ECCF - advocacy

Reflecting on the 23rd Conference of Parties

mguckian — Mon, 05 Feb 2018 14:17:12 +0000

Feb 5, 2018

The unofficial U.S. presence at COP23 was certainly not small! They had their own space and named it the U.S. Climate Action Center. Photo: Emma Kuster

If you had told me in January of 2017 that I’d be traveling to Bonn, Germany later in the year to witness world discussions on climate action, I would not have believed you. You see, at that time, I had yet to travel outside of the United States because I was terrified of flying over the big, blue ocean! Oh I had dreams to travel abroad, but I’d never acted upon them because of my fear.

All of that changed when I accepted my new position at the South Central Climate Science Center in February 2017. One of the first questions that my new supervisor asked was, “do you have a passport?” Of course the answer was, “no, but I will get one!”

This is the big negotiations room where the opening ceremony took place, as well as many of the larger discussions. Observers were welcome to sit in the balcony, as the floor was reserved for the party (or nation) delegates. Some sessions, however, required a ticket to enter.

My first trip out of the country was to Glasgow, Scotland for the European Climate Change Adaptation (ECCA) Conference in June 2017. It was a relatively “easy” first trip out of the country. There wasn’t really a language barrier, and the food was incredible! I survived the flight, but found it very difficult to sleep in such a tight space. During the trip, it was encouraging to see and hear what European nations were doing to address climate change. I haven’t personally been to the National Adaptation Forum, but I hear that the ECCA Conference is somewhat similar. People from across Europe came to talk about the efforts being done in their home countries, and discussed ways that countries could work together to address the challenges brought on by climate change. I was honored to be presenting about our Climate Science Center network at this conference.

Because of that trip, I was excited at the prospect that I could travel to other places—and survive! Shortly after returning home, I dreamed of visiting Italy and Ireland and returning to Scotland. I did not, however, dream of visiting Germany.

Countries would showcase the efforts they are taking to address climate change in the official Country Pavilion space. Photo: E. Kuster.

Life, though, has a funny way of changing your dreams. Soon after returning home from Scotland, I was introduced to the idea that I could be a delegate for a professional society, and attend the 23^rd Conference of Parties (COP23) in Bonn, Germany. For those of you who may not know what the Conference of Parties is, I would describe it as a meeting in which representatives from every country come together to discuss how the world must address climate change. For transparency, citizens are welcome to attend the conference as observers (but you have to apply). At the 21^st Conference of Parties in Paris, France, the nations of the world came together and developed the Paris Agreement. The Agreement serves as a non-binding deal to limit the global temperature rise to “well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.” At the time, all but two countries signed the Agreement. Today, every country is a part of the Agreement (the U.S. can not officially leave Agreement until November 2020).

COP23 was held in Germany, but was led by Fiji. It was the first time in the Conference’s history that the leading nation did not host the event. I attended COP23 as an observer and served as a Delegate of the American Meteorological Society. That might sound fancy, but there were only two of us.

At any given moment during the event, there were numerous discussions happening simultaneously. (For those that have been to the American Geophysical Union annual meeting, think even bigger than that!) I found it a bit overwhelming at first. For some of the discussions you had to have a ticket to attend because of space limitations. I mostly followed the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) discussions since this group was tasked with providing guidance on the implementation and compliance of the Paris Agreement. The discussions moved slowly, but I suppose that is not surprising given how many voices were at the table. Disagreements commonly arose. The goal of COP23 was to develop a draft of the implementation guidelines (or “rulebook”) that would be finalized at COP 24 in Poland next year.

As a United States citizen, I found the Conference encouraging. Despite the news about the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, I heard nothing about giving up. Rather, I heard an overwhelming plea from the world that we needed to continue working to address climate change. In fact, I was in the room when Syria made its official announcement to join onto the Paris Agreement!

Many individuals attended the first session in the unofficial U.S. pavilion space. The panel highlighted just a few of the efforts addressing climate change that are currently taking place at the city to state level. Photo: E. Kuster.

