Records of the U.S.
Climate Change
Science Program's Planning Workshop for Scientists and Stakeholders
3-5 December 2002, Washington, DC

Caitlin Simpson (NOAA Office of Global Programs) provided a brief overview of Chapter 11: Human Contributions and Responses to Environmental Changes. Human activities play an important part in virtually all natural systems and are changing the environment at local, regional, and even global scales. In setting priorities, Chapter 11 draws heavily from recent National Research Council (NRC) reports: Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade (1999); Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems and Infectious Disease (2001); and Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001).

An integrated, interdisciplinary approach using social, economic, health and environmental data for human dimensions research is essential. Principal research areas include:

Human contributions and responses cut across all other research elements as well as being a scientific effort in its on right.

The Plan lists four questions for human dimensions research:

Agencies supporting research in these areas include DOE, EPA, HHS/NIH, NASA, NOAA, NSF, and USDA. The Plan outlines a broad agenda critical to understanding the impacts and drivers of global change. For certain topics resources will be extremely limited; however, in many areas (e.g., integrated assessments, modeling, health effects, land use, land change) significant programs will be supported.

Tom Dietz (George Mason University) noted that there is a high probability that the climate in the 21^st century will be substantially different. Some changes may be nonlinear or abrupt; some will have a substantial impact on things that people care about. Good decision makers will have to take account of all. Evidence suggests that much of climate change is anthropogenic. Human activities strongly influence carbon, nitrogen and ozone in the atmosphere.

Several recommendations from the NRC Pathways Report are missing:

The Plan lacks integration of human dimensions issues in other chapters. Chapter 8 does the best job with respect to integration; Chapter 7 notes the issues but demonstrates a pattern that is worse in other chapters of noting, then ignoring, human dimensions. Chapter 12 lists no observational priorities related to human dimensions. Without adequate data on socioeconomic trends related to global changes policymakers will have difficulty making decisions. In addition, there is a discontinuity between the research needs identified for Question 1, the question itself, and its payoffs.

Decision support must be grounded in science. Research is needed on decision making under uncertainties by individuals, households, firms, governments and other organizations and on effective methods for making decisions. Methods for incorporating stakeholders need to be improved. Distributional issues need a strong emphasis. On the whole, Chapter 11 is a major step forward in articulating the human dimensions component of the Global Change Research Program.

Susan Moser (Union of Concerned Scientists) acknowledged the amount of work in writing Chapter 11 and praised the great emphasis on pursuing linkages across elements. The need for research on the human dimensions of global change motivates research questions throughout the Plan. Although the Plan uses the recommendations from recent NRC reports as the basis of the research agenda, it fails to cite the IPCC Assessment (2001) and the National Assessment (1999-2001). It is bad science to fail to build on what we know and to ignore established expertise and valuable information.

Scientist-stakeholder collaboration is missing. Although the Plan claims to be policy relevant but not policy driven, Chapter 11 is policy driven. There is not one mention of the costs of adaptation, only the costs of mitigation.

The Plan states that Climate Change Science Program analyses should specifically evaluate and report uncertainty, but uncertainly should not be a basis for inaction. It ought to focus more on confidence levels and at which level action can begin to take place.

It is vague on deliverables and resources to produce those deliverables. The GCRP Plan describes important questions and goals for research over the next decade. The section on products and payoffs includes no time horizons. Timeliness with regard to data needs is most important. The Plan must address the need to develop ways to integrate quantitative and qualitative research. It must continue the assessment process --- continued regional and sectoral assessments should be pursued. Less tangible, yet most important, payoffs must be identified. The Plan includes very little detail on linkages. More links to the Nation Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) are needed. Questions: How will findings build on state-of art knowledge? How will expected results feed into the Fourth IPCC report?

Walter Shaub (U.S. Chamber of Commerce (CC)) described the recommendations in Adam Finkel's Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management on how uncertainties may be taken into account. Shaub added that from a practical standpoint many problems of uncertainty cannot be studied; however, the Plan is laudable in its effort to study global change. Questions of concern to CC members: How will we know when we know enough? Even if technology becomes available, how fast will it be implemented? How much is known about the effect of international treaties on research? What matrix will demonstrate that the models have been improved? Research is needed to enable better decisions, but what is a better decision? The CC takes climate change very seriously. With sound science, it is easier for business to make plans.

Shaub noted that climatologists dominate the meeting and that technology problems seem to matter the most. With respect to Question 1, the nexus between research needs and research plans need to be strengthened. Scientists must be careful not to "reinvent the wheel" and to target research where there are knowledge gaps. The discussion of products and payoffs in Chapter 11 is more vague than in other chapters. Under Question 4, the Plan states that human health is linked to the environment, but it is also linked to economic status. The Plan ought to look at structural components in other countries that influence climate change.

Paul Epstein (Harvard University) presented a brief overview of a cross section of effects of global change on health. He added that more research is needed on synergies and surprises, e.g., CO2 and ragweed pollen, extreme weather events and travel conditions and accidents, wild fires and air pollution, the amplification of West Nile by drought, and climate change. He suggested a need for cautionary science, a bias toward the null, and systems-based analyses. He suggested a need for evaluating opportunities and benefits, not just risks and costs.

