Climate Change in the Northwest Atlantic

Welcome to the conference blog for Climate Change in the Northwest Atlantic, April 26-27, 2007. This blog will follow the forum over its two days of multidisciplinary discussion. Our blogger, Scheherazade Fowler, will deliver as much of the presentations, questions, and discussion as she can capture. Participants can add comments, questions, or additional notes during or after the conference.

This meeting is intended to connect people who research the science and economics of climate change, people who write about science, and people who create policies that govern how humans interact with the ocean. Our goals are to explore how humans can adapt to changes in the ocean. Because our group is professionally diverse and this conversation is a new one, we hope to uncover provocative questions and thereby improve our own research and outreach efforts. This meeting is also the first collaborative project between the University of Maine School of Law, the Aquatic Systems group at the University of Southern Maine, and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute. We hope this meeting sparks future collaborative research and public education projects.

The meeting is divided into four substantive discussions: Science, Economics, Policy, and Journalism. A wrap-up will conclude the meeting and help us decide what this group should do next. We invite you to participate by following this blog, organized by discussion theme, and by adding your thoughts and comments along the way. Welcome!

Meinhard Doelle: Law & Policy in the Face of Uncertainty

Meinhard Doelle starts off by telling us he has more questions than answers. He continues his disclaimer by confessing that his own perspective is the mitigation perspective. One of the biggest uncertainties we have is what we will or can do in terms of mitigation. If we are going to adapt, we need to understand or answer that question.

The German strategy of adapting to climate change by guard rails has some embedded assumptions -- that climate change will be within two degrees, and within one meter of current sea level. Is this the right set of assumptions? He's not sure it is -- it is perhaps too conservative. (Correct me if I got this wrong).

When do we start to mitigate and allocate resources toward mitigation and adaptation? Do we wait for that scientific 95% certainty threshold?

He's still disclaiming. He's Canadian -- so he can snipe at "government" and we aren't to take offense or assume he's talking about the US government. And his final disclaimer -- he's crossing disciplines here and, although many lawyers cross disciplines, we're not necessarily any good at it. So keep me honest.

And now he's off, asking his questions. Is there such a thing as objective science, apart from politics and values? A familiar question: how do we make marine policy decisions in the face of major uncertainty?

Meinhard wants us to think about how values impact science: in the identification of research needs, in funding decisions, in the proposals and implementation, in the findings and the peer review, and in the way science is incorporated into policy. He also asks us who should get to play a role in the development of science -- scientists, government officials, resource users, community groups, NGOs, and others (future generations?)?

But his main question is this: how should we deal with uncertainty? Science hates uncertainty and wants a 95% confidence threshold before it will conclude something. Science is predominantly concerned with preventing false positives. It is less concerned about false negatives (e.g. a failure to draw a conclusion). Science can wait for certainty.

Does that approach to uncertainty work for policymaking? A false positive would mean: an impact has been predicted and acted upon, and it doesn't in fact materialize. A false negative would mean a possible impact is not identified and acted upon, and it DOES materialize.

From a policy point of view, we are concerned about these "false negatives". And science isn't helping us manage those sides of marine ecosystem results. Which is worse? What are the implications of being wrong? What have we done elsewhere?

An analogy is criminal law, with an embedded value: it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than to falsely convict one innocent person. That has made for a legal system with a great number of protections ("technicalities") to prevent the conviction of innocent persons. Can we apply that here?

What is the more harmful mistake? To unnecessarily interrupt business as usual to require a change in anticipation of a possible future scenario that doesn't materialize? Or to carry on without taking action and have the harmful scenario occur? This is a philosophical decision, not a science or economic decision. But of course it depends on the underlying probabilities and economic ("market" and "non-market") values.

Like economics, law brings a language to conversations about science and policy decisions. Meinhard identifies four approaches:

• "Sound science" and its threshold of confidence (the requirement that peer review and 95% certainty in conclusions before a hypothesis is accepted as the basis for action)
• the risk assessment approach. We can deal with "risk" but have a hard time dealing with uncertainty. This approach has a hard time dealing with the continuum between false negatives and false positives. There are some inherent limitations in this approach, but there are values embedded and hidden in risk assessment models: sometimes these values are not disclosed or made explicit.
  
• how do you deal with intergenerational issues and the distribution of risk?
  
• how do you deal with uncertainty?
• how do we quantify risk?
  
