07/11/2019

(US/China) The U.S. And China Need To Put Aside Their Rivalry And Focus On The Common Enemy: Climate Change

TIME - Christine Loh | Robert Gottlieb

Getty Images
Authors
The U.S. worries that China has become a political and economic threat. China worries that the U.S. is attempting to constrain it. These concerns increasingly resemble a classic Cold War conflict.
Such security threats are misplaced. Trade wars and technology competition notwithstanding, there is one overarching global security concern that by its very nature should lead to collaboration and cooperation rather than Cold War antagonism: climate change.
We are today witnessing a devastating global crisis in the making. It is happening worldwide, even as climate change’s impacts are immediately felt locally, regionally, and nationally. Make no mistake—ferocious climate events are not just causing extensive physical damage and loss of livelihood—they are creating insecurities that will grow each year and subsume all other existing security fears.
In the U.S., the annual average temperature has increased by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2016 and is expected to continue to rise, possibly doubling in just one or two decades. China’s official climate change assessment is even more sobering. As many as 641 of its 654 largest cities now experience regular flooding and Shanghai, one of the most prone to serious flooding, has already built 520 km of seawalls defending the city.
Around the world, climate change impacts could create destabilizing crises in migrations of climate refugees, water availability, and food production, as well as climate-related disasters from massive and intense storms to fire, flooding, and deterioration of air quality. More and more, climate change will dominate political discourse, economic activity, and people’s well-being.
The U.S. and China are vulnerable because both countries place such a high premium on security. Yet current responses about climate insecurity are minimal, particularly in the U.S. under the current administration. Instead, the U.S. is building walls to keep immigrants and climate refugees out, while heavily promoting fossil fuel development and undermining rather than encouraging decarbonization initiatives. In China, climate concerns have increased substantially in the past ten years and efforts have been made to reduce domestic coal production. Yet, China is also the leading investor in financing coal plants globally that are generating more than 5,000 MW of energy, according to Global Energy Monitoring.
The U.S. and China have a special global responsibility with climate change. The U.S. has been the largest contributor historically to carbon emissions in the past 150 years and remains the largest per capita contributor today. China, meanwhile, is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases by volume. At the same time, the U.S., under the the Trump administration, is in denial about its role, while China, even as it focuses on decarbonization domestically, has not played a leading role globally through its external development policies.
Today, to make matters worse, the U.S. and China—through trade wars, technology disputes, and nationalist rhetoric—are creating a new Cold War environment. The future does not belong to globalists, Trump declared at the U.N., it belongs to patriots. Security, both countries assert, is a domestic priority. Yet, when it involves climate change, the Cold War-type environment precludes what is crucial in this period: global action, collaboration, cooperation, and Earth Care. If security is the goal for the U.S. and China, both countries are undermining that goal through their failure to work together, whether through sharing technologies, or dramatic shifts in energy, food, and development policies (jointly and globally pursued).
Such collaboration could extend beyond government-to-government relations to community and institutional connections, such as the initiative of the University of California at Berkeley and Tsinghua University to form a California-China Climate Institute. It could also involve grassroots collaborations such as those regarding sustainable agriculture programs and shipping emission reductions. And it could include major support and financing of alternative energy and decarbonization projects throughout the developing world, as those countries seek their own transition to a green development future.
The U.S. and China have the capacity to make their own countries more secure; even more importantly, they can make the world a more secure place. Most governments are not ready for the onslaught of severe weather events. When it comes to climate change, everyone needs to be a “globalist,” and a localist as well, to advocate for their own national security.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

(Germany) Beethoven's 'Pastoral': Artists Revisit A Symbol Of Climate Protection

Deutsche Welle -  Reiner Schild

In Beethoven's Sixth Symphony, the composer set his romantic understanding of nature to music. Now the "Pastoral" is the starting point for a worldwide art project against environmental destruction.


