Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming

Science Policy Around the Web – September 19, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Nivedita Sengupta, PhD

20170919_Linkpost_1

source: pixabay

Global Warming

The world may still hit it’s 1.5 °C global warming mark, if modelers have anything to say about it

Nature Geoscience published a paper on 18th September, which deliving what could be good news regarding climate change and global warming. The team of climate scientists in that paper claimed that it is possible to limit global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, as mentioned in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The data in the paper stated that the global climate models used in a 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), overestimated the extent of warming that has already occurred. By adjusting this parameter when performing model-based calculations, they concluded that the amount of carbon that humanity can emit from 2015 and onwards to keep temperatures from rising above 1.5 °C is almost 3 times greater than the previous estimation done by IPCC. The conclusions have significant implications for global policymakers and suggests that IPCC’s carbon budget can be met with modest strengthening of the current Paris pledges up to 2030, followed by sharp cuts in carbon emissions thereafter.

Some scientists are already challenging the conclusions from the paper, questioning the analysis’s reliance on a period of slower warming, a so called climate hiatus, at the beginning of this millennium which continued until 2014. They say that natural variability in the climate system produced lower temperatures during that period and hence any calculations based on that can be artificially low because it calculates the human contribution towards warming during those periods. Moreover, the oceans and the land were probably absorbing more carbon than normal during this period. Hence natural processes can return some of that carbon to the atmosphere. Taking these factors into account reduces the predicted amount of carbon that can be released while keeping atmospheric temperatures under the 1.5°C limit. But the authors of the paper argue that the climate hiatus should not significantly contribute too their conclusions. They feel the multiple methodologies used to estimate the actual warming due to greenhouse gases should allow the calculations to be accurate irrespective of any short-term climate variability.

Nonetheless,  humanity’s rapid assent towards the global warming threshold is muddled by modelling scenarios, framing the 1.5 °C as a very small target for policy makers and scientists to try to hit by 2030. The fine details of carbon emission matters when scientists are looking for the precise effects of the different greenhouse gases on global warming. But even if the paper proves accurate in its prediction, huge efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions will still be necessary to limit warming. As the author of the paper, Dr. Millar, says, “We’re showing that it’s still possible. But the real question is whether we can create the policy action that would actually be required to realize these scenarios.”

(Jeff Tollefson, Nature News)

Debatable Technology

What’s in a face…prediction technology

A paper by the genome-sequencing pioneer Craig Venter published on 5th September raised a lot of criticism and have gathered fears about genetic privacy. The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), claims to predict people’s physical traits from their DNA. Dr. Venter and his colleagues sequenced the whole genomes of 1,061 people of varying ages and ethnic backgrounds at Human Longevity, Inc. (HLI). Artificial intelligence was applied to analyze combination of each participant’s genetic data with a high-quality 3D photographs of the participant’ face. This analysis revealed single nucleotide changes in the genetic code between participants that corresponded with with facial features such as cheekbone height and other factors like height, weight, age, vocal characteristics and skin color. Using this approach, they could correctly pick an individual out of a group of ten people randomly selected from the HLI’s database, 74% of the time. This technology could be tremendously powerful for any agencies handling human genome data. Simply removing personal identifying information, which is routinely done in practice, would not eliminate the possibility that individuals could still be identified by the data itself.

However, reviewers of the paper says that the claims are vastly overstated and the ability to use a person’s genes to identify the individual is hugely overblown. According to the skeptics, just knowing the age, sex and race alone can eliminate most of the individuals in a randomly selected group of ten people from a data set as small and diverse as HLI’s. Computational biologist Yaniv Erlich of Columbia University in New York City provided evidence in support of this statement by looking at the age, sex and ethnicity data from HLI’s paper. According to his calculations knowing only those three traits was sufficient to identify an individual out of a group of ten people in the HLI data set 75% of the time, irrespective of any information on the genome. He concluded that the paper doesn’t demonstrate that individuals can be identified by their DNA, as it claims to. HLI counter argued by saying that they used multiple parameters to identify someone, out of which a person’s face is just one.

