22 October 2013. PenzaNews. The results of the latest report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) caused a wave of criticism and controversy, but the delay in action can be fraught with grave consequences. This is the opinion expressed by Darci Pauser from Turkish International Strategic Research Organization in her article “The climate change debate is costing us” published in the foreign press.

© PenzaNewsBuy the photo

“The report, released last Friday, revealed an increased certainty that climate change is human-driven. However, the panel must grapple with critics who argue against any mitigation of climate change, citing continued uncertainty in climate change science and the biased involvement of governments,” the article says.

According to the analyst, debate is a hallmark of the scientific process, but these critiques are delaying policy solutions as the risks associated with climate change rise.

“There will always be uncertainty regarding climate change – uncertainty about the manner and intensity of its effects, the anthropogenic nature of its origins and whether or not its effects are even negative. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Rupert Darwall discredits the entire IPCC report because of its reevaluation of certainty levels. However, uncertainty does not preclude action. If we applied the same weight to the assertions of every expert on the entire spectrum of climate change science, the expected effects of climate change would be negative. By spending time and energy debating whether or not risk is certain, we prevent ourselves from tackling the real issue of how big a risk climate change is. In other words, how big that negative is,” the expert noted.

According to her, the IPCC is already attempting to address critics’ concerns by assessing levels of certainty and consensus, as well as integrating many sources of research and expertise.

“Their report, considered the world’s most authoritative piece of literature on climate change, incorporates information from 800 experts and 9000 scientific studies. Hundreds of experts in the field volunteer to draft the report, chosen based on their experience in the field by Working Group co-chairs,” Darci Pauser explained.

She also noted that the IPCC states they are now 95% certain that most climate change is caused by humans, compared to 90% in the 2007 report, 66% in 2001, and 50% in 1995.

“As more research is conducted and greenhouse gases (GHGs) are better understood, the IPCC’s certainty of the anthropogenic nature of climate change has increased, even if how big the negative is fluctuates in certainty. Some climate change science proponents even find the IPCC assessment of the severity of climate change conservative, which is likely due to its consensus decision-making process,” the analyst added.

Meanwhile, she stressed that any member of the UN is eligible for membership in the IPCC.

“Currently, delegates from 195 countries participate in the panel and have the opportunity to review and debate the details of its reports. Critics suspect this government involvement in the IPCC reports necessarily leads to a biased view, in order to further the breadth of policy involvement in people’s lives. For example, meteorologist Anthony Farnell states in a Global News article, “In Friday’s report, the IPCC will make no mention of the paused global warming or the recovering ice caps or the faulty climate models, all because of pressure from the US government and other major political players around the globe,” the expert noted.

However, in her opinion, claims that pressure from the US government drives climate change science are suspect.

“The US has no motivation to falsify this information. On the contrary, the US should be motivated to support the climate change opposition. Credible evidence that climate change is not human-driven would allow the US to continue to emit GHGs and avoid policies that pose an impediment to short- and medium-term economic growth,” the expert said.

According to her, the US has supported such research indeed.

“The US Air Force and NASA, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, funded the 2003 Soon and Baliunas paper, which asserted natural causes of climate change. In the same year, George W. Bush’s administration utilized the findings as justification to remove any claim that earth’s temperatures have risen in the past 1,000 years from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Report on the Environment. Soon and Baliunas’ findings have since been debunked by several scientists they cited in their own paper,” the analyst reminded.

From her point of view, particularly in the United States, which is one of the greatest national emitters of GHGs and a key state catalyst to international negotiations, climate change uncertainty has stunted participation in and ratification of international agreements.

“The inability of the US to take a stance of action to mitigate climate change has reverberated into international negotiations. If the US could act in the face of uncertainty, other countries of the world would surely follow their lead and the international community would be better able to mitigate the risk of climate change,” the expert noted.

According to her, even in the complete absence of negative climate change effects, taking small steps towards GHG abatement poses minimal economic effects, which is the result of what economists call rising marginal costs.

“Fundamentally, this means that policies can allow the easiest and cheapest reductions in GHGs first. Taking into account uncertainty, the expected effects of climate change are negative. No matter how large or small that negative is, a small effort can lead to comparatively large reductions in emissions and significant risk mitigation,” the analyst said.

In her opinion, uncertainty is always present in science, and because of this basic tenet, there will always be contention on the existence of climate change.

“However, we cannot wait for an impossible total consensus in order to act on a potentially very threatening and dangerous situation. At this point in the climate change debate, 25 years following the establishment of the IPCC, the costs of continuing to quibble about certainty in the absence of action far outweigh the benefits of implementing international action now, even if such action is only a small step towards emissions reduction and risk mitigation,” Darci Pauser concluded.