Paul Barton sets up his piano in the midst of nature. His listeners are massive and have huge ears. The man from Great Britain plays music from Beethoven's Sixth Symphony, known worldwide as the "Pastoral," to pachyderms living in the "Elephants World" sanctuary in Western Thailand.
A concert for elephants only? And why in Thailand? The answer is simple: the unusual concert is part of the global "Beethoven Pastoral Project." And those playing it are artists striving for climate protection and the preservation of nature.
Artists all over the world will be presenting their vision of the "Pastoral," considered to be Beethoven's musical celebration of nature, on the occasion of the Beethoven Anniversary Year in 2020, marking the 250th anniversary of the birth of the German composer.
Pianist Paul Barton is just one of the musicians performing in the context of the "Pastoral Project." For the British pianist, who has lived in Thailand since 1996, Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony has a clear message: "It inspires us to find the strength that we need together to preserve our planet — not tomorrow, but now."


Artists for climate protection

The concert pianist is joined by musicians all over the world within the framework of the "Beethoven Pastoral Project," presenting their renditions and interpretations of the composer's Sixth Symphony: a visual artist illustrates Beethoven's "Nature" Symphony using graphics on the computer. A DJ samples motifs from the "Pastoral" and assembles them into new tracks. A dancer moves energetically to the fourth movement, which Beethoven called "Thunderstorm." A sextet boils down the orchestral piece into chamber music. A jazz clarinettist interprets the piece together with nightingales, cicadas and humpback whales. A filmmaker uses it as inspiration for a short film. All of this flows into the project, and what unites the artists is their fascination with Beethoven's Sixth Symphony and their desire to send out a signal for the preservation of nature.

Andrea E. Sroka's illustrated impression of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony
Inspired by Beethoven for climate preservation
The idea for the project arose in the run-up to the Beethoven anniversary. The initiators of the "Beethoven Pastoral Project" — the Beethoven Anniversary Society, the United Nations World Climate Change Secretariat and the global Earth Day Network movement — aim to draw attention via Beethoven's music to one of the most critical issues of our time, calling on people around the world to protect the environment and work toward the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Malte Boecker has helped to develop the project. The director of the Beethoven House in Bonn and the artistic director of the Beethoven Anniversary Society, which was founded especially for the birthday celebrations, is pursuing a plan that goes far beyond music: "People all over the world are preoccupied with the question of how we can ensure the coexistence of the nearly nine billion people on this planet, and that has social and ecological aspects, and the sustainability movement is becoming increasingly tangible," Boecker said.

What's so special about the 'Pastoral'?
Beethoven loved nature, offering the musical genius both a place of relaxation and a source of inspiration. As a teenager, he embarked on hikes from his German hometown of Bonn to the surrounding area. His longing for country life accompanied him throughout his life, also after he moved to Vienna, Austria. In the summers, he regularly sought out the countryside to find peace and quiet for composing — including for his Sixth Symphony, which he composed in the years 1807 and 1808. During the composition work, Beethoven first called it "Sinfonia characteristica" or "Sinfonia pastorella," and did not change it to the "Pastoral Symphony" until it went to press, "pastoral" meaning "rural" or "relating to the countryside." To the title he made the addendum in brackets: "More the expression of feeling than painting."
Beethoven was less concerned with depictions of nature than with the reciprocal relationship between humans and nature. After all, even in Beethoven's time, this was influenced by environmental experiences.
At the beginning of the 19th century, for example, the drinking water supply was very poor, which meant that wine and beer were often preferred over dirty water. The air was also polluted at that time. In a letter, Beethoven lamented "the bad air in the city." The stench in the alleys and canals largely contributed to those who could afford it leaving Vienna during the summer months. During Beethoven's lifetime, industrialization also began — the consequences of which we feel today more than ever.

A lithograph from 1834: 'Beethoven by the brook, composing the Pastoral Symphony'
On the lookout for participating artists
The organizers of the "Beethoven Pastoral Project" are still looking for participants: Creative people who want to speak out against environmental destruction and who aim to support measures against climate change. Now, 250 years after Beethoven's birth, people want to re-vitalize his love of nature and make it more tangible. The "Beethoven Pastoral Project" is open to everyone around the world:  orchestras, ensembles, soloists, rock and jazz musicians, DJs, dancers, photographers and visual artists, whether professionals or amateurs. Registration is easy online via the project website: pastoralproject.org.

