|
Dear Charles:
When a deal is illusory, it is said the participants are left "hugging smoke" since they have nothing substantial to show for their efforts.
Some charge that the
186-nation Paris Agreement on climate change was such an exercise. A key provision pledged to hold overall global temperature to 1.5 ̊C above pre-industrial levels. But that puts us on course for 55 billion tons of emissions per year in 2030, while today
we are at 40 billion tons per year.
Jim Hansen, the former NASA scientist who has been raising the climate alarm for nearly 30 years, offered this
scathing assessment:
"It's a fraud really, a fake. It's just bullshit for them to say: 'We'll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.' It's just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil
fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned."
Secretary of State John Kerry
disagreed with Dr. Hansen’s blunt characterization but admitted:
"I understand the criticisms of the agreement because it doesn't have a mandatory scheme and it doesn't have a compliance enforcement mechanism. That's true."
Instead, Kerry said the real significance was the fact of the global agreement: "We have 186 countries, for the first time in history, all submitting independent plans." That, he argues, sends a strong signal to the "marketplace of the world" to shift to
low-carbon fuels.
In essence, both Hansen and Kerry are saying that real change will come not from the agreement but from what comes next. Both also agree that change requires that knowledgeable scientists are free to speak out not only about their findings but what those
findings mean. As Dr. Hansen says, "I don't think we should be prevented for talking about the implications of science."
But, in fact, many government agencies do just that, subjecting scientific work to "policy review" to screen what is published,
censoring work for political reasons, and
preventing scientists from lecturing or even answering questions.
Because we need more scientists like Jim Hansen,
PEER is on the forefront of the fight for scientific freedom inside public agencies. It is a fight in which we all have a stake.
May we deal you in?
Sincerely,
Jeff Ruch
Executive Director P.S. An ongoing example of official scientific censorship PEER has exposed are standing directives to exclude scientific consideration of the risks of introducing invasive
species into Arctic waters from petroleum exploration. As Arctic waters warm,
we can expect more exotic sea creatures to take root.
P.P.S. Across the country, conservative governors often seek to shirk responsibilities for natural resource conservation by trying to run state parks "like a business." In Florida, for example, we are pushing back against a move to
convert state parks into profit centers by allowing timbering, grazing, and oil drilling. In Indiana, we may have
stopped a plan to convert a portion of a Lake Michigan shoreline park into a private conference center financed by alcohol sales from three restaurants with bars, a craft brew pub, and a gallery for wedding rehearsal dinners, all topped with a rooftop lounge.
P.P.P.S. Florida manatees need your help. Please tell the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that it needs to finalize safeguards for these endangered marine mammals
from hordes of "swim-with" tourists kicking, chasing, and harassing beset sea-cows
NOW.
|