The Conference lasted for two weeks, but I was only able to attend the first week. I saw the country pavilions that showcased what each nation was doing to address climate change, but I did not see an official pavilion for the U.S. This was the first time that the U.S. didn’t have an official presence in the pavilion space. Rather, U.S. businesses funded an unofficial space where mayors, academics, faith leaders, state legislators, etc. came to speak about what efforts were being made at the local level in the U.S. to address climate change. The #WeAreStillIn was quite popular!

All in all, I was honored to have had this experience. I survived my first country where I didn’t know the first language, and I ate some amazing waffles. (Pointing at things is a good way to communicate across languages!) By the end of my trip, I left COP23 encouraged because the world knows climate change is a real challenge, and we need to work together to address the issue.

Category:

Science & research

Tags:

advocacy

climate change

COP23

environmental policy

policy

Author/writer:

Emma Kuster

Consensus, Understanding, and Integrity

mguckian — Mon, 04 Dec 2017 15:34:10 +0000

Dec 4, 2017

Photo credit: Union of Concerned Scientists

In my ECCF post in May, I discussed my concern about the politicization of scientists and the perception of that amongst conservatives and the general public. Recent papers add to my concern that the perception of scientists has become politicized, and will continue to be so, particularly when viewed through the lense of news media and social media. The concern over politicization brought the following question to mind. When it comes to climate scientists, what matters more to you: consensus, understanding, or integrity? I don’t expect anyone to have an immediate answer. New research examines how all three affect how people view the legitimacy of scientists in the public sphere. Indeed, multiple articles published in 2017 examine the reasons behind why scientists are distrusted. These authors point out that while the public perception of climate change has been studied extensively (as in this example), the public perception of the scientists themselves remains understudied. Given the current time we find ourselves in, these articles on the perception of scientists caught my attention.

Gauchat et al. provide interesting conclusions to that question (at least for scientists in general). First, perceived integrity has a greater effect than perceived consensus on attitudes about scientists credibility and advisory legitimacy. Second, that political disposition influences the perception of legitimacy both directly and indirectly (e.g. conservatives see less legitimacy for scientists generally and because of a perceived lack of credibility and integrity). Finally, political polarization extends beyond perceptions of climate change to perceptions of climate scientists. “...polarized attitudes toward environmental scientists’ understanding and integrity are each more important to their advisory legitimacy than perceptions of their agreement”. This is all quite interesting since the surveys Gauchat et al. used were done in 2006 and 2010. That said, I think the results are still valid given the results of polling from the Pew Research Center in 2016, particularly with regards to integrity and political disposition. Not only is it so that public opinion on climate change is polarized, so too are attitudes toward the scientists themselves. Who would have thought it possible that the image of scientists could be polarized?

Numerous studies have pointed out that conservatives have less trust in scientists than other groups, particularly in impact scientists (e.g. those concerned with understanding human impacts on the environment). The next logical question is - why? Some might say that conservatives are anti-science and uneducated, but the science on this topic doesn’t back that up. Two recent studies (here and here) have pointed out that the decline in trust among conservatives comes primarily from educated conservatives (Bachelor's degree or higher) with a high science literacy. In addition, Cofnas et al. point out, rightly, that “...someone might strongly believe in the scientific method, but doubt that mainstream scientific authorities are living up to its requirements.”