The review process that the paper underwent is not standard for most journals. By submitting to PNAS as a member of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, Venter was allowed to hand select the three reviewers his paper would be evaluated by. While the issues surrounding this paper are being hotly debated by members of the scientific community, some fear Venter’s stature will give the paper undo weight to policymakers, who may become overly concerned about DNA privacy and can thus affect the rules and regulations making processes.

(Sara Reardon, Nature News)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Advertisements

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 21, 2017 at 5:45 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – June 06, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Kseniya Golovnina, PhD

Source: Flickr, by USDA, via Creative Commons     (CC BY 2.0)

Food Security

What if Food Crops Failed at the Same Time?

When one group of people is fighting with climate change and another considers it “mythical”, researchers specialized in the study of social-ecological systems are developing food supply risk assessment models. Food crops are one of the most important sources of human being existence, and less than one-fourth of the planet (“breadbaskets”) produces three-fourth of the staple crops that feed the world’s population. In fact, climate change could cause crop losses in most of the breadbaskets.

Two important factors included in the models are shocks to major land crop production and economy. Shocks like droughts and heat waves in Ukraine and Russia in 2007 and 2009 almost wiped out wheat crops, and caused global wheat prices to spike. And demand assessments project that food production may have to double by 2050 to feed a growing population. Together, the potential environmental and economic stresses are making the world food production system less resilient, and will affect both rich and poor nations. To measure the fragility of the system, researchers developed scenarios of small shocks (10 percent crop loss) and large shocks (50 percent crop loss). These were then applied to corn, wheat or rice output using an integrated assessment model, the Global Change Assessment Model, which was developed by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Among the critical findings are that “breadbasket” regions respond to shocks in different ways. For example, South Asia, where most of the arable land is already in use, is quite unresponsive to shocks occurring elsewhere in the world, because the total amount of land in agricultural production cannot be changed significantly. In Brazil the situation is opposite, it has a lot of potential to bring new land into production if large shocks occur. However, cleaning Brazil’s forests requires significant effort and would add significantly to global climate change. Within the research agenda of the Pardee Center, these risks and preventive actions are discussed in more detail. The warning is clear: humankind needs to be aware and prepared for potential multiple “breadbaskets” failure if we want to reduce the potential for catastrophe. (Anthony Janetos, The Conversation)

Reproducibility in Science

Research Transparency: Open Science

Increasing amounts of scientific data, complexity of experiments, and the hidden or proprietary nature of data has given rise to the “reproducibility crisis” in science. Reproducibility studies in cancer biology have revealed that only 40 % or less peer-reviewed analyses are replicable. Another large-scale project attempting to replicate 100 recent psychology studies was successful in replicating less than 50% of the original results.

These findings are driving scientists to look for ways to increase study reliability, and make research practices more efficient and available for evaluation. A philosophy of open science, where scientists share their primary materials and data, makes analytical approaches more transparent and allows common research practices and standards to emerge more quickly. For scientific journals and associations, open science methods enable the creation of different ways to store and utilize data. Some journals are specifically dedicated to publishing data sets for reuse (Scientific DataJournal of Open Psychology Data), others require or reward open science practices like publicly posting materials and data.

The widespread use of online repositories to share study materials and data helps to store large data sets and physical materials to help mitigate the problems of reproducibility. However, open science practice is still very much in development, and faces some significant disincentives. Habits and reward structures are two major forces work against. Researchers are used to being close, and hide their data from being stolen. Journal editors tend to favor publishing papers that tell a tidy story with perfectly clear results. This causes researchers to omit “failed” studies that don’t clearly support their theories.