Everything is possible
The most important goal of the "Beethoven Pastoral Project," however, is for the participants to communicate their ideas not only through their statements on the website, but also through a new work of art that they create for the project. There are no formal boundaries. Musicians can improvise on motifs from the "Pastoral" or compose a new piece of music. Other creative minds can create a photo series, shoot a film or choreograph a dance. All participants are free to decide how they want to deal creatively with the grand theme of nature and allow themselves to be inspired by Beethoven.
The finished work, the new product, the contemporary interpretation should then be documented and uploaded onto the project page —whether as video file, photo series, audio recording or graphic. This is how you can become part of the "Beethoven Pastoral Project."
Between Earth Day on April 22, 2020 and the UN World Environment Day on June 5, 2020, as many performances of the Pastoral Symphony as possible are to take place worldwide. The works of other art genres will also be published during this period as part of the "Beethoven Pastoral Project."


Beethoven to save the planet

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

(US) Climate Change Lawsuits Ask Whether Fossil Fuel Companies Are Responsible

Houston Chronicle - 

Protesters rally outside State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2019. After four years of legal sparring and finger-pointing, oil-industry giant Exxon Mobil went to court on Tuesday to face charges that the company lied to shareholders and to the public about the costs and consequences of climate change. JEFFERSON SIEGEL, STR / NYT
Just 20 energy companies account for one-third of greenhouse emissions since 1965, according to a new study.
The Climate Accountability Institute’s Richard Heede tallied up all the fossil fuels extracted by every company through 2017 and calculated the emissions. The data is public, the math is straightforward and the emissions are indisputable.
The top 10 companies, in order, are, predictably, Saudi Aramco, Chevron, Gazprom, Exxon Mobil, National Iranian Oil Co., BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Coal India and PEMEX. More details are available online at http://climateaccountability.org/carbonmajors.html.
Heede chose 1965 as his start date because the Johnson administration released a report that year warning that the nation risked warming the planet by 2000 if it did not cut carbon dioxide emissions. The president of the American Petroleum Institute, the leading industry association, responded a few months later by calling for more lobbying to head off damaging regulations.
What is surprising in the Heede report is that 50 percent of greenhouse emissions have come since 1985, and that speaks to the energy industry’s culpability in contributing to climate change.
Companies may claim that climate change was not well understood in 1965, but by 1985 scientists knew humans releasing growing concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride were trapping heat in the atmosphere and warming the planet.
National leaders meeting at the 1992 Rio Summit agreed to slow emissions. They signed a legally binding treaty in 1997 called the Kyoto Protocol. Yet today, some well-financed political forces are still trying to suppress the obvious evidence of human-man climate change.
How Exxon Mobil responded to climate change is the subject of a New York prosecution for securities fraud. The state attorney general alleges that Exxon executives misled investors by misrepresenting the potential financial impact of climate regulation on the company’s stock value.
The top 20 companies have contributed to 480bn tonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent since 1965
Billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent 
Guardian graphic | Source: Richard Heede, Climate Accountability Institute.
 Note: table includes emissions for the period 1965 to 2017 only
“The company failed to manage the risks in the ways it promised,” prosecutor Kevin Wallace told the court. “The cost of that failure is staggering.”
New York alleges in court papers that Exxon’s behavior cost shareholders between $476 million and $1.6 billion. Exxon’s attorney Ted Wells responded by saying: “Exxon Mobil did nothing wrong.”
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed another lawsuit against Exxon on Oct. 24. That case alleges that executives misled investors about climate risks and deceived consumers about the role fossil fuels play in causing climate change.
“Our goal here is simple: to stop Exxon from engaging in this deception and penalize it for this conduct,” Healey told reporters.
Exxon replied in a statement: “We look forward to refuting the meritless allegations in court.”
Exxon scientists, though, have accepted climate change as fact since at least the mid-1980s. At the same time, the company supported political action groups that questioned the reality of climate change to deter environmental regulations.
The New York and Massachusetts cases will set precedents for a slew of climate lawsuits working through the courts. States, cities and environmental groups have dozens of legal angles they intend to test.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected a motion by BP, Chevron, Exxon and other companies to move climate change lawsuits brought by Baltimore, Oakland, Calif., and Boulder, Colo. out of state courts and consolidate them in federal court.
The cities want compensation for damage caused by climate change.
The federal government is also fighting lawsuits, including one brought on behalf of young Americans demanding more significant federal action on climate change.
 The Sierra Club wants an explanation for why the Securities and Exchange Commission has allowed corporations to quash proxy votes on climate-related issues.
These fights over responsibility for climate change are staking out new legal ground and will undoubtedly end up at the Supreme Court. The current makeup of the Court, though, casts reasonable doubt on whether it will accept these novel legal theories that could have dramatic impacts on the global economy.
If any of these lawsuits are successful, though, expect attorneys to cite the Climate Accountability Institute’s allocation of responsibility to inform how courts should assess actual and punitive damages. The higher the rank, the higher the potential liability.
The bigger question for fossil fuel companies is what the courts and government will expect them to do for climate damage going forward. Every significant oil, gas and coal company acknowledges that carbon dioxide is changing the planet’s climate.
The question our fuel suppliers will reasonably ask is what did consumers know, and when did we know it? Yes, these companies extracted the carbon, but we burned it, and we continue to burn it. How much responsibility rests with us?