Knowing there is a lack of trust amongst most conservatives, and that perceived integrity is important for aligning public opinion with scientific findings, what might be underlying these trends? Cofnas et al. suggest a concerning option. Conservatives have reacted to a (perceived or legitimate) increase in impact scientists using their authority and institutional prestige to advance an opposing political agenda via intentional misrepresentation or distortion of science. Admittedly, Cofnas et al. are focused on activism in social sciences, but the thought is not necessarily foreign in the climate science world either. Perhaps two of the most prominent examples where someone could think that climate scientists were intentionally distorting their science are Climategate (and version 2.0) and the Climate Data Controversy. All have since been debunked, but present in each was the idea that science has been distorted by scientists themselves for the sake of a political agenda. That is something which can quite easily cast an unfavorable perception of integrity and erode trust. I wonder - all these cases were presented (mostly) through news media or other messengers, would the effect have been less negative if we (i.e. scientists) were the messengers? Perhaps so given one of the final conclusions drawn by Gauchat et al. “once scientific claims about climate change enter the public sphere, either through the accounts in the news media or from elected officials, they become politically charged.” More scientists have become invested in being the messengers, if only to defend themselves. Being our own messengers without crossing into political advocacy is a challenge, but there are some that have found success, and that should give us all hope.

For the general public, integrity matters. Luckily, there’s already a great way to address this. A number of scientists (such as Katharine Hayhoe) have successfully begun using a values-based approach to climate communication. Building relationships and connecting with audiences based upon shared values and open discussion is important because it builds integrity and trust. The trick with that effort is that no one can do it for you, because no one can present who you are personally better than you. Hearing claims and arguments from a mediator (or through a medium) doesn’t easily allow trust to be built between you and your audience. If you let others speak for you, you run the risk of being painted a color not of your choosing. Someone else’s color choice may be one you find hideous!

What to do? Take hold of the paint brush! Go out to even the most difficult audiences, but don’t just talk to them. Listen to them, connect with them. It’s challenging to connect with people who have very different views, but establishing that human connection builds a favorable perception of integrity. It doesn’t happen overnight, but then again, great works of art weren’t made overnight either. It’s going to take a while, but if we take hold of the brush the resulting portrait will be amazing!

Category:

Communicating on climate

Tags:

Author/writer:

Adrienne Wootten

Reef temperature wrangler

mguckian — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:21:12 +0000

Oct 16, 2017

Photo: wildcoast.net

Coral reefs often go unnoticed because they’re underwater; but even though we don’t regularly pay much attention to them, they’re an extremely important part of our everyday lives. Coral reefs have been estimated to provide support for over a quarter of all marine species and this extreme biodiversity makes them a frequent source of discovery for new medicines that can help fight cancer and other diseases. They also protect our coastlines from storm surges, and provide millions of individuals with a source food and income. These are a few of the reasons why the world’s coral reefs are valued at nearly 10 trillion dollars.

Coral Crisis

Unfortunately, we’re in a bit of a coral crisis. Recently we’ve been losing a frightening amount of the world’s coral reefs. The vast majority of the reefs (80%) in the Caribbean, and over half in the Indo-Pacific region have already been lost. This large decline in reefs is predominantly caused by coral bleaching:

Inside the coral live tiny photosynthetic plants – or algae called zooxanthellae - that provide the coral with food and its beautiful color, but when the water around the coral becomes too warm, the algae are forced out of the coral, leaving behind the coral’s white calcium carbonate skeleton, giving it a “bleached” appearance. If the coral goes too long without the support from the algae, they starve, become vulnerable to disease, and frequently die.

Figure 2. PRocess and causes of coral bleaching. Photo: NOAA.

It is expected that as global warming continues to cause water temperatures to rise, coral bleaching will become more frequent and severe. By 2050, it’s projected that between 91 and 98% of the world’s coral reefs will be exposed to bleaching-level thermal stress on an annual basis.

Coral Reef Monitoring

Fortunately, there is a lot of great work being done to address this important issue. The South Florida and Caribbean Network (SFCN) of the National Park Service’s Inventory and Monitoring Program has been monitoring water temperature and coral bleaching since the late 1980’s and have collected an amazing supply of data. Through an internship with the Young Leaders in Climate Change (YLCC), I had the opportunity to work with SFCN as a data analyst to make sense of their data. Below are a few of my most important findings.