While efforts to overcome these obstacles are difficult, development of fully transparent science should be encouraged, as openness helps improve understanding, and acknowledges the truth that real data are often messy. (Elizabeth Gilbert and Katie Corker, The Conversation)

 

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 6, 2017 at 9:00 am

How GMOs Could Help with Sustainable Food Production

with one comment

By: Agnes Donko, PhD

World Population estimates from 1800 to 2100

           The world population has exceeded 7.5 billion and by 2050 it is expected to reach 9.7 billion. The challenge of feeding this ever-growing population is exacerbated by global warming, which may lead to more frequent droughts or the melting of Arctic sea and Greenland ice. The year 2016 was the warmest ever recorded, with the average temperature 1.1 °C above the pre-industrial period, and 0.06 °C above the previous record set in 2015. According to the United Nations, the world faces the largest humanitarian crisis in East-Africa since the foundation of the organization in 1945, particularly in Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria. In these countries, 20 million people face starvation and famine this year because of drought and regional political instability.

How could genetically modified organisms (GMO) help?

The two main GMO strategies  are the herbicide-tolerant (HT) and insect-resistant crops. HT crops were developed to help crops survive application of specific herbicides (glyphosate) that would otherwise destroy the crop along with the targeted weeds. Insect-resistant crops contain a gene from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that encodes for a protein that is toxic to specific insects, thus protecting the plant. Insect-resistant crops can reduce pesticide use, which decreases the ecological footprint of cultivation in two ways – first by reducing insecticide use, which in turn will reduce the environmental impact of insecticide production, and second by reducing the fuel usage and carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) emission, by fewer spraying rounds and reduced tillage. Thus, adoption of GM technology by African nations and other populous countries like India could help with sustainable agriculture that can ameliorate the burden of changing climate and growing populations.

In developed nations, especially in the US, GM technology has been widely used since the mid-1990s, mainly in four crops: canola, maize, cotton and soybean. GM crops account for 93 percent of cotton, 94 percent of soybean and 92 percent of corn acreage in the US in 2016. Although the appearance of weed resistance to glyphosate increased herbicide usage, in 2015 the global insecticide savings from using herbicide-tolerant maize and cotton were 7.8 million kg (84% decrease) and 19.3 million kg (53% decrease), respectively, when compared with pesticide usage expected with conventional crops. Globally these savings resulted in more than 2.8 million kg of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to taking 1.25 million cars off the road for one year.

Another way in which GM crops can help sustainable food production is by reducing food wastage in developed nations. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that one-third of all food produced for human consumption in the world (around 1.3 billion tons) is lost or wasted each year, which includes 45% of all fruits. For example, when an apple is bruised, an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase initiates the degradation of polyphenols that turns the apple’s flesh brown. But nobody wants to buy brown apples, so the bruised apples are simply trashed. In Arctic apples, the level of the enzyme is reduced by gene silencing, thereby preventing browning. The Arctic Apple obtained USDA approval in 2015, and is expected to reach the market in 2017.

In 2015, the FDA approved the first GMO food for animal consumption, a genetically modified Atlantic salmon called AquAdvantage. Conventional salmon farming has terrible effects on the environment. However, AquAdvantage contains a growth hormone regulating transgene, which allows for accelerated growth rates, thus decreasing the farming time from 3 years to 16-18 months. This would dramatically reduce the ecological footprint of fish farming, leading to more sustainable food production. Even though FDA did not find any difference in the nutritional profile between AquAdvantage and its natural counterpart, AquAdvantage will not hit the U.S. market any time soon, because the FDA banned import and sale until the exact guidelines on how this product should be labelled are published.

This FDA action was initiated by bill S. 764 that was signed by former president Barack Obama in 2016. Bill S. 764 requires food companies to disclose GMOs without necessarily using a GMO text label on packaging. They may choose to label GM ingredients with a symbol or a QRC (quick response code) that, when scanned by a smartphone, will lead the consumer to a website with more information on the product. But this requires the consumer to have both a smartphone and access to the internet. The bill also has ‘lax standards and broad definition’. For instance, if the majority of a product contains meat, but some other less significant ingredient is produced from GM crops, then it need not be labelled. Oil extracted from GM soybean, or starch purified from GM corn are exempt from labeling, because they were only derived from GM sources, but no longer contain any genetic material in them. Contrarily, in the European Union (EU), regulations require that the phrase “genetically modified” or “produced from genetically modified [name of the organism]” must appear clearly next to the ingredient list. If the food is not packaged, the same phrase must be on the food display or next to it. The EU also unequivocally determines the level of GMO (below 0.9 %) in conventional food or feed that is exempt from labelling.

