After hearing that I work in science policy, countless people have asked me “Do you believe in climate change?” They expect that since I have a Ph.D. in science that I will be able to articulately communicate the sophisticated and intricate science of climate change. However, my degree is in molecular biology (really small stuff) rather than climate sciences (really big stuff), so this issue is just as complicated for me as it is for many in the general public. Before joining the Baker Institute in 2003, I knew little about climate change except that it was controversial. In the past six years, mostly thanks to my colleague, Baker Institute Senior Fellow Neal Lane, and his friends from Washington, such as John Holdren (science adviser to President Obama) and Rosina Bierbaum (dean of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan), I’ve developed a better understanding and appreciation for the science, and of the scientists doing this work.
What was refreshing about this month’s Baker Institute event, “The Challenges of Communicating Climate Change,” was the fact that our panel of expert scientists chose to address specific concerns and ways to make the issue of global climate change more relatable to a general audience. The scientists include Tim Reeder, regional climate change programme manager for the U.K. Environment Agency; Mark Maslin, director of the Environment Institute at the University College of London; and David Vaughan, science leader of the British Antarctic Survey. The event was co-sponsored by Rice University’s Center of the Study of Environment and Society; its director, André W. Droxler, a professor of earth science, served as the moderator.
The goal of the event was not to debate whether the Earth is getting warmer or to dump a large load of confusing data on the audience, but to determine how to better shape the dialogue to help policymakers and community leaders determine if and how it will impact them — and what they should do. In both the United States and in the United Kingdom, the number of people who believe that climate change exists has dropped in the past six months. Many scientists have tried to engage the public, but not all attempts were well received. Just telling an audience that the science is definitive is not enough. What is needed is a dialogue that addresses concerns and engages the general public without being condescending or dismissive, the panel concluded.
At the event, when asked about some of the ardent climate change deniers, Vaughan said he believes that the skeptics will be proven wrong in 20 years when the impacts are more obvious — but unfortunately it might be too late to combat some of the biggest consequences at that point. If we do not mitigate now, he said, the costs of adaptation in the future will be overwhelming for society. Rising sea levels will impact homes on the coasts. Increased temperatures in the oceans could cause more intense hurricanes, which would devastate coastal cities, especially in Florida and along the Gulf of Mexico, including potentially Houston. Furthermore, those who contribute the least to climate change, such as countries in sub-Saharan Africa, will unfairly suffer the most severe consequences, such as a decrease in clean water sources.
Our panelists did not directly address the climate change debate in the United States, but they did answer questions from audience members who expressed doubts about climate science and global climate change. Vaughan, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) committee, addressed the recent controversy over incorrect data on the Himalayan ice caps that was accidently included in the 2007 report. It was “one line out of 40,000 lines” in the science report, he stated, saying that considering the number of people involved in the report, it is actually a remarkable feat that so few errors have been found.
In the end, the panelists agreed that in order to implement mitigation strategies in the United States, scientists must do a better job of communicating their climate findings to the public. The science should be understandable to the layperson and the research should be solid. The panelists also agreed that the role of the scientist is to impart information. Formulating and implementing policies is the job of policymakers, they said.
Finally, I would like to thank the Science and Innovation team (May Akrawi and Catherine Santamaria) from the British Consulate-Houston for their support of this event and our climate policy work at the Baker Institute.
View the March 4 webcast for “The Challenges of Communicating Climate Change.”
Kirstin Matthews is a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute. Her research focuses on the intersection between traditional biomedical research and public policy. Matthews’ current projects include the Baker Institute International Stem Cell Policy Program, the Civic Scientist Lecture Series and policy studies in research and development funding, genomics and climate change.