Figure 3. Stages of coral bleaching. Photo: The Ocean Agency / XL Catlin Seaview / Richard Vevers)

Water Temperature Trends and Coral Bleaching Forecasts

Water temperature has been increasing in the Virgin Islands – one location where SFCN monitors coral bleaching – since the project was started in 1988. Although this long-term trend is expected to continue into the future, it doesn’t suggest that water temperatures will increase consistently on a year-to-year basis.

In order to anticipate what water temperatures can be expected in the near future, we can use past data to create 24-month water temperature forecasts. Since water temperature and coral bleaching have a very strong relationship, our forecast is helpful because it lets us anticipate whether a coming year will be good or bad for reefs and if there will be more or less bleaching. For example, our forecasts for the Virgin Islands found that 2017 will be slightly cooler than previous years, with a relatively low amount of bleaching predicted (22%) - good news for the coral reefs in that region. This type of foresight allows for adaptive resource management and more effective monitoring of coral bleaching, but much more needs to be done to address the issue.

What is being done and what you can do to help

Scientists and researchers around the world are working on many different projects to help minimize the impact of coral bleaching. These projects include: coral nurseries and reef restoration initiatives, studying the factors that increase coral’s susceptibility to bleaching, and even genetically modifying algae to be resistant to warmer ocean temperatures.

Although these researchers’ are making important contributions, they won’t be able to fix the problem alone. Saving our coral reefs is going to require many people making small efforts to help battle coral bleaching and global warming. Separately, these small individual efforts may seem miniscule, but if enough people make them, they will have a large impact overall. After all, it takes millions of individual coral polyps to build a reef.

Figure 4. Coral polyps. Photo: SFCN.

Fortunately, one of the most frequent questions I get when I talk about coral bleaching is “what can I do to help?” Here are a few of the many ways you can help save our reefs:

Reduce your carbon footprint.
Inform others about coral bleaching to spread awareness.
Support organizations dedicated to conserving coral reefs.
Contact your government officials about implementing laws to preserve marine ecosystems.
- Marine protected areas help mitigate coral bleaching.
Reduce water consumption to minimize runoff pollution
If you live near the coast, volunteer for cleanups or participate in citizen science initiatives to report cases of coral bleaching

Resources

Coral reef conservation organizations
Coral bleaching citizen science
- NOAA Coral Reef Watch
- CoralWatch
Netflix documentary
- Chasing Coral
NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch Program
- Educational resources
- Water temperature monitoring

Category:

Tags:

Author/writer:

Brandon Araujo

Confessions of a Conservative Climatologist

mguckian — Mon, 01 May 2017 13:39:28 +0000

May 1, 2017

Looking back over the last ~10 years, it’s been a joy to be a scientist. I get to explore questions of interest to me and help climate science be useable. Scientific communities are critical to society, so it’s important that they be trusted. It’s an interesting time to be involved in the study of climate, particularly from my perspective. I happen to be something most might think a contradiction. I am a climatologist, but I am also politically conservative. I have some remarks from my (sometimes awkward) perspective. I don’t often mention anything about my political views, but when I do let it slip in some way or another, the result has been… frosty. As an example, I was at a dinner for women in science during one of the AMS Annual Meetings a few years ago. At one point, I challenged the super-popular thinking at the table related to climate and public health regulations from my conservative views. There was not a barrage of vile language, but the cold attitude toward me afterward was evident. That example is one of many where there were different worldviews in play, despite the discussion on science.

Is science nonpartisan? Ideally yes, it should be. Are scientists nonpartisan? No, they are human. We have social and cognitive biases just like everyone else (nicely pointed out by this recent article in Nature). Intelligence, advanced degrees, and awards don’t provide immunity to that. Peterson (1997) says it well - “Because one does not cease to be human upon becoming a scientist, cultural influences such as disciplinary training, personal experience, and funding sources influence both what questions are asked and what kind of answers are possible.” All of us tend to seek like-minded people. This is all good in that we can support each other (as the March for Science and similar events intend). But being surrounded by like-minded others can also lead to some well-documented problems: echo-chambers, politicization and polarization, to name just a few.

