Climate change review

Feb. 28, 2004
The White House should be spending more money to support its revamped climate-change research program, the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) said last month.

Maureen Lorenzetti

The White House should be spending more money to support its revamped climate-change research program, the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) said last month.

NRC Feb. 18 praised US President George W. Bush's effort to improve the scope of government-funded climate change research, but it warned that commitments to fund many proposed activities are lacking.

"While some research in the plan has an established track record of funding by particular government agencies, newer and expanded areas, such as the study of climate change's effects on ecosystems and humans, are likely to be underfunded," NRC said.

The federal government now spends $1.7 billion/year in climate-related research among 13 agencies; US officials predict that figure will not change much in the next few years.

Pooling research
NRC reviewed efforts by the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), a group formed in 2001 to coordinate federal climate-change research this decade.

Of particular interest to NRC is what academics call the plan's "explicit connection" between researching climate change and developing technologies to address it.

NRC however, remains concerned that CCSP may be vulnerable to political influences.

"The presence of high-level political leaders in CCSP management should help the program secure resources, but it also may lead to a real or perceived political influence that could discredit the program," NRC said. To prevent this, CCSP should seek independent oversight, preferably by a standing advisory body. NRC also called for future reports to be reviewed by a wider scientific community as well as stakeholders that include government decision-makers, nongovernmental organizations, private industry, and other users of climate science. The committee said CCSP "has already set a high standard for government research programs by seeking advice not only from the research council but also from many other outside scientists and stakeholders."

Stakeholder reactions
The George Marshall Institute, a nonprofit, industry-funded think tank that studies climate change, said the NRC review validates that the White House is committed to doing meaningful research on climate change.

It also called on CCSP to make its research transparent to other scientists and the general public; dissenting views should also be published, the group suggested.

Meanwhile, critics of the White House's climate-change policies rejected the premise that more research is needed before considering mandatory controls on greenhouse gases.

"In the realm of global warming, enough credible, peer-reviewed research has been documented by a number of well-recognized scientific bodies that any responsible leader would take action to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases immediately," said Rebecca Eaton of the World Wildlife Fund.

"Uncertainty is inherent in the types of decisions that leaders make every day, and it is no excuse for failing to act and take responsible steps given the overwhelming evidence and information available right now. Climate change is occurring, and the effects on environmental and human health will become more pronounced and severe."

Author contact: [email protected]