Pielke, Jr., R. A., and M. M. Betsill, 1997: Policy for Science for Policy: Ozone Depletion and Acid Rain Revisited. Research Policy, 26, 157-168.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-153-1997.11.pdf

Seriously — this ought to be the subject matter of political science. The CFC problem was addressed. The lead and tobacco problems were addressed with half a century of more of delay. The fossil fuel problem is being thrashed over.

What’s the difference in the way politics handles these?

Add in say antibiotic use in agriculture, comparing the EU with the USA. Add in say the use of radium in patent medicine, for an opposite extreme.

What factors make the difference?

And why is the US currently urging modification of it to _strengthen_ it, shorten the time for phasing out the HCFCs and reduce the problem further?

Seriously — the same sort of attacks were being made on the science. Was it the Nobel Prize award, perhaps, that ended them?

Article:

“The Montreal Protocol for the ozone layer is clearly a success story,” says Dr. Guus Velders, a senior scientist specializing in climate change and ozone depletion at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and lead author of a research paper that calculated the benefits.

The paper, being published this week in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that international treaties to deal with environmental problems can be successful and that the implementation of the Montreal Protocol has bought more time for dealing with climate change.

“It clearly shows that things are possible in a global treaty,” Dr. Velders said. “We gained about 10 years for climate change.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070306.CLIMATE06/TPStory/National

———–and———

While the Montreal Protocol has already made tremendous strides to heal the ozone shield, the United States believes more steps can be taken to reduce HCFC consumption further and achieve a total phaseout sooner than the scheduled dates. Based on analysis, experience, and more rapid technology development, the U.S. technical team believes we can move faster by as much as ten years.

The U.S. Continues Its Strong Leadership In Ozone Layer Protection. Since the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, the U.S. has achieved a 90 percent reduction in the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances ending the production and import of over 1.7 billion pounds per year of these chemicals. Faster healing of the ozone layer will help prevent human health damages caused by excess UV radiation, including skin cancer.

U.S. Actions Under The Current Montreal Protocol And Clean Air Act Requirements Have Also Helped Protect Against Climate Change. Ozone-depleting substances particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are damaging to the Earth’s climate system. In 2005, the U.S. reduced annual emissions of ozone-depleting substances by 1,500 million CO2-equivalent metric tons per year. U.S. actions achieved a cumulative emissions reduction of about 13,000 million CO2-equivalent metric tons from 1987-2005 (not accounting for some offset from the influence of ozone depletion on the climate). Worldwide, The Montreal Protocol Has Cut In Half The Amount Of Global Warming Caused By Ozone-Destroying Chemicals That Would Have Occurred By 2010 Had These Chemicals Not Been Controlled.
http://www.solanconews.com/Gov/Articles/2007/070317_noaa_ozone.htm

When I read the following…
“1. George W. Bush. Everything George Bush touches becomes a partisan issue (and seems to break). George Bush squandered an opportunity to become a great president in the aftermath of 9/11 and instead will be remembered as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. In this context…”

My interpretation was simply this…
In order to understand the partisan nature of climate change, it is first necessary to understand the “context” in which George W. Bush is viewed by his critics. Namely that everything he touches “becomes a partisan issue” and he will be remembered as “one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.” In this “context”, any position taken by George W. Bush transforms the issue into a “partisan” one and since his status in history has been predetermined, he must be on the wrong side of the issue. Thus, the initial groundwork for “why” this is a partisan issue has been posited.

However, I was disappointed to read this from the comment section…
“You are absolutely correct that my evaluation of Mr. Bush is a judgment call…”

As the climate change debate has piqued my interest of late, I have been increasingly amazed at the vitriolic exchanges on the subject. I am evermore skeptical of authors who interlace reasonable discourse with such indefensible statements as those quoted above. Alas, it appears as though my initial interpretation was incorrect and this is nothing more than your personal assessment of Mr. Bush. Such bias seems to do more to encourage the “echo chambers” within the “chorus” instead of creating an environment of meaningful debate.

I am a first time reader of your material and my initial question was largely rhetorical. However, to those who use the statement that Mr. Bush “will be remembered as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history” let me add the following comments.

- At least use “may be remembered…”; use of “will” implies precognition of which you can formulate your own opinion.
- It is certainly possible to establish a “worst presidency” measurement. Questions like… What criteria are used to evaluate each presidency? Who establishes said criteria? How does each criterion combine to determine an overall rating? etc. would need to be answered in order to rank each presidency.

My point is this… until you can “show your work”, like elementary teachers tell students, the statement rings hollow. And at least to me, this serves as an indication that… your bias is showing.

I did enjoy reading your post,
Best regards…

Some in the pro-Kyoto camp labor under the implicit premise that if only policymakers and society at large could be convinced that global warming is real and due to human action, the Kyoto Protocol would be universally ratified and put into action. I’m critical of Gore, for example, for pushing this premise.

What I think Gore omits from his rhetoric (though as a politician he can hardly be unaware) is that climate science is not the only – and indeed may not be the most important – factor driving energy and carbon-emissions policy, and Kyoto is not the only possible carbon limitation scheme. Many “solutions” to global warming, such as nuclear power, carry environmental risks of their own.

Dr. Pielke is quite right to point out that collectively and individually we make many choices in the face of science, not because of it. If science dictated action, no one in the world would smoke.

Similarly, many opponents of limitations on fossil fuel emissions seem intent on discrediting the science of global warming as a way of forestalling action. But there are other, more immediate reasons to cut back our dependence on fossil fuels, and these rationales have much more certain science behind them. Examples include local and regional pollution which pose a public health risk. Aside from environmental risks, let’s not forget the geopolitical and economic risk posed by dependence on fossil fuels.

For those who oppose steps to reduce fossil-fuel emissions, global warming may be the perfect issue. The uncertainties of impacts, and long time frames, make global warming an easy target for economic arguments for doing nothing. After all, the costs of many mitigation steps are easier to estimate than the costs of adaptation to still-uncertain impacts.

By making global warming the only issue in the fossil-fuels debate, environmentalists and “Green” ideologues may be unnecessarily and counterproductively limiting the scope of the argument and narrowing policy choices.

So I think we have to separate the scientific assessment of global warming from the policy response. If the science answers the detection-and-attribution question in the affirmative, what, if anything, should we do about it? Well one perfectly valid policy response is to do nothing. Keep going the way we’re going and deal with the consequences later. Personally I think doing absolutely nothing would be a mistake, and I agree with Dr. Pielke that we have many “no-regrets” mitigation strategies available.

Your post is an excellent example of rational reasoning and logical thought… Anyway, here’s some reading material on this ever continuing DDT myth being spouted:

http://timlambert.org/category/science/ddt/

Then there is this:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:UXyB6NAh-JQJ:www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html+science+view+republicans+democrats&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

“Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that’s contrary to their point of view.”