There is much for us to do

I mourn the loss of U.S. capacity and presence in science. The attack on science is part of an ongoing shockwave-like cultural and governmental transition. Compared to this overall transition, the diminishment of our scientific institutions flirts with being inconsequential.

After World War II, the U.S. emerged as the leader in scientific and engineering research. We built capacity within the government in agencies, laboratories, and institutes. We funded a university system that attracts talent from everywhere and is part of the foundation of our economic success. That research also girds our national security.

Science-based research often reveals the harm caused by certain products or behaviors. Cigarette smoking and lung cancer come to mind. Concerning the environment, we have the perils of DDT, ozone depletion, acid rain, and global warming. In all cases, opposition emerges if we use science-based knowledge to intervene and propose to mitigate or eliminate harm.

There are many reasons for this opposition. Addressing the problem, for instance, challenges the power and profits of businesses that manufacture and sell these harmful products. In addition, intervention is viewed as a government or academic intrusion on personal choice and freedom.

In both of these cases, science is framed as a regulating agent.

Opposition to the actual or potential regulatory authority of science is always present. It is often effective.

The war on science

I view the 1995 Congressional report, Scientific Integrity and Public Trust, as a key moment in the war on climate science. In the mid-1990s, after the publication of Climate Change 1995, the oil industry effectively organized political and public opposition to climate science.

Though there have been many ups and downs in political support for climate science since 1995, the ever-present tension and unrelenting conflict cast the U.S. as an unreliable partner in climate policy development.

This stood in stark contrast to our excellence in climate science.

This unreliability in national and international policy is why I have never looked for “the solution” to climate change in the federal government. On the other hand, the U.S. government is an essential player and, at times, has been the most important player on the field. As a nation, our emissions comprise an enormous fraction of the carbon dioxide increases of the past 150 years. Even during administrations that did not champion climate change, the U.S. had significant investments in scientific research, observations, renewable energy, and policy development.

As the U.S. further isolates itself from essential roles in addressing climate change, it is easy to be discouraged and disheartened. The moves ensure that any global policy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will be deficient. Even though there is near-universal agreement that methane reductions are important and doable, the U.S. seems committed to unregulated emissions.

Unrealized goals

As unpalatable as this may be, our efforts at reducing global emissions were already falling short of stated goals.

Our commitment to reducing emissions was always suspect as we continued to increase the production and export of oil and gas.

Contextually, the U.S. is but a part of the global economy and global emissions. I expect important players to remain committed to reducing renewable energy and emissions. Not only do they perceive it in their own self-interest, renewable energy has emerged as an important and efficient part of their economies. An added benefit is that renewable energy either divests or diversifies a nation’s reliance on erratic foreign oil trade with potentially hostile nations. Therefore, efforts to address emissions reductions will continue. This may be true in the U.S., as well, as economic trends and global trade align with a transition to renewables.

More importantly, perhaps, there is an immense amount of work that needs to be undertaken in adaptation. As damage from floods, droughts, fire, and severe storms continues to increase, local public pressure for adaptation will also increase. The U.S. government will likely still be a player in this field as we prepare for “severe weather.” We have seen this reframing before — preparing for severe weather without talking about why the weather might be getting more severe.

The adaptation work that needs to be done is widespread and can be performed at local and regional scales. Unlike the perceived benefits of reduced emissions, the payoff is tangible and near-term.

Planning ahead

Some wise leaders and localities will engage in anticipatory adaptation to prevent damage before it happens. This is critical because adaptation tends to be more effective if planned at a community or regional scale. In addition, institutional efforts to reduce emissions can have a significant impact.

Mitigation of emissions can also be effective on the subnational scale. Several states in the U.S. have economies and energy consumption larger than many countries; not surprisingly, large U.S. cities have high emissions. For many years, mayors, governors, and coalitions of cities and states have made efforts to address climate change. These jurisdictions are often at the front line, meaning they are feeling climate change directly, so their motivations are often high. During the first Trump administration, organizations of states and cities remained present and active.

The private sector is also an important player. Corporations and billionaires are not a united front opposing climate change action. Indeed, some are leaders in addressing climate change. This might be one of their corporate values, or it might represent their customers’ desires. In some cases, it is simply good business. As many corporations are multinational, they are beholden to customer and regulatory bases beyond U.S. borders.

I find the emergence of nonprofit organizations as “operational” entities interesting. Some might view this phenomenon as a failure of government and governance. Others might consider it a valuable diversification of assets that provides new monitoring and evaluation capacity. The Environmental Defense Fund runs MethaneSAT, which measures methane emissions. They also have a prominent effort evaluating  geoengineering strategies. Climate TRACE provides an aggregated view of methane emissions.

Erosion along the bleeding edge

Of course, in the past 25 years, climate research and climate-monitoring capacities have emerged all over the world. The U.S. is not the only player. In my opinion, the persistent political hostility toward climate science in the U.S. has been eroding, in a relative sense, our research, observational, and preparedness capacity for the past 15 years. On one hand, the growing international efforts show the resilience and robustness of the science community. On the other hand, the results of science-based research are important to our security and our economy, and stepping back from the bleeding edge will have consequences.

One of my recent columns was about catastrophic change and the potential opportunities that follow abrupt transitions. I view what is happening to our science capacity now as catastrophic. I have heard the aphorism that it takes 50 years to grow an orchard and a single afternoon to cut it down.

Eventually, something will emerge from the current crumbling of our scientific institutions. But severe damage has already been done. We cannot be viewed as trusted partners in research or policy. We will not be in a position to lead, only to agree.

The vision that keeps coming to me is Havana, Cuba, a city with big old American cars running on dirty fuel — and a reputation for good music and fun. Interestingly, the people of Cuba are very good at evacuating for hurricanes.

There is much work we can do in the absence of federal support. Climate leaders must maintain focus in the face of crises. We can and will carry on.
 
 
(Lead image: iStock.)