Despite its controversial guidelines for GMO labeling, bill S. 764 could end the long-fought battle of Just Label It campaign. The bill was a huge step toward the right to know, which will let individuals decide if they want to consume GM foods or not. GMOs can significantly support sustainable food production and reduce the destructive environmental impact of humanity, but only if we let it.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 12, 2017 at 5:13 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – May 9, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

By Robert A. Rohde (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Environment

Please Pass the Crickets!

Most people know that eating beef is bad for the environment. A new study from the University of Edinburgh and Scotland’s rural college quantifies the impact human carnivores could have if we switched half of our current meat intake to insects such as crickets and mealworms. Cattle require huge swaths of pasture and produce enormous amounts of greenhouse gases such as methane. Methane is released during normal digestive processes, and methane and other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide are released from manure.

The idea of switching from a plate of steak to a bowl of mealworms may be too much for most Westerners, so what’s the human meat lover to do? Luckily, the study suggested that switching harmful beef for chicken or imitation meat (such as tofu) can yield large environmental benefits, because poultry and soy plants both require less land and produce less greenhouse gasses than cattle. The study also concluded that “meat in a dish”, or lab grown meat, was not more sustainable than chicken or eggs.

Although meat might not be replaced by insects any time soon for humans, we can still begin to incorporate insects into the farming discussion. Currently cattle raised for human consumption are fed diets of hay, soy, grain and other surprising items. These cattle need high levels of protein, which is one reason why mad cow disease became so prevalent – uneaten parts of cows were fed to other cows, which made them sick. Insects could help solve the protein gap for cattle, which was supported by a general survey of farmers, agricultural stakeholders and the public in Belgium.

Our eating practices affect the environment; moving towards a sustainable agricultural system is a commendable goal. Every person can decide for themselves how far they’re willing to go along the food chain to achieve a smaller carbon footprint. (ScienceDaily)

Vision Loss

Letting the Blind See Again

Vision loss is devastating – vision is the most relied upon source of sensory input for humans.  This can occur from an accident or genetic/physiological disorders. Retinitis pigmentosa causes a degeneration of the retina, and affects about 100,000 people in the US. Currently there is no cure, but clinical trials are exploring treatments to slow the process using gene therapy, dietary changes, or other drugs.

A new synthetic, soft tissue retina has been invented by a graduate student at Oxford University.  This artificial retina is biodegradable and uses synthetic but biological tissues to mimic the human retina.  The material composition is less likely to trigger an adverse reaction in the body and are less invasive than current retina transplants made of hard metal materials. Restrepo-Schild developed a bilayer of water droplets which respond to light with electrical impulses. The signals translate to cells at the back of the eye just like healthy retinal cells should. The new retina prototype has yet to be tested in animals to see if it translates well to humans.

Another way to restore vision is gaining traction: xenotransplants (transplants from animals to humans). Just last year a Chinese boy’s vision was restored after a corneal transplant from a pig. Pigs are good candidates for human transplantation because they are anatomically and physiologically similar, and they are ethically more desirable sources than non-human primates. Although pigs are not immunologically similar to humans, the eye transplants are unlikely to be rejected by the recipient because this part of the body is immune-privileged.

Restoring vision is an important and admirable task. Scientists and clinicians have multiple avenues to explore to help people regain their sight. (ScienceDaily)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 9, 2017 at 9:43 am

Science Policy Around the Web – January 20, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Jessica Hostetler, PhD

Climate Change

Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year

The New York Times reports that scientists named 2016 the hottest year on record. This follows the record set in 2015, which followed the record set in 2014 and marks the first time in history a temperature record was set three years in a row. The data is in agreement from three governmental institutions: the USA’s NOAA and NASA and the United Kingdom’s Met Office. The findings were based on “measurements from ships, buoys and land-based weather stations” used to compute an average global temperature of the earth’s surface. The El Niño weather pattern “released a huge burst of energy and water vapor into the atmosphere” and intensified warming in 2015 and 2016, but scientists agree the upward trend over many years is caused by increasing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