*Wolf Kosman (Center for Energy Research in Germany) stated that there has been lots of progress. We are in a different situation from 1990. Economic change and rebuilding deliver an opportunity to solve problems. How can we influence such developments? What makes the situation serious? There is now a window of opportunity in the next 10-15 years to succeed. By using change we can affect the future.

Elizabeth Middleton (NASA) agreed with Susan Moser's comments. She was happy to see more applications provided by Paul Epstein. More links to environmental quality, water quality and health data are important. Scientists should look at human migration to fertile land and coastal regions. Consensus re: whether there is or is not global warming should be sent from the scientific community to the public. If the public is to provide support, it must be informed.

Martin Parry (University of East Anglia) Parry commented on the need for understanding the costs of mitigation compared to cost and damage avoided. In addition, the issue of adaptive capacity must be unpacked. More research is needed on evaluating the mix of adaptation/mitigation strategies and on non-monetized costs and benefits. How much research is supported will be an issue outside the U.S. There is a lack of references to literature and information available in other countries. Why single out health? Why not water? Two of four areas of global change science involve human responses, yet their plan for research is packed into one of thirteen chapters.

Darlene Wright (Canada Chiefs Conference) asked the CCSP to meet the challenge of diversifying intellectual capital. There are no contributions from Native Americans in the north where 50 to 90 percent of the diet is traditional food. Global change has already caused subsistence fishing closures. She urged the CCSP to take advantage of government-to-government relations and most importantly to take advantage of data that Native Americans can provide.

Thomas Moore (Hoover Institution) The plan does not address what people prefer. Some always think any change is bad. The British studies show an increase of 3 degrees to 5 degrees. If this change takes place what would be the reduction in winter mortality? The spread of West Nile virus in the U.S. is not due to climate change. In addition, there is no evidence that extreme weather events happen more often.

Moser replied that weather extremes have gone up. Epstein added that variability is the factor in winter mortality -- not just cold or warm. Winter mortality does need more study. Drought amplifies transmission of St. Louis encephalitis and West Nile virus.

Chella Rajan (Tellus Institute) commented that what you do and when you do it affects outcomes. She advocated a crosscutting, integrative approach to studying impacts. Non-linearities and system dynamics need to be incorporated; regional disaggregation of effects needs to be taken into account; there is an emphasis on technology but not a great enough emphasis on the source of energy.

Jim Titus (EPA) criticized the CCSP for the lack of coordination among agencies doing climate change research. There is no coordination with agencies not in the CCSP (e.g., FEMA) that are supporting research related to climate change. Global change research related to effects on people living in coastal regions is totally inadequate.

Jonathan Patz (Johns Hopkins University) described the Plan as a pretty good document, but it falls short in the following areas: effects of global change on vulnerable populations --- need to look beyond the U.S. borders; no mention of the costs of adaptation; no use of the data and recommendations in the health section of the National Assessment.

Greg Greenwood (State of California) stated that both adaptation and mitigation costs are major issues. Managers always ask, "What can we do? How much will it cost?" Integrated assessments are a much larger question than the Plan notes. The authors of the Plan need to interact with policymakers, not just treat them as subject matter; need to flesh out linkage with chapters 13 and 15.

Danny Day (EPRIDA) noted the importance of research on carbon sequestration. He supports the statements by Moser and Epstein. The CCSP has the opportunity to provide the world with information they can use. If the average person can use data, it has in impact on how he/she will invest resources.

Enrico James (New York University) asked if panel members would be willing to make recommendations to writers of other chapters. He noted that fully understanding the costs of adaptation may make the costs of mitigation appear reasonable.

Jim Patten (Battelle-Energy Technology) thinks the Plan is good as far as it went, but it left a lot uncovered, especially in the area of technology. He is concerned about vulcanization of research on effects and technology. Suggests linkages with CCTI.

Barrett Rock (University of New Hampshire) commented on the missing link with outreach. In human dimensions, it is important to communicate with the public.

Kurt Davies (Greenpeace) opined that policy makers are abandoning research. The questions are antique. We must throw out the question, "Do we prefer a warmer climate?"

Carolyn Mutter (International Research Institute for Climate Prediction) noted that we shall benefit from the models and asked how we should use quantitative/qualitative information. Decision makers need information ahead of time to make plans. She urged the CCSP to consider variability as a cause of global change not just long-term climate change.

The Plan needs to deal with long-term future as well -- decades -- not just the next 10 years.

The Plan needs a section that the average person can understand and then get involved -- this will also help get business involvement, which is essential so that people will invest money in relevant projects.

The Plan needs a pros-cons section.

The Plan needs to include greater emphasis on collaboration with border countries and populations. They can add a great deal of intellectual capacity to the issue.

A surveillance and early warning system that connects health and environmental change ought to be included in the Plan.

More emphasis needs to be placed on the effect on wildlife and other animals, not just humans.

An emphasis needs to be made on forming a consensus science to communicate to the public. The public needs to be sure if you want it to cooperate.