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

06/11/2019

Climate Crisis: 11,000 Scientists Warn Of ‘Untold Suffering’

The Guardian - 

Statement sets out ‘vital signs’ as indicators of magnitude of the climate emergency
A man uses a garden hose to try to save his home from wildfire in Granada Hills, California, on 11 October 2019. Photograph: Michael Owen Baker/AP 
The world’s people face “untold suffering due to the climate crisis” unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.
“We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” it states. “To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems.”
There is no time to lose, the scientists say: “The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity.”
The statement is published in the journal BioScience on the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference, which was held in Geneva in 1979. The statement was a collaboration of dozens of scientists and endorsed by further 11,000 from 153 nations. The scientists say the urgent changes needed include ending population growth, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, halting forest destruction and slashing meat eating.
Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University and the lead author of the statement, said he was driven to initiate it by the increase in extreme weather he was seeing. A key aim of the warning is to set out a full range of “vital sign” indicators of the causes and effects of climate breakdown, rather than only carbon emissions and surface temperature rise.
‘Profoundly troubling signs’ – drivers of the climate emergency
Guardian graphic. Source: Ripple et al, BioScience, 2019
‘Encouraging signs’ – trends tackling the climate emergency
Guardian graphic. Source: Ripple et al, BioScience, 2019
“A broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events,” said co-author Thomas Newsome, of the University of Sydney.
Other “profoundly troubling signs from human activities” selected by the scientists include booming air passenger numbers and world GDP growth. “The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle,” they said.
As a result of these human activities, there are “especially disturbing” trends of increasing land and ocean temperatures, rising sea levels and extreme weather events, the scientists said: “Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have have largely failed to address this predicament. Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points. These climate chain reactions could cause significant disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable.”
“We urge widespread use of the vital signs [to] allow policymakers and the public to understand the magnitude of the crisis, realign priorities and track progress,” the scientists said.
‘Especially disturbing’ – the impacts of the climate emergency
Guardian graphic. Source: Ripple et al, BioScience, 2019
“You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to look at the graphs and know things are going wrong,” said Newsome. “But it is not too late.” The scientists identify some encouraging signs, including decreasing global birth rates, increasing solar and wind power and fossil fuel divestment. Rates of forest destruction in the Amazon had also been falling until a recent increase under new president Jair Bolsonaro.
They set out a series of urgently needed actions:
  • Use energy far more efficiently and apply strong carbon taxes to cut fossil fuel use
  • Stabilise global population – currently growing by 200,000 people a day – using ethical approaches such as longer education for girls
  • End the destruction of nature and restore forests and mangroves to absorb CO2
  • Eat mostly plants and less meat, and reduce food waste
  • Shift economic goals away from GDP growth
“The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual,” the scientists said. The recent surge of concern was encouraging, they added, from the global school strikes to lawsuits against polluters and some nations and businesses starting to respond.
A warning of the dangers of pollution and a looming mass extinction of wildlife on Earth, also led by Ripple, was published in 2017. It was supported by more than 15,000 scientists and read out in parliaments from Canada to Israel. It came 25 years after the original “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in 1992, which said: “A great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.”
Ripple said scientists have a moral obligation to issue warnings of catastrophic threats: “It is more important than ever that we speak out, based on evidence. It is time to go beyond just research and publishing, and to go directly to the citizens and policymakers.”