Because I participate in conservative circles, I know that most within these groups do not believe science per se is partisan. Instead conservatives typically view scientists (and particularly climate scientists) as politically motivated rather than motivated by scientific discovery (i.e. that scientists are partisan and ignore / disparage evidence contradictory to their agenda). Indeed, despite the messaging in science communication, most conservatives feel strongly that they are not served by the agendas of modern science (as an example of what one might hear - “They are wasting my tax-dollars and don’t care about my needs!”). Related to this, events like the March for Science want to portray a message that science is nonpartisan and so are scientists, when that is simply not so. One of the reasons for the March for Science was to protest proposed funding cuts to science research (90% of respondents in a Science Business survey). Here’s a question: When you could have shown up during numerous other science related crises in recent history, why did you show up now (when your interests were threatened)? What will conservatives see through the filter of news media outlets? Probably that such marches (and more importantly march participants) are partisan and not interested in the public good or scientific integrity (indeed this happened before the March for Science both here and here). Marches are blunt tools, with little control over messaging (unlike smaller targeted efforts). Thus the unintended consequence of such a march is reinforcing the conservative belief that scientists are all politically motivated. The marches are a symptom of refusing to confront the reasons why science (and climate science) is still untrusted (by some but not all ). Marching doesn’t confront the fact that many believe that scientists act for their own interests, a political agenda, and / or a close-minded ideology with no tolerance for dissent. Perhaps the reason many believe this is because of the tone of voice they hear or the biases they perceive that maybe we are ignoring.

The other point is harder to admit. I am blessed to work with many talented scientists and I am grateful for that. However, if I am completely honest with myself there are many times I have felt alienated working in this field. That has nothing to do with my skill level as a scientist. I have noticed over the years that most of the colleagues I have worked with identify as liberal. Perhaps because many assume that I am also a liberal, I often have found myself in conversations where others make disparaging comments toward conservative values and people. This is where that feeling of alienation comes in. I have never felt comfortable expressing my conservative views amongst my colleagues. I have never felt comfortable bringing up differing ideas (like changes to natural emissions sources, challenges to our ability to model the climate, or challenges to our ability to represent the carbon cycle) regarding climate change for fear of being disparaged by other scientists and political advocates. While I may not agree with those differing ideas, they help advance science and are important to talk about. I also know that I am not alone in my concerns as others I know share the same fear or feel like unpopular views are suppressed. Why would we want to speak up when we see the reaction to outspoken challengers (as Judith Curry describes in her recent testimony). We continue to speak in whispers, rather than sharing openly in the larger conversation.

I want to see scientific research continue. I want to see trust in all scientists (not only those with which we agree) and the ability of scientists to carry out their work objectively. One of the conservative principles is that of prudence- that any measure should be judged by its long-term consequences, not by popularity. Looking at the long-term, events like the March for Science don’t truly address the reasons for a lack of trust in scientists, which is why I have not supported them. We need to remember and confront the danger of our human biases in science. I love what I do as a scientist, and I wouldn’t work with regional climate modeling and downscaling techniques if I didn’t think they offered value to guide decision making and advance the science. However, I won’t pretend to be blind to my own biases that may affect how I approach doing research. There are questions I’m still trying to answer myself. How might my biases be affecting the way I approach doing science? Am I predisposed to wanting and pushing for a particular conclusion? Am I likely to shut off discussion just because someone doesn’t agree with my views? Are my political views affecting the way I think about doing science?

