Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice: Part 1

https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(94)90049-3Get rights and content

Abstract

The close links between science, technology and politics in environmental policy are more often asserted than demonstrated empirically. This paper attempts to do this for climate change policy by analysing the role played by the international institutions of science and their advice in the preparation of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The emergence and nature of scientific advice are analysed in Part 1. Part 2 traces subsequent political impacts and argues that research institutions tend to produce ambiguous advice, while politics will use scientific uncertainty to advance other agendas. The scientific bodies set up in the 1980s to advise governments on climate change policy emerged from the globally coordinated research community which acted primarily as a lobby for its own research agendas dedicated to the modelling of planet Earth and the development of alternative energy sources. Reactions to the energy policy implications of early advice, as well as the political agendas which attached themselves to it, led to the demise of an independent advisory body of scientists and its replacement by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The paper offers a tentative explanation of the IPCC experience and discusses the implications of that experience for international environmental policy. IPCC advice was necessarily ambivalent and too weak, by itself, to Initiate an active global environmental policy. International negotiations resulted in a research-intensive international treaty reflecting scientific uncertainty rather than environmental precaution. The primary interest of research is the creation of concern in order to demonstrate policy relevance and attract funding. This policy relevance, and therefore the need for scientific advice, decline rapidly once a problem is actually dealt with by regulatory, technological or behavioural change.

References (64)

  • Dale Jamieson

    The epistemology of climate change: some morals for managers

    Society and Natural Resources

    (1991)
  • S. Shackley et al.

    Predicting future climates, enrolling future worlds

    (April 1993)
  • P. Sands

    Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance

    (1990)
  • Global Change: Reducing Uncertainties

    (June 1992)
  • WMO No 762

    The World Climate Programme 1992–2001

    (1992)
  • D. Kay et al.

    World Eco-Crisis: International Organisations in Response

    (1972)
  • F.W.G. Baker

    The International Council of Scientific Union

  • IGBP

    Global Change Newsletter

  • For example, F. Bretherton (IPCC), W. Clark (AGGG) and T. Malone...
  • ICSU/IGBP

    Reducing Uncertainties

    (1992)
  • Wissenschaftliche Beirat Global Umweltveränderungen, Welt im Wandel

    (1993)
  • IGBP

    Global Change Newsletter

  • NASA

    Report to Congress on the Restructuring of the Earth Observing System

    (9 March 1992)
  • Peter Bond

    Taking the temperature of an ailing planet

    The Independent

    (12 July 1993)
  • Global Climate Change: A Scientific Review Presented by the World Climate Research Programme

    (1990)
    J. Jäger et al.

    Climate Change: Science, Impacts and Policy: Proceedings of the Second World Climate Conference

  • C. Tickell

    Climate Change and World Affairs

    (1977)
  • WMO

    Interviews

    WMO No 708

    (1988)
  • WMO

    Interviews

    WMO No 708

    (1988)
  • Report on the Global Climate Observing System

    (March 1991)
  • Report of the Sixth Session of CAS/JSC, Numerical Experimentation

    (1990)
  • Eleventh World Metorological Congress, Abridged Report

    WMO No 756

    (1991)
  • WMO

    Interviews

    WMO No 708

    (1983)
  • J. Houghton et al.

    Climate Change: The Scientific Assessment

    (1990)
    J. Houghton et al.

    Climate Change: The Scientific Assessment

    (July 1992)
  • T.R. Gerholm, personal...
  • Climate Change and World Agriculture

    (1990)
  • W.J.McG. Tegart et al.

    Climate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment

    (1990)
  • Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies

    (1991)
  • IPCC

    Formulation of Response Strategies

    (June 1992)
  • WMO/UNEP

    IPCC Supplement

    (February 1992)
  • W.D. Nordhaus

    An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases

    Science

    (November 1992)
  • Cited by (114)

    • 40 years of global environmental assessments: A retrospective analysis

      2017, Environmental Science and Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      These challenges reinforced the importance of monitoring, technology transfer and scientific assessments—cornerstones of the Summit’s voluntary action plan Agenda 21. Beyond a rapid succession of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in the post-Rio period, were increasing appeals from the international science-policy community to redress ongoing deficits of reliable scientific information to support these agreements (Haas et al., 1992; Parson, 1993; Boehmer-Christiansen, 1994; Levy et al., 1995). The environment now represents the second most common area of international rulemaking, only after international trade (Muñoz et al., 2009).

    • Actors, activities, and forms of authority in the IPCC

      2024, Review of International Studies
    • Liberalism and the Challenge of Climate Change

      2023, Liberalism and the Challenge of Climate Change
    • Climate Change: From Science to Policies, Backward and Forward

      2022, Natural Resource Management and Policy
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This paper reports major findings of the research project ‘The Formulation and Impact of Scientific Advice on Global Climate Change’ (L 320 25 3030) funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council under the British Global Environmental Change Initiative. It is published in two parts, the second of which will appear in the September 1994 issue of Global Environmental Change. Discussions with scientists and policy makers in six countries, as well as the generous cooperation of Working Groups One and Two of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are gratefully acknowledged. The SPRU Energy Programme enabled the close observation of the impact of the global warming debate on energy policy analysis and interests and I am grateful for many discussions and much advice from my colleagues. Three (natural) scientists helped me to appreciate the scientific debate — Dr Jaqueline Etcheto, a physicist researching the carbon cycle at CNRS, Paris; Dr Jill Jäger, a climatologist researching policy questions at the Wuppertal Institute and a former member of the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases; and my late husband, Dr Peter J. Christiansen, space physicist and mathematical modeller. All omissions, errors and misunderstandings remain, of course, entirely my own.

    View full text