Two comments. First, I am not convinced that advocates of Kyoto won the day over science and that it ran aground in the US on economics. The science claims made for Kyoto at the time included the assertion that it’s implementation would effectively solve the global warming problem. In the US political market, these claims were effectively rebutted by the counterclaim that implementing Kyoto would have a negligible effect on climate — even if the advocates were assumed to have the atmospheric science right — because Kyoto allowed some nations (notably India and China) a free pass. Thus, Kyoto fell apart because its advocates got a critical part of the science wrong: they promised Kyoto would “solve” the global warming problem, which scientists now admit it cannot do. (Kyoto might well have fallen apart for other reasons, but failing to demonstrate effectiveness was alone sufficient.)

Second, an important reason for the popularity of science-driven policy advocacy is that it short-circuits debates about how to balance competing values. In environmental policy, the mother of science-driven policies has been the NAAQS. It requires decisions to be based on a constrained domain of scientific information (i.e., respiratory health effects) without regard for either scientific information outside the constrained set (e.g., non-respiratory health effects) or competing values. By saying that all political debate must occur within the confines of respiratory health science, it guaranteed that respiratory health science would be politicized.

I think we are seeing much the same thing happen in the case of climate change. Advocates of immediate action argue that the science is convincing, *and that is enough to justify policy*. The more they do this, the greater will be the politicization of climate change science.

Exaggerating or misrepresenting the science lead to stagnation instead of action. There are some cost efficient policy, based on common sense, that could be enacted tomorrow morning. I believe that these policy aren’t enacted because of the bad argumentation proposed by those who seek action.

It seems to me that people like Al Gore, Stern and many others that they only want to hit home run policy and aren’t interested in scoring point via less exciting, although effective,
policies.

I hope that I was able to make my Idea readable enough.

At the risk of distracting attention, I think something similar to the proposal could be a very effective insurance policy to counter severe warming if it starts to occur.

By using sulfate particles, Crutzen seems to be adding a poison pill to his proposal (increases polution and acid rain). As proposed by Gregory Benford and others (http://www.physsci.uci.edu/psnews/?id=250), these issues could be avoided. Diatomaceous earth particles (commonly mined for filtration and just composed of SiO2), would not produce acid rain.

Also, by using finer particles (that only block UV), regular sunlight would not be affected, and as a bonus, cases of skin cancer from UV exposure would be reduced.

Also, Dan Sarewitz makes this argument convincingly in the following paper:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/sarewitz_how_science_makes_environmental_controversies_worse.pdf

Thanks for your comment and question, but I am unclear as to what you are asking. I’ll try to respond, and if I am off the mark, please ask again.

You write: “How does the failure to force on consensus on science alone foster gridlock?”

Let me try to explain. I agree that gridlock occurs for many reasons. But lets take climate change, which I would argue is in a gridlocked state. If we turn that issue into a battle over science as a proxy for political battle, I argue that will create conditions for the gridlock to persist, because no matter who wins the scientific debate, it cannot address the factors that underlie the gridlock (competing values, not competing visions of science).

As an example consider all of the people who once were opposed to Kyoto based on their view that the science was too uncertain (e.g., Pres. Bush) and who now accept the science but still oppose Kyoto based on the economics. Turning the battle into one over the science, and winning it, has not helped Kyoto advocates one bit.

What would break the gridlock are creative new policy options that allow for opposing sides of the gridlocked debate to reach a new political consensus. This happened in ozone depletion and acid rain policy. See:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/environment/000810myths_of_the_history.html

Prof. Crutzen is trying to “startle policymakers” into taking a partiular action. If you read the news article you’ll see that his efforts are in fact having the opposite effect. Rather than startling the policy makers his proposal is being taken seriously by some, in my view probably distracting attention from other potentially more worthwhile approaches to the problem than either the present gridlock or geoengineering the planet.

Thanks!

[quote]Why does this matter? “when politics is played out through science with the acquiescence and even facilitation of scientists, the results can serve to foster political gridlock to the detriment of science and policy alike because science alone is incapable of forcing a political consensus.”[unquote]

The line of reasoning appears incomplete to me. How does the failure to force on consensus on science alone foster gridlock? It seems to me that we human beings are pretty good at fostering gridlock and for other reasons. Because it can’t force consensus then logically gridlock can occur but beyond that I don’t see the connection. I get the impression that I am supposed to ‘connect the dots’ in an argument that follows a kind of ‘linear model’ of reasoning.

While I appreciate that other values of necessity enter into these decisions and that an ‘honest broker’ who can expand the policy options rather than than restrict them is a good thing I have a hard connecting those notions to the statement quoted above.

I feel that a better understanding of a more constructive role of science in policy decisions is a vital contribution to the debate. But I struggle in my attempts to use your work to help illuminate my understanding in this area.