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,

(AU) The Wealthy Australians Funding Climate Change Candidates

AFR - Andrew Tillett

Wealthy climate change activist Simon Holmes a Court wants to assemble a $1 million war chest to bankroll independent candidates at the next election after funding disclosures showed the organisation he and rich-lister Mike Cannon-Brookes backed emerged as one of 2019's biggest donors.
Mr Holmes a Court's Climate 200 initiative donated about $450,000 to 12 independent and crossbench political candidates in the run up to the May 18 poll, helping independent Helen Haines prevail. Two incumbent MPs Climate 200 helped, Adam Bandt and Rebekha Sharkie, were re-elected.
Independents Zali Steggall and Helen Haines were helped by wealthy donors attracted by their stance on climate change. Alex Ellinghausen
Nevertheless, candidate donations returns released by Australian Electoral Commission on Monday revealed just how potent climate change had become as for political fundraising.
Independent Zali Steggall disclosed receiving a whopping $1.1 million in donations for her successful bid to unseat former prime minister Tony Abbott in the northern Sydney electorate of Warringah.
One of the key promises of Ms Steggall's campaign was the need to act on climate change, drawing a sharp contrast to Mr Abbott who as PM dismantled Labor's carbon pricing regime.
Businessman and environmental philanthropist Robert Purves donated $67,000 each to Ms Steggall's campaign while his sister Sandra gave $37,000.
Given how well she was resourced, Climate 200 opted not to donate to Ms Steggall, instead spreading its money around other independent candidates in other seats.
But Climate 200 gave $145,000 to the former head of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Oliver Yates for his campaign against Treasurer Josh Frydenberg in the seat Melbourne seat of Kooyong, out of $363,000 he disclosed receiving.
Kerryn Phelps received $47,500 from Climate 200 (out of $219,000 in total donations) for her failed bid to hold Wentworth in Sydney's east while Dr Haines included $35,000 from the group in her list of $421,000 in donations.
All up, candidates disclosed receiving $354,500 in donations from Climate 200 but the real figure is higher because donations under $13,800 do not have to be publicly declared.
Mr Holmes a Court told The Australian Financial Review Climate 200 received $495,000 from donors and distributed about 90 per cent of this to candidates and used the rest for distributing a social media video on the candidates to supporters.
Mr Cannon-Brookes gave $50,000 and Mr Holmes a Court $25,000, while $195,000 came from the Climate Outcomes Foundation. All other donations were below the $13,800 threshold.
Mr Holmes a Court said he had been contacted by a handful of philanthropists in recent days looking to donate for the next election campaign.
He said doubling the amount of the money Climate 200 has to disperse was a "realistic" aim, with the group looking to support candidates who wanted action on climate change as well as advocate for an integrity commissioner.
"We will almost certainly go again in 2022," he said.
"Politics is a long game, especially in Australia. [This year] was a modest attempt. I'm confident we will be able to get more bang for our bucks and get more bucks."
Kilara Capital managing director Ben Krasnostein - a member of Melbourne's Smorgan family - said he and family members donated a "five figure" sum to Climate 200 and he planned to do so again.
He said he believed climate change action would both preserve the environment for future generations as well as offered new opportunities for investors to make a return.
"I'm not red, blue or green," Mr Krasnostein said, a reference to the colours associated with the major parties.
"There is not that much of an outlet for people who want to make a difference, who can write a decent-sized cheque and who don't want to be partisan."

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

(US) Trump Thought The Paris Deal Was Too Expensive. Wait’ll He Sees The Cost Of Climate Change.

MIT Technology Review



The Trump administration officially began the process of withdrawing the US from the landmark Paris climate agreement on Monday, in a move that surprised no one.

