There has been a lot of talk lately about TSCA, the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is in desperate need of reform, and, for the first time since it was enacted in 1976, it seems that Congress might actually revise some of its many failings. Organizations as diverse as the EPA, American Chemistry Council, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition, Environmental Defense Fund, and Consumer Specialty Products Association have all laid out proposals for reforming the law. There is a surprising consensus on the elements of TSCA that need to be addressed, although, as always, the devil is in the details. Continue Reading »

Last month four female scientists received Nobel prizes in economics, medicine, and chemistry. These women should be lauded for their scientific achievements as they become role models to women around the globe. In October, Science held a phone conference between these women and some science journalists, with highlights from the discussion concerning career and family balance posted on the Science Careers Blog. As of 31 December the blog had received no comments or trackbacks unlike many of the women-in-science blogs found throughout the Internet, which are rife with comments. What is there within the personal stories—even the anonymous stories—found in women-in-science blogs that leads to commenting and an e-community? The community of women’s professional networks and the ways in which career and family can be balanced are topics discussed thoroughly in the Women in Chemistry Oral History Project. Did these new Nobel laureates say anything in their conversation highlights that differs or stands out from the stories of other women or the blogosphere? Yes and no. Continue Reading »

There’s no doubt that the momentum for cap-and-trade legislation in Congress has seriously slowed and could be in trouble. It passed the House with a margin of seven votes and now seems to be stuck in the Senate. The health-care debate has sucked away both time and any remaining reservoir of bipartisanship. Former Republican supporters appear to be bailing. New opponents are entering the fray. Meantime, an August poll taken by Hart Research Associates has shown that the public prefers the concept of a carbon tax over the idea of cap and trade. Is it still possible to go back and make a fundamental change to the regulatory approach? Continue Reading »

One of the side events at COP15, sponsored by the Danish Board of Technology (DBT), reported on the results of an international deliberation among citizens from 38 countries. Specifically, the DBT organized national partners to recruit approximately 100 of their citizens, reflecting the demographic diversity of each region, to deliberate over climate change policy and advise their home country’s delegations to COP15. All deliberations were held on September 26, 2009 and the DBT immediately made available all the data on the website for World Wide Views on Global Warming. [Full disclosure: I helped to organize the World Wide Views event in Colorado and am attending COP15 through a National Science Foundation grant to study the outcomes and processes of the project].

The website includes the four videos that were part of the citizen deliberations – all based on the scientific consensus on climate change reflected in the 2007 IPCC report. In addition, the DBT wrote a policy report that analyzed the data to present nine policy recommendations to negotiators at COP15. Finally, and perhaps most exciting, the website allows customized comparisons among countries, continents, and types of countries . Continue Reading »

[Note: The Center is proud to host guest blogger Jason Delborne who will be sharing his thoughts from Copenhagen. Delborne is an Assistant Professor in Liberal Arts and International Studies at the Colorado School of Mines.]

Today, the scientific leaders of the IPCC held a “side event” at COP15, presenting the main conclusions from their 2007 report (AR 4), updates on their planned Special Reports on renewable energy sources and extreme climate events, and some clues about their approach to AR 5. But the emails took center stage, as everyone in the room had anticipated.

Just as he did in his remarks during the COP15 opening plenary on Monday, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri explicitly addressed “climategate,” the email scandal in which emails from climate scientists in East Anglia purportedly showed the suppression of dissenting views (climate skeptics) and manipulations of data. In response, Pachauri emphasized the scientific credibility of the IPCC’s findings and process, reminding the audience of the diversity of experts and governments involved in the review process and of the multiple data sets taken into consideration. He also repeatedly framed the story as an “illegal act,” rather than an exposure of questionable conduct, and reminded the audience several times that he assumed that the police were looking into the theft of “private emails” from the “unfairly targeted” scientists who were “victims.”

The defense of the IPCC’s science by Pachauri and his colleagues was quite persuasive to the packed room at the Bella Center. One panelist noted that some of the “skeptical science” referred to in the emails had indeed been carefully discussed and considered by his working group – bolstering the argument that all perspectives had a fair hearing in the credible IPCC review of published science. In addition, the emphasis on multiple data sets went a long way in reassuring those of us in “Hopenhagen” – so deemed by the mayor of Copenhagen – that the scientific consensus was not unraveling.

On the other hand, the IPCC remains balanced precariously on the ever-thinning line that divides politics and science. What is dangerous here is that leaders such as Pachauri have dug in their heels to re-claim science’s objectivity – its separation and insulation from politics. This claim fails to resonate with the tone and apparent intentions revealed in the hacked emails, and it finds little purchase at an event like COP15 where science and policy are hopelessly intertwined. At one point during the session, NY Times reporter Andy Revkin even challenged one of the scientific panelists for stepping outside his role by calling for “urgent action.” Pachauri responded by clarifying that IPCC scientists could make such claims as long as they transparently presented their assumptions (for example, assuming the world had decided to limit global warming to 2 degrees, action to reduce carbon emissions is urgent). While I knew what he was trying to say, it wasn’t convincing and I can imagine the internal heckles of those who assume that the IPCC was captured by the liberal environmentalist anti-business lobby many years ago.

But is it absolutely necessary to keep insisting on the thick and impenetrable line between science and politics? Can’t we admit that scientists involved in research on climate change are indeed participating in a political project? By political I mean that the search for knowledge is embroiled in struggles over power and the distribution of costs and benefits. Simply put, showing that “business as usual” practices in the energy sector will undermine the quality of life substantially for many of the world’s inhabitants by 2050 is a political act! Climate science is political, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t trust it.

“Climategate” has tragically distracted attention from the need to develop an action plan at COP15, but it is also a tragedy in the sense of a missed opportunity for scientists and politicians to open conversations with the public about the necessary engagement between their two professions. Pachauri and his colleagues may win short-term gains by reclaiming the high authority of objective and politically-disinterested science, but such a strategy just sets us up for the next surprise attack.

Jason Delborne
Copenhagen

It is just a few days after Thanksgiving, Christmas is a few weeks away, and the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are on the news. If you asked people about a current pandemic, they would be more likely to mention swine flu than AIDS; yet, today is World AIDS Day. Amidst the public-health hype over swine flu, it is easy to allow the AIDS pandemic to move to the back of our minds if it does not affect you directly. There are an estimated 33.4 million people living with HIV who do not have that luxury. The CDC claims that those living with HIV are at no greater risk for swine flu so long as the necessary precautions are taken, which can include the swine-flu vaccine. In 2008 there were 2 million AIDS-related deaths, whereas the WHO says that as of late November, there have been under 8,000 swine-flu deaths.   Continue Reading »