Breakout Session 17
Resource Management Decision Support
Comments of William O'Keefe, George C. Marshall Institute
I want to commend Jim Mahoney, his team and the
Administration for this innovative forum for gaining input to the
strategic planning initiative. I also want to express my appreciation for
being included on this panel. The Marshall Institute promotes the use of
science for better policy making so my remarks will be from the
perspective of getting better information and using it more efficiently
and effectively.
The challenge facing all of us is complex and
daunting. As a consequence, I suspect that there is no one right way to
proceed. Learning from the past, however, can help us do better going
forward and make needed improvements along the way. So, I urge that a
"lessons-learned, look back process" be part of the path forward.
Chapter 4 identifies a broad set of possible
interactions at the national, state and international levels and
information needs to improve decisions and resource management. These
represent an ambitious set of goals, perhaps too ambitious given the
complexity and uncertainty of the climate issue and the inevitability of
resource constraints. Realistic expectations and steady progress in
processes, in understanding and in the use of research results by decision
makers should be objectives for the planning process. An iterative
planning process, what some might call "muddling through," may be the
right paradigm if a reasonable level of flexibility can be introduced into
the bureaucracy. That may not seem intellectually elegant or sophisticated
but that is the proven way to deal with decisions under conditions of
uncertainty. Clearly, the best should not be the enemy of the better.
Throughout the draft, as well as in Chapter 4, there
is a recognition of the need for a better observational system and data
collection effort. Admiral Lautenbacher made the abundantly clear in
his
remarks this morning. Observational data, especially about critical
climate variables, is the foundation of everything else that is to be
done. The system for gaining that data should be the highest priority.
That requires a long-term commitment as well as an unwavering commitment,
the highest standards of quality.
Since the beginning of the recent debate on climate
change, models, in my opinion, have had an undue influence on policy. And,
this plan continues to place too much emphasis on models. In many
quarters, simulations and the perceptions associated with them have been a
substitute for reality. In many quarters, simulations and the perceptions
that flow from them have been a substitute for reality.
Even the best models do not have a sound, validated
empirical basis. We need better models but until critical variables such
as clouds, feedbacks, water vapor, natural variability and solar
irradiance can be empirically validated, models should not be primary
decision influencing tools. Building ever more complex models that are
based on hypotheses and assumptions may be analytically elegant, but they
will not help decision making. Validation should have a higher priority
than increasing sophistication. Similarly, allocating more resources to
computational power may be premature until the quality of models
significantly improves. Rational sequencing of effort and a transparent
priority setting process should be major planning drivers.
Implicitly and explicitly, there is too much focus
on mitigation and not enough on potential adaptation. While I have serious
reservations about how scenarios have been developed and used, a realistic
scenario -- or even optimistic one -- would almost certainly lead to the
conclusion that emission levels will be higher 50 years hence than today.
Mitigation efforts that can be economically and
scientifically justified obviously should be pursued. But, they can slow
down the growth in emission levels but not reverse it. That is why
adaptation and actions that promote resiliency need to have a higher
priority.
This chapter identifies factors other than energy
that need to be considered for their potential contribution to a
management strategy. While this is true, it also is true that energy
policy and climate policy cannot be separated. They are opposite sides of
the same coin. Policy actions must ensure a balance between risk
management and maintaining a healthy economy. There has been a presumption
for the better part of the past decade that alternatives to fossil fuels
could be aggressively put in place with no adverse economic consequences.
There is no sound basis for this belief and the sooner it is dispelled the
better.
Finally, I want to address management. Decision
support tools can help best when there is an effective management system
and processes. Good and effective management starts with accountability
and decision-making authority. If this climate research program was run by
a private institution it would not be organized the way this one is.
Responsibility is too diffuse and, in keeping with tradition, multiple
agencies have to get their fair share of the budget. As a result, it is
too difficult to make changes, priority-setting ends up being a
negotiating process and there is not adequate management control.
Being pragmatic, I know that moving from loose
coordination among 13 agencies to true program management is not in the
cards, but that is an important objective that is worth pursuing. Again,
gradual improvement is all that should and can be expected but it will add
value.
Although there are limits to what can be done from
an organizational and management perspective, there is one deficiency that
is critical and which needs to be addressed immediately. Organizations
strive for cohesion and consensus. These qualities are essential to
efficiency. The drive for consensus can have an unintended consequence of
shutting out negative information and the full vetting of alternatives.
The effects of "Group Think" have been well documented. Science advances
through debate, controversy, skepticism and the competition of ideas. In
the climate arena, skepticism has been made a vice, not a virtue. The
climate research initiative needs to find a way to make sure that
competing theories and challenges to conventional wisdom and beliefs are
not short circuited and pejoratively dismissed. In the Department of
Defense the "Red-Team" approach is used and there is an Office of Net
Threat Assessment. Something similar is needed for the climate issue to
ensure that there is an adequate level of creative tension in the system.
|
Library