Knowing how human biases can affect scientific integrity, I also believe we can find a way to overcome them. I’m encouraged by recent articles highlighting some of the biases that can compromise objectivity and reproducibility and how we can overcome them. I’m am also encouraged by the recent updates to the AGU Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics Policy, which includes AGU policy regarding intimidation, harassment, and bullying (though it remains to be seen if this will be implemented fairly). These are great first steps toward addressing the problems which limit public trust in scientists, and the trust scientists have in each other and their institutions. These are the kinds of actions that need to continue and grow to restore trust in science. Marching doesn’t approach the problems of human biases and perceived biases in science, and so cannot build trust, and to me is short lived. I believe that the young scientists from all organizations, including the ECCF and similar forums, are the ones who can rise to this challenge, address our biases as humans, and ultimately restore trust in science among the most skeptical. At least for me, I will try to rise to that challenge. Will you? Conservative, liberal, and independent scientists alike, let us rise to the challenge together.

Peterson, T.R., 1997: Subverting the Culture of Expertise: Community Participation in Development Decisions. Sharing the Earth: The Rhetoric of Sustainable Development. University of South Carolina Press, pg 86-118

Category:

Communicating on climate

Tags:

science communication

social networks

tips

Author/writer:

Adrienne Wootten

Out of the Lab and Into the Light, Why Scientists are Marching

mguckian — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:40:03 +0000

Mar 20, 2017

Photo credit: Bryan Francis (March for Science)

“Science” is a word that means many things to many people. If you were to ask a practicing scientist how they define science, you might receive one of myriad responses. How each of us conceptualizes science may be unique, but most scientists recognize a shared set of methods and a core of objectives, analytical, and empirical values that unify our diverse fields.

To many outside the vaunted halls of the academy, however, science can be a nebulous and unclear beast. Stereotypical notions of science suggest it is something practiced only by old men in white coats, locked in laboratories far from the “real world”. To my eyes, stereotypes such as this one and a lack of effective science education and communication have lead many members of the public to lose sight of the tremendous value science has to us all. As Carl Sagan put it, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology”1. Sagan, and others who expressed similar sentiments, picked up on this problem long ago, but we scientists bear at least some of the blame for expecting our data to speak for themselves. Rather than enter the public arena to communicate our science directly, we’ve often been content to publish our work in academic journals, leaving the public at large to rely on journalists and social media to convey both the complexities and subtleties of science. This tactic has sometimes resulted in less than ideal outcomes; however, groups like the Department of Interior’s Climate Science Centers, Yale Climate Change Communication Program, and increased efforts by a range of other organizations have sought to better engage with the public and make science more approachable and accessible. Unfortunately, there is still a long way to go to put science into a position of wide public understanding and acceptance.

In response to the recent decline of support for science and science-based policy, myself and numerous other scientists around the globe sparked a grassroots effort to bring science, and importantly scientists, into the public arena. We seek to make this field and the people in it, more accessible to everyone. The most compelling arguments to support any endeavor are those that illustrate its basis in, and value to, the human element. We can’t expect a public that is not regularly engaged by scientists to appreciate the subtleties and humanity of science.

Photo credit: Bryan Francis (March for Science)

In part, to meet these challenges, a grassroots effort has blossomed into the March for Science, planned for Saturday, April 22nd, 2017.Over 300 marches are now planned in more than 30 countries, spanning 6 continents. The March for Science is the first step in what will be a continuing effort to humanize science, and show the public that scientists are not just old men in white coats locked away in an ivory tower; we are a diverse group of women and men with unique backgrounds and from many walks of life looking to understand and improve our world and ourselves. Through diversity, we share an intense curiosity and passion for truth and knowledge as revealed by observation, experimentation, and evidence scrutinized under an objective lens. We are scientists, we are citizens of the world, and we are people just like everyone else. Everyone is welcomed to march on April 22nd, whether it is to voice your support of science, help make science and scientists more accessible to the public, or any other reason that motivates you. My goal is to make the current truth in Sagan’s prophetic words a mere footnote in history for generations to come.

1Sagan, C., Why We Need To Understand Science, Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 14.3, Spring 1990

Gil Ouellette is a doctoral candidate in paleoclimatology and paleoceanography at the Louisiana State University. Gil studies how the ocean and atmosphere have changed in the past using the chemistry of coral reefs.

Category:

Communicating on climate

Tags:

Author/writer:

Gil Ouellette