Credit: iStockphoto
Climate change raises many questions about development goals and practices. These can only be resolved through widespread social deliberation and hard political negotiation. Simply more or 'better' science won't be enough.
The idea that humans are changing the global climate system was first developed, elaborated and demonstrated by natural scientists. The scientific evidence backing this basic idea is now overwhelming, even if scientific predictions of future climate changes are still shrouded in uncertainty.
But although science is very good at revealing how things are, and suggesting what physical manifestations might follow a particular course of action, it has limited relevance and reach when deciding what should be done in the face of complex dilemmas - such as climate change.
Many voices are clamouring to be heard in the turbulent posturing and diplomacy ahead of this December's international climate negotiations in Copenhagen. One of the loudest says we must "let the science speak for itself", that the science is clear, and that "now is the time for action".
But exactly what action is it that the science demands? And action by whom and by when? These are questions for politics to decide, not for science to dictate.
With human activities altering climates around the world, a new dimension has entered debates about international development. Climate properties, long thought to be fixed, or subject only to the whims of nature or judgements of the gods, are now revealed as partly under our own influence.
Science can suggest what some of the consequences of this human-shaped climate change might be - rising sea-levels, higher temperatures, more intense rainstorms - but climate predictions will never be precise enough to guide optimal planning and adaptation.
Uncertainty is always part of managing risk, and people's perceptions vary. So competing power interests and value judgements will always be at work. For example, decisions about which risks receive investment, and which do not, reflect political processes. And deciding what level of risk to invest against, for example the 1-in-100 or 1-in-1,000 year flood, reflects value judgements.
The underlying reasons for human-induced climate change open up questions that are even more intractable to science. The idea of climate change has re-animated many long-standing debates around power, justice and development in a colonising and colonised world.
Anil Agrawal and Sunita Narain captured this vividly in their famous depiction of luxury versus survival emissions: those associated with non-essential lifestyle choices like international tourism or garden hot tubs versus those from essentials activities such as cooking, heating and lighting.
Ethically-charged discussions about individual, political and historical responsibilities and about the nature of human well-being are now firmly embedded in climate change discourse.
Politics won't solve global warming.
It would be wonderful if all politicians had compassion and would try to solve the global warming problem, for it's own sake, but sadly they won't.
One politician will do it to raise new taxes, another one will do it to put solar panels in his state, while yet another one will do it for the glory.
It's too bad that politicians aren't like farmers and do things because it needs to get done. If farmers ran the world, green technology would be standard, because they realize that the earth only has so much to offer. Farmers would be the first to replant trees in the amazon, or in brazil, or even here in the States. Farmers have been the first to adapt to new technologies, and haven't been afraid to admit when they are wrong.
In the past 20 years, farmers have switched from pipe watering to low volume pivot irrigating, which saves water. They have also started using GPS technology, so that they can set up their fields better, and have learned to use the newest seed stock and fertilization methods.
I would hesitate to say that politicians will never solve this problem, because they don't want to. If it was solved, they'd be out of a job.
If we fail, there is always Option 2!
If we fail to fix the climate change problem (which due to a large and strong supportive evidence base, I believe it will be a if not addresssed), then there is always the very odd Option 2.
Really, Mr. Hulme?
I wonder, Mr. Hulme...
After all, your name pops up a number of times in those recently release emails and documents from the University of East Anglia. If, as you claim, "Science can prove global climate change is happening", why all the effort to blackball skeptics, tweak the data, hide the data, deny FOIA requests, etc.
Surely, if the "science was settled", as the refrain goes, none of that scientific malfeasance would have been necessary, no?
Als, regarding the claim that "Science can prove global climate change is happening", has anyone ever denied that the climate is in a constant state of change. regardless of human presence or activity? Indeed, not, Mr. Hulme! The doubt has to do with the claimed connection between climate change and human activity.
Again, had the connection been so thotoughly established, why the emails trying to shut down dissent? Is that how science works in the 21t Century, with the Warmists taking the dogmatic place of the Church?
Okay, I see the obvious need
Okay, I see the obvious need to regulate certain emissions, but you can't just put it all on the politicians, because science, at least, has humanity's best needs in mind, unlike politicians who, in the U.S., are almost ALL corrupt. Obama wanted to put a tax on C02 and THAT is because all politicians care about is getting rich and power. one or the other or both, so most don't care about a single one of us.