The details
The step, which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Twitter, starts the clock on a one-year waiting period that will end the day after the next presidential election.
At that point, the US will be the only nation on the planet that isn’t a party to the compact, forcing the rest of the world to figure out how to combat the escalating dangers of climate change without the second largest greenhouse gas emitter.
In first announcing plans to exit the deal two years ago, President Trump argued the agreement would undermine the nation’s economic growth and international competitiveness. Evidence suggests, however, that exactly the opposite is true.
Missed opportunities
By actively working against the shift to clean energy—and by extension, the companies and markets needed to bring it about—the US has ceded economic opportunities to develop the next generation of clean technologies to its economic rivals.
China, in particular, has happily seized the mantle, asserting itself as an increasingly dominant leader on batteries, electric vehicles, long-range transmission, wind turbines, solar panels, and more.

Relative costs
Moreover, if Trump truly thinks doing something about climate change is going to cost the economy too much—just wait until he gets a glimpse at the tab for doing nothing.
As study after study points out, the economic damages of unchecked climate change will be astronomical—indeed, far greater than the cost of reducing emissions.
In the US alone, climate change could add up to at least hundreds of billions of dollars per year in lost labor productivity, declining crop yields, early deaths, property damage, water shortages, air pollution, flooding, fires, and more.
Visitors chat in front of a giant screen featuring information related to global warning. (Patrik Stollarz/AFP/Getty Images)
Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,

05/11/2019

(US) Naomi Oreskes: ‘Discrediting Science Is A Political Strategy’

The Guardian - Zoë Corbyn

The Harvard professor on science and scepticism – and why climate deniers have run out of excuses
Naomi Oreskes: ‘It is deeply problematic if the leadership of the US government is rejecting science.’ Photograph: Phil Penman
Why Trust Science?
Naomi Oreskes
Princeton University Press
In her new book Why Trust Science? Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard University, argues that if more people heard scientists talk personally about their values, it would help turn back the creeping tide of anti-science sentiment. The former geologist recently gave evidence both to a US House of Representatives subcommittee hearing, “Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth about Climate Change”, and a Senate Democrats special committee hearing looking at “Dark Money and Barriers to Climate Action”.

Your previous book, Merchants of Doubt, chronicled tactics used by professional climate deniers. What inspired this one?
During public lectures I would explain there was a scientific consensus on climate change and the contrarians were either outliers within the scientific community or paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. People would say: “Well that’s fine, but why should we trust the science?” I thought that was a legitimate question.

Do we have a crisis of public trust in science?
There has been exaggeration and even panic about this. Public opinion polls in the US consistently show that most people still trust science. And far more than they trust government or industry. However, there are certain areas – for example climate change, vaccination and evolution – where there is a high level of public suspicion. In these areas, people resist accepting what the evidence shows because of their values. The science can be seen to clash with their political, moral or religious worldviews, or their economic interests.
Discrediting science is also a political strategy – for example, the fossil fuel industry creating the impression that the science on climate change is unsettled stops action.
It’s fashionable to be sceptical of experts but we rely on them: dentists fix our teeth, plumbers unclog our drains
You could say the US president doesn’t trust science. Trump denies the climate crisis and has argued against vaccination in the past, and his vice-president, Mike Pence, demurs on evolution. How detrimental is this?
It is deeply problematic if the leadership of the US government is rejecting science, because it sends a signal to the American people and to business leaders that it is fine to reject science, and even to ride roughshod over scientists. It is also proof positive that this is not a question of people who simply don’t have access to good scientific information. The US president has access to more scientific information than probably anybody on the planet – but he actively rejects it on a number of issues because it conflicts with his own interests.

Why should we trust science? Is it because there is a “scientific method” that scientists follow?
There isn’t a single magic formula that guarantees results. We should trust science because it has a rigorous process for vetting claims. That includes the formal peer review of papers submitted to academic journals but also things like scientists discussing their preliminary results in conferences and workshops. Crucially, these practices are social in character. Consensus is key to when a scientific matter has been settled, and therefore when knowledge is likely to be trustworthy. We should also trust science because it is done by people who are experts in studying the natural world. It’s fashionable to be sceptical of experts but we rely on trained people every day for all kinds of things: dentists fix our teeth and plumbers unclog our drains. Science also has a substantial record of success – think of our medicines and technologies – suggesting scientists are doing something right.