The warming increases were particularly pronounced in the arctic with “temperatures in the fall running 20 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit above normal across large stretches of the Arctic Ocean” potentially exacerbating sea ice melting and coastal erosion. The heating of the ocean has implications for rises in ocean levels and increased tidal flooding. The calculations from NASA showed over a half a degree Fahrenheit of warming from 2013 to 2016 which is the largest three-year increase since records were started in 1880 and of “the 17 hottest years on record, 16 have now occurred since 2000.” Both NOAA and NASA will soon report to cabinet members appointed by the Trump Administration, with concerns raised from “agencies about whether their data will now be subject to political manipulation.” (Justin Gillis, New York Times)

Human Research Policy

New Rules Ease Consent Requirements for Scientists Using Patient Specimens

STAT News reports that the outgoing Obama Administration issued new rules on Wednesday, January 18th for conducting research with human participants referred to as the “Common Rule” , which include “stepping back from proposals that would have imposed significant new regulatory requirements on scientists.” Earlier versions of the proposal would have required informed, written consent for the use of biospecimens such as “cells, blood, tumor samples, DNA” etc. that were obtained during medical procedures even if the samples had all identifying information removed. Scientists argued that such a change would stifle research; for instance if researchers wanted to use specimens from a previous study where consent was given for a new study, a new consent would be required which would require tracking down each participant.  This would prove challenging for several new White House initiatives such as the Precision Medicine Initiative or the Cancer Moonshot. The proposed change drew 2100 comments during a 90-day public comment period following release in September 2015, and the Department of Health and Human Services responded by making changes to the proposal. (Sharon Begley, STAT News)

The final rule, as posted by the HHS website, includes the following:

  • The requirement for consent forms to provide potential research subjects with a better understanding of a project’s scope, including its risks and benefits, so they can make a more fully informed decision about whether to participate.
  • Requirements, in many cases, to use a single institutional review board (IRB) for multi-institutional research studies. The proposal from the NPRM has been modified, however, to add substantial increased flexibility in now allowing broad groups of studies (instead of just specific studies) to be removed from this requirement.
  • For studies on stored identifiable data or identifiable biospecimens, researchers will have the option of relying on broad consent obtained for future research as an alternative to seeking IRB approval to waive the consent requirement. As under the current rule, researchers will still not have to obtain consent for studies on non-identified stored data or biospecimens.
  • The establishment of new exempt categories of research based on the level of risk they pose to participants. For example, to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden and allow IRBs to focus their attention on higher risk studies, there is a new exemption for secondary research involving identifiable private information if the research is regulated by and participants protected under the HIPAA rules.
  • Removal of the requirement to conduct continuing review of ongoing research studies in certain instances where such review does little to protect subjects.
  • Requirement that consent forms for certain federally funded clinical trials be posted on a public website.

(Sharon Begley, STAT News)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 20, 2017 at 10:58 am

Science Policy Around the Web – January 17, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Kseniya Golovnina, PhD

Source: Wikimedia Commons, by Copyright (c) 2004 Richard Ling, under Creative Commons

Biodiversity

The Mysterious World of Antarctica is More than Penguins

On December 21, 2016 the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) released a video, which was made under the sea ice in O’Brien Bay, south of Casey research station in East Antarctica. This was the last part of the Australian Antarctic program, led by Dr. Johnny Stark, with the aim to observe the effect of climate change and ocean acidification due to increased carbon dioxide emissions on the Southern Ocean seafloor communities.

AAD biologist Dr. Glenn Johnstone and his team launched a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) through the small hole drilled in the ice and captured a rare glimpse of wonderful colorful Antarctic underwater world. They discovered a flourishing community of sea life below the massive ice sheet, at 30 meters below the surface, where the water temperature is −1.5°C year round, and the sea is covered by ice that is 1.5 meters thick for more than 10 months of the year. The video surprisingly revealed “a habitat that is productive, colorful, dynamic and full of a wide variety of biodiversity, including sponges, sea spiders, urchins, sea cucumbers and sea stars.”

About 30% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean and increases its acidity. According to NASA Earth Observatory, increased acidity will increase the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide, making the carbonate shells of marine organisms such as corals thinner and more fragile. Higher water temperatures would also decrease the abundance of phytoplanktons, which play an important role in the carbon cycle absorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The increased carbon dioxide in the ocean might facilitate the growth of a few species of phyplanktons that take carbon dioxide directly from the water, but overall excess carbon would be detrimental to most ocean species.

Scientists are only now beginning to understand the complex underwater Antarctic ecosystem. Antarctica may be one of the first places where the detrimental effects of ocean acidification are seen, says Dr. Stark. These studies could be a good future indicator of the effects of climate change and ocean acidification on ocean ecosystems. (Australian Antarctic Division)

Food Policy

One or Two Tablespoons of Nutella?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has closed collecting public comments about a regulatory change that would cut Nutella’s labeled serving size by half. More than 650 comments were collected. “One tablespoon or two tablespoons?” – The Washington Post explains the difference. The issue was about the appropriate reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) and product category. Nutella is classified as a dessert topping, with a RACC of two tablespoons. The serving size typically indicates how much Americans consume at a time and not how much they should, to make it easy for people to compare different products.

Its manufacturer, Ferrero, has asked that Nutella be reclassified as a jam or put in a different product category. This would cut the serving size that Nutella displays on its labels to one tablespoon, which would also decrease the sugar and calorie counts. It is already the second request from Nutella’s company since 2014. As they said to the Washington Post “it was simply seeking clarity as it and other companies prepare their new Nutrition Facts labels, slated for release in 2018”. However, critics of Nutella’s FDA petition including Lindsay Moyer, a senior nutritionist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, warn people about the marketing ploy to trick people into thinking that it has less calories. If Nutella’s serving size is changed to one tablespoon, it could advertise a mere 100 calories per serving — versus roughly 188 calories for two tablespoons of peanut butter, or 196 calories for almond.

At the same time the question of one or two tablespoons seems not so relevant if one takes a look at the company’s website, where they say “you could circle the world with the amount of Nutella produced every year”. U.S. sales of Nutella are up 39% — from $161.4 million to $224.3 million — in the past five years in comparison with 5% for other nut butters. (Caitlin Dewey, The Washington Post)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 17, 2017 at 12:09 pm

Perspective on Climate Change: Supporters versus Skeptics

leave a comment »

By: Nivedita Sengupta, PhD

        A recent United Nations report shows that earth’s surface temperature is rapidly hurtling towards a two degrees Celsius increase. Scientists say that the world must stay below two degrees to avoid the worst effects of climate change. However solving this issue can be challenging and overwhelming. The science used to generate the evidence for climate change is complicated and the predictions carry many caveats and asterisks. Nonetheless the major question that stands out is, “What is climate change and why people are skeptic about it?”

The definition of climate change itself triggers a difference in opinion. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change refers to “A change in the climate that persists for decades or longer, arising from either natural causes or human activity”. This definition differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change preferentially refers to “A change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere.” Instead, UNFCCC defines a change in climate over comparable time periods because of natural causes as climate variability.

Keeping these definitions aside, many policymakers and major corporations worldwide have agreed and expressed willingness to address climate change. They believe the scientific evidence generated so far demands action. But some scientists, economists, industry groups, and policy experts continue to insist that there is no need for policy changes. Ironically many people concede with them and insist that the entire problem is exaggerated. The debate between the supporters and the skeptics is ingrained, and both groups deride each other with countless claims and counterclaims on both the science and proposed policy solutions.

Surprisingly, some climate-change skeptics do admit that the earth is warming. But they debate the cause, its potential impact, and whether human intervention is affecting it. As Myron Ebell, the president elects’ select candidate for leading the transition of the Environmental Protection Agency, stated his views on climate change “I agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and its concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing as a result of human activities—primarily burning coal, oil, and natural gas, where I disagree is whether this amounts to a crisis that requires drastic action.”

So what are the premises on which the skeptics insist that the current policies addressing the issue of climate change are unwarranted and dispensable? Broadly, this question can be answered by discussing the views of skeptics versus supporters on three major points of concern.

First, what is global warming and is it really happening?

Skeptics

The skeptics argue that the earth is not warming. They contend that the satellite-based temperature measurements, taken across the earth’s surface, indicate no measurable change in the last 30 years, and that the measuring standards are different in every place resulting in inconsistent readings. Besides, the IPCC’s graph of “global” temperatures is incorrect as they do not state the earlier cool period of about 1400 or a very warm period from about 900 to 1050 when the temperatures in Europe were several degrees warmer than today. They also make the point that warming is natural and if the earth was warmer during those periods and consecutively cooled down via some natural mechanisms, then that will happen in the future too.

Supporters

According to IPCC and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), records of temperature that date back to the distant past, generated by analysis of ice cores and sediments, are quite accurate and suggest that the warming in recent decades is way higher than any period over the past millennium. Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said, “It’s unprecedented in 1,000 years.” 15 out of the 16 hottest years in NASA’s 134-year record have occurred since 2000.

Second, is there any real impact because of climate change?

Skeptics

Skeptics believe that climate change has no impact whatsoever and is not responsible for the extreme weather catastrophes in recent times. It has happened in the past and has no connection with either global warming or increased levels of carbon dioxide.

Supporters

The supporters says that the impacts are everywhere starting from the melting of polar ice sheets to endangered biodiversity, which will eventually risk human health and society. In the US alone, numerous weather and climate-born billion-dollar disasters have occurred from 1980-2016, the most recent being the historic flood devastating a large area of southern Louisiana.

Third, and the most disputed subject is…

Are human beings really responsible for climate change?

Skeptics

According to skeptics the carbon dioxide levels are not high enough to elicit concern as the current carbon dioxide levels were exceeded in the last 150 years. Besides, they argue that water vapor, and not carbon dioxide, is the significant greenhouse gas because it absorbs more radiant heat than carbon dioxide and makes up about 3% of the atmosphere compared to 0.03% by carbon dioxide. The current level of carbon dioxide contributes to about 3% of the total warming and hence the anthropogenic carbon dioxide contribution to total warming is, at the most, about 0.1%. Therefore carbon dioxide generated because of “human interference” has no discernible role in global warming. They consider carbon dioxide as beneficial for the environment and attribute other factors like aircraft exhaust, cosmic rays, solar winds, magnetic fields and solar intensity as causes of climate change. They state that no definitive factor for climate change has been established yet and any assertive statements about current and future climates should be regarded with skepticism.

Supporters

IPCC in its 2014 climate change report states, “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history.” Global warming is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This carbon overload is caused mainly when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas or cut down and burn forests. Burning of fossil fuels to make electricity is the largest source of heat-trapping pollution. Though water vapor is the most abundant heat-trapping gas, it has a short cycle in the atmosphere and cannot build up in the same way carbon dioxide does. Preventing dangerous climate change requires very deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, as well as the use of alternatives to fossil fuels worldwide.

In 2015, the Paris Agreement was made within the UNFCCC to deal with climate change by reducing greenhouse gases emissions starting in 2020. So far, 114 out of 197 countries have ratified with the agreement and vouched to cut down emission. On September 2016, the United States of America joined the Paris agreement along with China, another big emission producing country. President Obama called it a top concern and said “For all the challenges that we face, the growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other challenge”. In contrast, president-elect Donald Trump has shown a skeptic view on this matter and has described climate change as “bullshit” and a “hoax. He vowed to dismantle the EPA and withdraw United States from the Paris Agreement to reduce the damage on economy created by climate change alarmists. However, there are a handful of elected members who offer some hope to fight the cause of climate change in coming years. Five candidates with strong climate credentials won offices in Congress, and they have impressive personal and political backgrounds. In the present situation it’s critical that the world stays on course with rational, prompt and comprehensive action to mitigate climate change.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

December 8, 2016 at 9:00 am