From an article in Voice of America News is this telling quote from U.S. Senior Climate Negotiator Harlan Watson:

“The United States has been criticized for not ratifying the protocol, but the climate negotiator says U.S. environmental efforts should not be scorned by other nations. “I challenge them to match us,” he said. “As they say, we spend more on science and technology than anyone else in the world by far.” He adds that the United States has spent roughly $23 billion on climate change science since 1990, more than the rest of the world combined.”

Last year Dan Sarewitz and I wrote of this approach to climate change,

“Our position, based on the experience of the past 13 years, is that although the current and proposed climate research agenda has little potential to meet the information needs of decisionmakers, it has a significant potential to reinforce a political situation characterized, above all, by continued lack of action. The situation persists not only because the current research-based approach supports those happy with the present political gridlock, but more uncomfortably, because the primary beneficiaries of this situation include scientists themselves. Things are unlikely to change for the better unless the climate research community adopts a leadership role that places societal responsibility above professional self-interest.”

What would this mean?

First and foremost it would mean abandoning the justification frequently advanced for climate change science that continued investments in climate research will lead to reduced uncertainty which will enable decision making.

Instead climate research has great, and largely untapped, potential to contribute to an expansion of climate policy options available for decision makers’ consideration. On climate change, policy makers don’t need more information, they need more choice.