date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:30:39 +0000
from: Nick Brooks <nick.brooks@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Science Article 
to: dust-health <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>, Tim Mitchell <t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk>

Mike

This seems OK as far as content is concerned  no obvious howlers, although
a few comments on specific elements below. And its good to see something
going from the UK government to a US journal that tackles the Bush
administrations deliberate sabotage of mitigation efforts.  From a UK
perspective the closing paragraphs seem rather tame, but considering the
audience the pitch is probably appropriate. I know you requested comments
just on the science, but I can't resist commenting on the role of this kind
of material in the climate change debate, so I'll start with some general
comments before moving onto specifics.

The article is very much along the lines of trying to persuade on the basis
of scientific evidence, with implied political pressure (if we can imagine
any pressure from the UK on the US being at all relevant). While this might
strengthen the hand of those who are seeking action by the US
administration, it to a certain extent is missing the point  the debate
about climate change is only partly one about science and evidence; when
dealing with those wielding power and influence, particularly in the US, we
must recognise that this is an argument about ideology and vested interests,
not science. A failure to recognise this is the reason that progress on the
issue is so slow. We will not change the minds of those interests that are
determined to ignore climate change by presenting more evidence  their
collective will is set and will not be broken by scientific facts or moral
arguments. Evidence is not sufficient persuasion and the question remains as
to where leverage can be exerted.  The US government demands proof of
substantial future risk before it even considers acting on climate change. A
threat to its national security has to be proved beyond all doubt, unlike in
the spheres of terrorism and military security, where hundreds of billions
are spend to deal with poorly defined, or undefined, threats that may just
appear in the future. This fact alone should illustrate that the facts are
more or less irrelevant. The US will only act to serve its immediate
interests as perceived by a narrow governing elite, and it is only the
discomfort of this elite that will change policy. Economic sanctions and
political isolation might have some influence, gentle persuasion and
presentation of evidence will not. David King will be pilloried in the
right-wing media in the US (if they are aware of what is published in
Science), and ignored by the administration. He is preaching only to the
converted.  I know this is bleak, but I believe this to be the nature of the
situation. Im not against the publication of such articles, indeed I
applaud them, but we must not overestimate their impact.

A few specific comments follow.

Im always wary of claims (p3) that we are entering a period of
unprecedented warmth. I do not know what the mean global temperature was in
the Holocene climatic optimum, but research suggests tropical sea-surface
temperatures some 5-6 degrees higher than present. Even a smaller change
would of course be catastrophic for many societies today, but unless there
have been serious comparisons between today and the mid-Holocene and we can
say with confidence that anthropogenic warming scenarios exceed such
palaeoclimatic conditions such claims may come back to haunt us.

Later in p3 the role of rotting vegetation exposed by melting permafrost
could also be included as a potential positive feedback.

There is a very brief mention of vulnerability on pp3-4, very much from the
top-down climate impacts perspective, assuming no adaptation (reminds me of
the work that demonstrates that the world will be bankrupt by 2065, when
economic damage from climate-related disasters will exceed world GDP, based
don current trends). There is a lot more that could be said about
vulnerability, but perhaps the precipitation of conflict by water scarcity
could be emphasised. This is likely to occur in all the regions that
Americans are scared of - the Middle East, North Africa, the Sahel etc. This
type of conflict tends to be internal, between different social groups
within a country (eg nomads and settled farmers in Niger and Chad), and can
lead to a political vacuum where all sorts of unsavoury characters can
flourish - I believe the fashionable term is "failed state". Good conditions
for al Qa'ida and its ilk. That might catch some attention.

P4 - there is a statement quantifying reductions in flooding associated with
carbon stabilisation - this would make a lot more sense if the associated
timescale was specified.

The flood projections on p5 assume no coastal realignment, and is thus a bit
like the bankrupt world example above - it illustrates a point but we cannot
assume no adaptation. Also, are not some flood plain areas already, or about
to become, uninsurable in the UK?

p6 - surely all coasts have the potential to experience erosion? Insertion
of the word "significant" or "serious" might be good here.

pp7-8 The concept of emissions intensity might be more widely understood in
the US than in the UK, but it is not transparent - indeed it was invented by
the Bush administration deliberately to mislead people. I think total
emissions should be referred to here, or the rate of increase of emissions.

p8 - The US government is not "unaccountably" failing to tackle global
warming - the reasons it is failing to do so are obvious, and are to do with
ideology and the self interest of those in and close to the administration.

p9 - Technology transfer and capacity building are not the holy grail for
developing countries that many think. While they can help, responses to
climate change are likely to be most successful if they are based on local
conditions and indigenous traditions, for example of land management. Often
the state and international institutions simply prevent people from adapting
in a way appropriate to their circumstances - the solutions do not
necessarily come from the developed world.

Finally, I would reiterate that this paper does not address the really
important political obstacles to change. Furthermore, the evidence presented
relates overwhelmingly to the UK - the fact that the UK will suffer will not
convince those who need to be convinced in the US that action is needed, as
they are not concerned with the impacts on other nations. It is hubris to
think that the UK is sufficiently influential to have a significant impact
on US policy, particularly acting in its tradition role as an "honest
friend" of the US. It is better to work with the many groups within the US
that share our concerns than to appeal to those at the top of this
administration, although of course it is not an either or situation.

I realise some of this sounds disheartening, but this is still a positive
step in a very long journey, and I wish David King well in his efforts here.
In the meantime I'll support mitigation, but pragmatically devote all my
research efforts to adaptation!

Nick
--
Dr Nick Brooks
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
Tel: +44 1603 593904
Fax: +44 1603 593901
Email: nick.brooks@uea.ac.uk
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/welcome.htm (personal site)
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk (Tyndall Centre site)
http://www.uea.ac.uk/sahara (Saharan Studies Programme)
--




On 13/11/03 9:33 am, "Mike Hulme" <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk> wrote:

> Tim and Nick,
> 
> Sir David King - government chief scientist - has asked the Tyndall Centre (me
> et al.) to check and comment on this draft manuscript which he is planning to
> publish in Science ahead of the high-level climate change seminar next
> February in Washington he is chairing and speaking at (to try to knock a few
> American heads together about climate change).
> 
> As a prelude to our work together for DEFRA on stabilisation projects, could
> both of you have a read through his text and let me have your comments by the
> end of Friday (i.e., tomorrow).  Obviously the tone and message are his - what
> he wants us to make sure is that he has made no factual errors and that the
> referencing is as strong as it can be.
> 
> I am going to put together my response on Saturday, so would appreciate any
> i/p from you before then.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Mike
> 
>> From: King MPST <MPST.KING@dti.gsi.gov.uk>
>> To: "'m.hulme@uea.ac.uk'" <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>
>> Subject: Science Article
>> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:21:32 -0000
>> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
>> 
>> Dear Professor Hulme
>> 
>> Please find attached the draft science article by Sir David. Many thanks for
>> agreeing to comment and helping us to identify the references.
>> 
>> <<Science policy forum.2.doc>> <<sciencefigures.ppt>>
>> 
>> Regards 
>> 
>> Michael Evans 
>> 
>> _____________________________________
>> Michael Evans 
>> Private Secretary to Sir David King
>> Chief Scientific Adviser to H. M. Government
>> Room 472 
>> Office of Science and Technology
>> 1 Victoria Street
>> London 
>> SW1H 0ET 
>> 
>> Tel:  ++ 44 (0) 20 7215 3824
>> Fax: ++ 44 (0) 20 7215 0314
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


