency at the expense of other ideals. Green activists are in such a state of panic about global warming that they are willing to embrace erstwhile ecological taboos such as nuclear power and large-scale hydroelectric energy. One recent confrontation of this kind occurred in the United Kingdom when veteran environmentalist James Lovelock (originator of the Gaia hypothesis) declared that only nuclear energy could save the world from global warming.
There are two factors contributing to this internal conflict: the global scale of the threat posed by global warming for those who believe it has apocalyptic ramifications. Therefore, using the precautionary principle in such a context puts global warming ahead of other environmental factors. Furthermore, the immediacy for action tends to negate due diligence and care in policy formulation and quick solutions such as nuclear or large-scale hydropower are tempting to pursue.
Conflict over climate change is exacerbated because visual drivers are often less palpable. When we do get large-scale visual drivers such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005 that are tenuously linked to climate change, there is dramatic dissent that dilutes any likely policy impact. Such dissent is nevertheless genuine and not easily dismissed as exemplified by the resignation of researcher Chris Landsea from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in protest of a speech given by the lead author of the IPCC Kevin Trenbirth in which he linked the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season to climate change.
Given the complexity of the conflict and the difficulty in empirical observation and ascription, it is highly unlikely that the conflict can be resolved on purely scientific terms. If we continue to articulate our call for action on purely scientific terms about diagnosing the problem, we are likely to remain entrapped in the cycle of further research or incremental policies that might not get us the results we seek. Even if we can claim to have scientific consensus through bodies such as the IPCC, the dissenting voices will remain in the background and polarization is likely to continue.
If the main goal is reduction of global warming effects, we should invest our scientific resources to provide solutions to these challenges in ways that are most socially acceptable. However, if the goal is to go beyond just global warming and change consumer behavior on ethical and moral grounds, then simply focusing on global warming as a driver is likely to muddle the planning process for preventative action.
Focusing on other derivative impacts of some drivers of global warming might also resolve the conflict because there is less uncertainty about some other resource constraints. The most significant focal point of such action is the "peak oil" movement that seeks to look for alternative sources of energy on the very simple and irrefutable premise that fossil fuels are indeed nonrenewable.
Oil companies such as Chevron are following this approach to tackling the debate rather than being mired in diagnostic controversy regarding climate change. Conflict over the science and policy of climate change will require us to be innovative in looking for justification for proposed solutions that tap into many of these disparate constituencies. Instead of having a debate on climate change a reframing of the issue as fossil fuel depletion and coping strategies at a global level is likely to be more consequential.
We also must be careful to not let expeditious action on climate change lead to spillover problems from alternatives such as nuclear power. All pathways need to be considered simultaneously but without conflating issues. By reframing the conflict as one of resource depletion rather than complex atmospheric processes, we may finally reach resolution to this confounding challenge of our times.
Indeed the conflict has been stepped up a notch in the United States by a recent lawsuit filed in California in which scientists who are skeptical of global warming are being targeted, thus giving further credence to allegations of scientific censorship. The state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have asked automobile companies to produce all communications they have had with fifteen scientists critical of global warming theories, whose research has been cited in court documents.
At the same time, proponents of global warming have also been raising concerns about censorship but not by scientist but rather by policy-makers. In a much-publicized revelation, NASA scientist Jim Hansen has claimed that the US government has been constraining his public communication ever since he parted ways with the Bush administration on climate change.
Another interesting aspect of climate change has been its propensity to create divisions even within environmental ranks. This is largely owing to the time sensitivity of policy responses, which has led some environmentalists to consider climate change as a priority and a global emergency at the expense of other ideals. Green activists are in such a state of panic about global warming that they are willing to embrace erstwhile ecological taboos such as nuclear power and large-scale hydroelectric energy. One recent confrontation of this kind occurred in the United Kingdom when veteran environmentalist James Lovelock (originator of the Gaia hypothesis) declared that only nuclear energy could save the world from global warming.
There are two factors contributing to this internal conflict: the global scale of the threat posed by global warming for those who believe it has apocalyptic ramifications. Therefore, using the precautionary principle in such a context puts global warming ahead of other environmental factors. Furthermore, the immediacy for action tends to negate due diligence and care in policy formulation and quick solutions such as nuclear or large-scale hydropower are tempting to pursue.
Conflict over climate change is exacerbated because visual drivers are often less palpable. When we do get large-scale visual drivers such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005 that are tenuously linked to climate change, there is dramatic dissent that dilutes any likely policy impact. Such dissent is nevertheless genuine and not easily dismissed as exemplified by the resignation of researcher Chris Landsea from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in protest of a speech given by the lead author of the IPCC Kevin Trenbirth in which he linked the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season to climate change.
Given the complexity of the conflict and the difficulty in empirical observation and ascription, it is highly unlikely that the conflict can be resolved on purely scientific terms. If we continue to articulate our call for action on purely scientific terms about diagnosing the problem, we are likely to remain entrapped in the cycle of further research or incremental policies that might not get us the results we seek. Even if we can claim to have scientific consensus through bodies such as the IPCC, the dissenting voices will remain in the background and polarization is likely to continue.
If the main goal is reduction of global warming effects, we should invest our scientific resources to provide solutions to these challenges in ways that are most socially acceptable. However, if the goal is to go beyond just global warming and change consumer behavior on ethical and moral grounds, then simply focusing on global warming as a driver is likely to muddle the planning process for preventative action.
Focusing on other derivative impacts of some drivers of global warming might also resolve the conflict because there is less uncertainty about some other resource constraints. The most significant focal point of such action is the "peak oil" movement that seeks to look for alternative sources of energy on the very simple and irrefutable premise that fossil fuels are indeed nonrenewable.
Oil companies such as Chevron are following this approach to tackling the debate rather than being mired in diagnostic controversy regarding climate change. Conflict over the science and policy of climate change will require us to be innovative in looking for justification for proposed solutions that tap into many of these disparate constituencies. Instead of having a debate on climate change a reframing of the issue as fossil fuel depletion and coping strategies at a global level is likely to be more consequential.
We also must be careful to not let expeditious action on climate change lead to spillover problems from alternatives such as nuclear power. All pathways need to be considered simultaneously but without conflating issues. By reframing the conflict as one of resource depletion rather than complex atmospheric processes, we may finally reach resolution to this confounding challenge of our times.
