"Climate change e-mail scandal underscores myth of pure science"

From December 16th's L.A. Times.

Very good read and worth your time.

The authors remind us that using science to make political decisions is just as dangerous as using politics to make decisions in which science is needed.  Some selections:

"The real scandal illustrated by the e-mails is not that scientists tried to undermine peer review, fudge and conceal data, and torpedo competitors, but that scientists and advocates on both sides of the climate debate continue to claim political authority derived from a false ideal of pure science. This charade is a disservice to both science and democracy. To science, because the reality cannot live up to the myth; to democracy, because the difficult political choices created by the genuine but also uncertain threat of climate change are concealed by the scientific debate."

"That myth has allowed politicians to shirk their responsibility to be clear about the values, interests and beliefs that underpin their preferences and choices about science and policy. Better to recognize that decision-makers, depending on their political beliefs, will weigh the evidence and risks of climate change differently when evaluating policy options. Their choices will influence the distribution of benefits and costs, and will have varying and uncertain prospects for success. Voters should evaluate the decisions on that basis, rather than on the false notion that science is dictating the choices."

"The choices are extraordinarily difficult; the costs of action, and inaction, are potentially momentous. No one can know what the "right" decisions will be, but the e-mail controversy reminds us that imperfect people, not pure science, must decide that question. This is a job for democratic politics, informed by, but not shackled to, a pluralistic, insightful and imperfect scientific enterprise."

The Elephant in the Room

"Let's Try Cap-and-Trade on Babies"

"The single most concrete, substantive thing a young American could do [to help curb climate change] is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius. It's having fewer kids."

That statement by Andrew Revkin, author of the New York Times Dot Earth blog, highlights the problematic relationship that exists between the environmental concerns facing the global community and the increasing population crammed within its confines. Talk of family planning and population control rarely elicits a benign response. But remove emotion and philosophical ethics from the conversation and a relatively simple concept remains. In ecological terminology, the concept is called carrying capacity, and it refers to the population of a particular species that its habitat can sustain. When graphed, carrying capacity appears as a curve in which the Y value (population size) increases exponentially until it abruptly plateaus at a particular value. Once the population reaches carrying capacity, it may fluctuate just above or just below that line, but the size will not ever indefinitely increase above the carrying capacity.

I highlight this article and present these thoughts not as an advocate for population control, family planning, or whatever other moniker you would like to give the concept of limiting the global human population. What I do find interesting about this scenario is the way social influences dictate the way we address problems and solutions. The number of people on this globe is a fundamental contributor to many of the global crises of the past few decades - food shortages, water shortages, climate change, pollution. Even if population size is not a cause of the problem, so to speak, population size magnifies and exacerbates those issues. On top of an increasing global population, many more people are living an increasingly consumptive lifestyles as developing countries continue to grow economically.

But the solutions for dealing with the size of the global population seem to be taboo when it comes to discussing action to deal with the aforementioned issues. Instead of dealing with foundational problems, solutions attack symptoms that are, in relative terms, uncontroversial. When I was younger, a bit more brash, and much more naive, I would get myself moderately intoxicated and pontificate about the merits of population control measures, reproductive limits, and licenses to breed. Like I said, the point of this piece is not to advocate for those measures. For me to do so would, at the least, a little hypocritical, if not a return to the brashness and naivety of my youth. Rather I want to point out, as I often strive to do, the difficult underlying issues that few people want to talk about. Certainly I believe that we can all do small things in our lives to help alleviate the symptoms of the global issues that touch us in big and small ways each day. But I wonder if, at a certain point, that will be enough . . . .

Then again, maybe I worry too much about things that won't change -

"The universe is expanding . . . . Well, the universe is everything, and if it's expanding, some day it will break apart and that will be the end of everything." - a young Alvy Singer, Annie Hall

More on Everyday Conservation

This report from The Cleanest Line provides a summary of new paper issued by the National Parks Conservation Association regarding climate change and its effects on species habitats and migration. I won't rehash the details of the report or the paper itself. There's a link to the 50-page report on The Cleanest Line's page.

What I want to highlight is the realization inherent in this report that combating the effects of a changing climate requires comprehensive solutions and collective action. Compartmentalized thinking and segmented action cannot adequately address phenomena that are geographically and philosophically widespread. Finding solutions to the issues raised in the paper will require cooperation among state and federal authorities and private landowners that surround the parks in question.

On a broader thought, in addressing any problem, social or scientific, we can attempt to address the problem by targeting and neutralizing specific symptoms of the problem, but that won't eliminate the problem altogether. For example, improving automobile fuel efficiency and utilizing alternative, "clean" means of energy production are certainly laudable goals in combating carbon emissions. But neither of these solutions address the root cause of increasing emissions - rising consumption. A comprehensive medicine that allays symptoms and attacks the source of the illness will be much more effective in the long-term search for a cure.

Those thoughts really turns me back to The Everyday Conservationist post I made earlier today. Implementing a comprehensive and cooperative solution begins with each of us and the choices we make each day. Confronting these decisions and discussing them with friends and family is a great start to finding solutions that will be effective now and in the future.

The Everyday Conservationist

I just wanted to share a brief article about being an "everyday conservationist." This piece is from a fun blog that I read often, The Outdoor Parent. I share this article as some entertainment and as some encouragement to think about our daily choices that can make a difference. As I have commented several times already, the choices discussed in the article seem small and maybe insignificant. But if each of us sharing these ideas encourages one or two friends or family members to do likewise, the impact of these small decisions will begin to grow exponentially.

Happy reading!