You say we can learn from science gone awry. One example in the book is the eugenics movement, the odious crusade in the early part of the last century arguing for the improvement of the genetics of the human race by restricting the reproduction of “unfit” people, which particularly targeted the mentally ill and the poor…
Climate change deniers love to claim that because scientists were once wrong about eugenics, they may be wrong now about climate change. But I looked closely and there never was any consensus among scientists on eugenics. British geneticists and evolutionary biologists in particular – famous names like JBS Haldane and Thomas Huxley – who also happened to be socialists called out eugenics for its class bias targeting working-class people. It shows how diversity, in this case political diversity, can lead to assumptions being pointed out that otherwise would go unnoticed.

You also look at why it took so long for scientists to study whether the contraceptive pill can have mental health side-effects like depression.
A few years ago a big study came out that associated being on the pill with depression and it generated a lot of media attention. But we’ve known this for a very long time because millions of women have been telling us. Their self-reports were often discounted as unreliable by medical science. Lots of psychiatrists going back to the 1960s were aware and some took it seriously. But gynaecologists generally resisted that evidence for two reasons. One was because the pill really does work, so a lot were eager to prescribe it. But also, these were female patients and there is a long history of male doctors in particular discounting their reports. The lesson is scientists shouldn’t discount evidence simply because it’s not in their preferred form.
Do the benefits of flossing your teeth have scientific backing? Photograph: Julio Cortez/AP
You use a 2016 controversy around the effectiveness of flossing teeth as an example not of flawed science, but flawed journalism. What happened? 
The background is the US government took the view that its dietary guidelines should focus on diet and so removed a recommendation to floss. A journalist from the Associated Press noticed and decided to look at flossing’s scientific basis for preventing gum disease and cavities. He found that if you took the gold standard of evidence – the double-blind randomised controlled trial – it was lacking. But you can’t do that kind of trial: you know if your teeth are being flossed or not. If you make that the standard then, necessarily, there won’t be “hard” evidence to support flossing. There is a kind of fetishism about RCTs. But there are cases including in nutrition and exercise when you can’t do them, or it would be unethical. In those cases, other types of studies, like population or animal studies, can be valuable. Or if you have some other kind of information – for example dentists’ and our own experience that flossing does a lot of good for our teeth and gums – it shouldn’t be discounted.

How can we increase trust in science where it is warranted?
It isn’t by giving people more scientific information. Rather scientists need to talk about the values that motivate them and shape the science they do. In many cases, scientists’ values are less different from the people who are rejecting science than you might think. And where values overlap, trust can be built. We may think of people who reject vaccination as being “on the other side” but we all love our children. A scientist’s “biodiversity” might be a religious believer’s “Creation”, but they are cherishing the same thing. Scientists being willing to talk about themselves and their experiences can also go a long way. In my book, I talk about something deeply personal: my own experiences with the contraceptive pill and depression. It may not be persuasive to everyone, but people are much more likely to accept factual information from those they can relate to or have a human connection with.

Lots of scientists work for oil, energy, pharmaceutical, food and cosmetics companies, and often bury unwelcome results, massage their studies and so on – how do you feel about these people and are they contributing to the cynicism about science in the public?
This is a big question, hard to answer in a soundbite. In the early 20th century, a good deal of important science was done in industrial laboratories, for example at Westinghouse, General Electric, Bell Labs, and Eastman Chemicals. But after the war, many large corporations cut back on their support of basic research, and some – most famously the tobacco industry – became involved in product defence and distracting research. A good deal of product defence research is now channelled through academia, and this is deeply problematic. I know from my email and Twitter feed that this has stoked distrust among some people, and rightly so.
Many scientific journals and universities have been very sloppy about taking steps to ensure the integrity of academic findings, for example by having and enforcing full disclosure. Academics have to be very clear about the soures of their support, and they should never agree to non-disclosure agreements. It is essential in science that we let the chips fall as they may.

You’ve recently been testifying in Congress. What’s the message you most want to send to politicians?
Human-induced climate change is under way. It’s no longer a matter of trust; our scientists have been shown to be right. Climate change deniers have run out of excuses.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Comments ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative