 |
 |
||
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
From the Executive DirectorScience, Not Politics: Understanding Climate Change Though Earth Observations
April 9, 2009 For some time now, I have been perplexed over how the topic of climate change has turned into an ideological battleground. Take for example these statements by The Planetary Society, which were included in our Roadmap to Space: “there is an imperative to begin an aggressive campaign to understand global climate change and to address the challenges facing planet Earth,” and “[We must] accelerate research into global climate change and enhance our understanding of Earth as a planet.” To my mind, there is nothing political or controversial here, just a plain call for more research and increased understanding. Nevertheless, some of our members – including a famous ex-Senator and former astronaut – saw this as a political and ideological statement, and let us know about it. I was surprised by this response, but pleased these members contacted us so we could clarify our position. We know that most of our members support Earth observations. A survey of our total membership found that 3 out of every 4 surveyed support increased Earth observing from space. In our latest member survey, 72% of the respondents supported “advocating Earth observations from space to monitor climate change,” whereas 7% opposed this. Unfortunately, the phrase “global climate change,” like the word “evolution,” has become a political lightning-rod that evokes ideological responses, often independent of its meaning or context. I recently came across this cartoon, which beautifully captures how difficult it has become to talk about global warming.
This has been precisely our experience: Because we used the phrase in our Roadmap, some people quickly concluded that we had taken a position on the causes of global warming and the proposed government regulations to deal with it. The fact that we had taken no such position got lost in the clamor. Indeed, the topic has become so charged that some of our friends are telling us to avoid talking about it altogether. Our good friend and close colleague, Freeman Dyson has recently taken a stand against the majority scientific view on global warming. "The fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all,” he was quoted as saying. Freeman thinks climate models aren’t good enough to adequately account for human factors, and he wants more data and more research before taking environmental action. He also believes that if humans are in fact causing climate change, then humans will also figure out a way to cope with it – through clever bio-engineering projects on a massive scale. Unlike Freeman, I am scared of global warming – because many millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) of lives will be adversely affected by it. I also think that undertaking massive, and possibly problematic, engineering projects is just as much a political action as are environmental regulations. Both paths have the potential to do great good, but they also carry serious risks and the possibility of unintended consequences. Freeman himself wants more scientific data, but because of the political polarization that has occurred around this issue, I fear that Freeman’s position will do more harm than good. The notion that humans can overcome climate change with engineering projects will imperil efforts to acquire more data and better understand the process. I believe The Planetary Society position should be embraced by both environmentalists who argue for more policy action on climate change and those who argue that we don’t yet know enough about the subject to act responsibly. Both sides want more data and both seek to understand the processes that affect climate, and climate change, on Earth. Sadly, a satellite designed to gather precisely this kind of data was lost a few weeks ago when its launch vehicle failed. It was the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which was designed to monitor the changing carbon levels in the atmosphere all around the globe. Such monitoring is particularly important now, as the nations of the world are poised to institute carbon emission regulations. As Charlie Kennel, the guest editor of our Planetary Report special issue on Planet Earth, told us last month, this data is critical now, in order to enact sound regulations and reject counter-productive policies. Failing to obtain the carbon-monitoring data will be a severe setback, whatever side of the global warming debate you are on. The Society will advocate making up for the loss of OCO. We are already considering the pros and cons of rebuilding the spacecraft and flying it as soon as possible, as against building a new satellite with more advanced technology, which might take longer. Other possibilities include flying the OCO instruments on other planned satellites, and making more international agreements for sharing and using data from other spacecraft. Whatever solution emerges from these discussions, we will lobby and advocate strongly to implement it and obtain the carbon data we need as soon as possible. Stay tuned! We will need your help. Comments? We welcome your opinions on this subject. Send us email! |
||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||
[ what is this? ]