William Brennan

William works for the US Climate Change Science Program, but he's deeply rooted to Maine (his niece works at a bar down the street). He's worked with NOAA, until last May when he was tapped to be the acting head of the Climate Change Science Program (annual budget $1.6 billion?), which works at the interface of science and policy.

What do we know and not know about climate change?
What happens at the interface of science and policy?
What is going on in the international and national policy arenas in this area?
Personal observations about the public debate surrounding climate change?

What we know: human activity has significantly increased CO2 (fossil fuel), nitrous, and methane (agriculture). Most of the observed increase in temperature is very likely the result of human activity. Bottom line: general scientific agreement that human activity is a driver of climate change. But increased resolution and study is needed to know about the sensitivity of particular ecosystems on a regional scale; this is the scale where impacts occur. The signal to noise ratio is still really high on these smaller scales.

At the interface of science and policy: we've restructured the way we organize science and technology and use research to make policy. In 2002 there was a new committee formed, at a cabinet level, intended to facilitate interagency cooperation (e.g. between Dept. of Agriculture, Transportation, EPA, etc.). William goes into detail about the structure and aims of the program, as well as its budget and its composition. Much of that information is available on the CCSP website. (I'm having trouble capturing the details). The gist of it is that the group seems to be a convener and sponsor of a wide range of science and research all over; and it seems to have connections and oversight from (and therefore, at least in theory, to facilitate open communication between) with a number of organizations.

The CCSP is policy-neutral: a tough place to be. Policymakers are risk-averse and yet they must act on a short timescale. They want certainty in their information, but the science isn't always able to deliver. He discusses the difficulty of things like the Kyoto protocol, and US's position to it. The US has entered into bilateral climate agreements with at least 14 partner countries; more cooperative international efforts are in the works.

At the national level, the US has committed to drop emissions by 18% by year 2012; additional alternative fuels and petroleum import reductions are also on the table. A suite of tools will be necessary to reduce climate change.

William has a tough job here: he's brought a speech and is reading it briskly, right after lunch. His coverage, like is organization is broad: he's telling us about US efforts, commitments, and achievements in an international scope, a national scope, and then highlights of state and local work (e.g. the efforts passed by California, and by groups of mayors).

Through with his prepared speech, he concludes with some personal observations: notably, communication is the most essential of the many complex things (science, economics, policy, and communication) that go into effective action on climate change.

Policymaking is a negotiation between different parties. It's a lot harder when the parties who come to the table to negotiate don't have access to the same information. Communication and access to data is key.

Climate change has become the top environmental issue, now and in the foreseeable future. But environmental issues are still low in the minds of many individuals.

Politicians and bureaucrats are both risk-averse -- we need to shift the frame of reference for discussing environmental issues, like Muskie did, from "air pollution" to "public health".

Q: Rita Heimes: when you are allocating resources, how do you weigh proposals that include technical gadgetry or other components -- tell us how grants are awarded.
A: Technology is really important in what we look at, as is how the data will be used, and what we can do or what the potential impact of that information would be.

Q: How do we reframe the environmental debate around climate change? With "air pollution" vs. "public health" there was a selfish motivation for people to act -- if I don't do something, I or my children will get sick. With climate change, the impacts are less well known and less immediate.
A: Humans are selfish, although I'd never say that out loud as a public official. :) That's going to be one of our hardest problems -- telling that story in a compelling way, and motivating people to bring personal responsibility into their decisions.

Q: Is there a difference between how social scientists present and impact policy and hard scientists present information and how it impacts policymakers? Since fish can't talk, sometimes I think policymakers listen to biologists and take their conclusions about impacts of change on fish at face value. But social scientists are talking about economic impacts on people, and people can testify for themselves, are the conclusions of social scientists somehow discounted? Is there a way we (social scientists) can change our approach so we gain more traction with you insiders?
A: I agree that the socioeconomic factors of fisheries management haven't been given the prominence that the physical science factors have, although I'm not really able to pinpoint why. I'm not sure that's the same thing happening in climate science. Four or five years ago the conversation was dominated by meteorologists. But now, mitigation and adaptation are being discussed and are acknowledged as essential -- that's where the global community is making the linkages between human systems and hard science outcomes.