| |
|
 |
 By Rosina Bierbaum, Office of Science and Technology Policy
-
-
- Eighteen years ago, I came to Washington knowing only that there
were three branches of government and happier working in a lab than
reading a newspaper. But my experiences since have convinced me that the
time of science remaining in its ivory tower is gone. Science is at the
center of so many of the major crises affecting the planet today --
ozone depletion, desertification, deforestation, species loss,
degradation of landscapes, fisheries decline, coastal pollution, and
climate change. For better or worse, science is used or misused in
policy and decision-making every day.
- Policymakers are not stymied by uncertainty; they must
make decisions based on whatever information is available. They do not
require a scientist's ideal 95% certainty to begin moving in directions
they think make sense to avoid adverse consequences. Policymakers
recognize that a decision "not to act" is as much a decision as one "to
act". Scientists have a responsibility to help them make these "best
guesses", and the process of assessment is among the most valuable tools
at our disposal.
- To overcome the local, regional, and global environmental challenges
currently facing society, we need to shift away from the historic single
issue/single agency/single discipline approaches that dominated much
of the last three decades. Further, we must become more proactive. Rather
than reacting to problems after they occur, we must anticipate and avoid
the worst consequences before they occur.
- These challenges cannot be
confronted in isolation; there are numerous interlinkages between them.
The process of science-based assessment plays an important role in developing
an integrated view of environmental challenges as well as their solutions.
Assessment is truly one of the building blocks of sustainable development.
The evolution of environmental issues over the past 40 years has benefited
greatly from assessment. Starting about 1960, both internationally and
nationally, there was an increasing realization that human activities
were altering the environment in unacceptable ways - we had unbreathable
air and undrinkable water. The 1970s brought action.
- The UN Conference
on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, the UN Environment Programme
was created and the London Dumping Convention was adopted. Domestically,
EPA, NOAA, and the CEQ were established. The Clean Air and Clean Water
Acts were passed. But even with this flurry of activity, issues were
generally treated singly, without connections. And, in general, at local,
sometimes regional, scales.
In the 1980's and the 1990's the perspective noticeably broadened. Scientific
assessment activities played an important role in defining global-scale
problems, the linkages between them, and the options for confronting
them. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
was signed, and then strengthened, largely on the basis of ozone depletion
assessments supported by the World Meteorological Organization and the
UNEP.
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed
in response to increasing concerns about global climate change, and
its landmark assessment reports are critical to the ongoing climate
change negotiations. Increasing scientific understanding of environmental
change and its consequences played an important role in bring about
the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which saw the initiation of
broad international agreements on biodiversity and climate change.
I believe that one of the key aspects of successfully confronting major
environmental challenges in this day and age is the design and implementation
of an assessment process that is iterative and provides usable information
to decision makers along the way, even while refining near- and long-term
research agendas. One of the things that we have learned is that global,
regional and local problems are interlinked. For example, the processes
and impacts of global change have significant regional texture and require
regional-scale analysis and response. The process of assessment must
apply equally well to national, regional and even local scales as it
does to global ones.
Part of my preparation for a recent talk was reviewing the work and
accomplishments of the interagency Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources. As I looked over its first 5 years of existence, cross-cutting
assessment activities stood out as some of the most notable successes.
On issues ranging from harmful algal blooms to endocrine disrupters
to environmental monitoring, we have managed to focus the best scientific
expertise of the government--with input from the academic sector--on
issues of immediate importance to national and regional decision makers.
We have demonstrated that assessment techniques are useful tools to
guide wise management and preservation of our natural resources.
Of all the assessments to date, the National Assessment of Climate Change
is clearly the most ambitious that we have yet attempted. We are going
beyond a purely scientific assessment by actively engaging the public
and private sector decision makers in defining vulnerabilities and possible
adaptation options. The time scales of the changes and the solutions
range from decades to a century or more. Coping, adapting, mitigating
-- all will be needed if climate change develops as most scientists
believe. But, the appropriate mix is an open question requiring both
scientific and societal assessment.
- So, we face a truly daunting task,
and the difficulties are becoming clearer as we proceed. We must try
to evaluate the impacts of slowly changing parameters as well as anticipate
changes in extremes and the potential for "surprises" or nonlinearities.
Interaction with other environmental stresses must also be examined;
if possible, options that address multiple problems are preferable.
We must build partnerships with all stakeholders and continually assess
what we know, don't know, need to know, can know -- and how best to
manage wisely while we learn more.
The way I see it, we have both a responsibility and an opportunity.
Despite the difficulty of our task, we really have no choice but to
attempt it. After all, decisions relevant to climate change adaptation
are being made now, and some future atmospheric concentrations are being
precluded, even with imperfect knowledge of their consequences. As Peter
Drucker said, long range planning is not about future decisions; it
is about the future of present decisions.
With this first assessment of the potential impacts of climate variability
and change on the United States, we are trying to ensure a benign future
environment for our children and grandchildren. We hope they will look
back and conclude that we made wise decisions today.
|
|
National
Assessment 