• Cost-benefit analysis:
• crucial value choice about what to include (
• bringing in full cost (e.g. "non-market" values and costs) is critical
• intergenerational distribution of costs and benefits is important.
  
• doesn't deal well with uncertainty.
  
• Precautionary approach:
• this tool tries to deal with uncertainty
• embedded assumption is that we should plan for risky situations and avoid them if we can.
  
• the value doesn't discount future generations

Meinhard believes that need to engage science and turn it into policy before we get to that 95% certainty. We need to engage society in the value choices we make about the PROCESS by which we make decisions, not only the decisions themselves. Without a process, we won't have principled decisions: they'll be made more in response to particular situations.

Q: Fisheries management seems to take the precautionary approach. "Use the best science available" is the standard -- it needn't all be peer reviewed. Preserving the resource is the highest value and the standard by which decisions are made.
A: a 10% chance of something catastrophic happening is enough to engage it in serious conversation about adaptation and mitigation. To what extent do we want nature as altered by climate change to manage our resources, and to what extent do we want to try to take control of this?
A: Dan Holland: I may be muddying this in my mind, but I think when you talk about the "sound science" approach, you're not making a clear distinction. A 95% confidence rate in scientific conclusions about the mechanics of something or even the interpretation of data trends is not equivalent to a 95% probability that an outcome will come about -- it's really important not to conflate these two concepts. Assigning probabilities to outcomes is a different process than drawing conclusions about data at the scientific threshold

Q: check out policyscience.org. This is a set of tools that help policymakers arrive at conclusions for the public interest. And what would you say if you had the ear of a Washington policymaker?

A: we need to have an international consensus on what would be an acceptable result. The consensus seems to be that climate increase should be limited to two degrees. Then we need to agree on the principles that will govern how we allocate resources, then we need to determine the actions we need to take and assign those actions across nations. We need to have discussions as communities that make decisions, and those communities have values that should be embedded in the actions we take and the framework by which we make decisions.

Q: but aren't those values already embedded in the statutes we've enacted, via our democratically elected representatives?

A: If the public doesn't know and debate those embedded values, I don't think we can conclude that. If you want to develop good policy based on science, you have to bring everyone along to participate in that discussion.

Q: Robert Johnston: this conversation mirrors the conversation of economists when talking about non-market values. Do you want the values to be driven by the non-informed public, or do you want to inform them? And if so, what's the line between informing the public and giving them a spin job?

A: Meinhard: Great question. I lean toward an informed public making the decision. But who is going to stand in for unborn generations?
A: William Brennan: the question of how you inform the public is critical. My son came back from seeing "The Day After Tomorrow" really dejected -- that movie turned climate change into a cartoon. Did it set back the cause and the public debate about climate change? That can have the opposite effect.

Q: Andy Pershing -- is there a positive role for the legal profession in pushing for large scale structural changes? Our system is so constrained -- how do you break out of those constraints?
A: William Brennan: don't forget that within public policy, environmental issues in a representative democracy rank lower than other issues. So we also have to raise the priority of environmental issues in the public eye.

Linda Mercer: Local Fisheries Management

Linda is the director of the research and monitoring programs at the department of marine resources fisheries management for the state of Maine. She views climate change as adding a layer of uncertainty to what she does. We're just starting to discuss climate change in our policymaking and our science programs, but that has not been our practice and we don't have a firm foundation that is guiding our work.

Fisheries are fully exploited or overexploited right now. The strain on populations will be exacerbated by climate change. Various user groups (e.g. recreational vs. commercial fishermen, or different fishery users) have conflicting incentives.

Linda's work happens at different levels: municipal level for softshell clam management, state level (e.g. quahogs), interstate and international level for migratory fish species. And there are interjurisdiction levels, where Linda's department is not the only one making or enforcing regulations that impact a fishery. Some species are regulated internally, while others (like sea urchins) are regulated by the legislature -- a substantially less flexible and responsive regulatory process. The layered nature of the work makes it complex. We don't have a social scientist in the department or an economist -- that's an area unfortunately that we give short shrift to.

Some questions Linda is thinking about now: Boreal Shrimp -- what will happen to the shrimp fishery? What will be the impact of climate change on migratory species like Atlantic Salmon -- we're dumping a lot of money into restoring habitat from the salmon -- will those efforts pay if climate change hurts the salmon population? Will climate change make lobsters more susceptible to disease? The lobster population in Long Island Sound was recently decimated by disease: if the Gulf of Maine warms substantially will our most What about summer flounder -- we don't have a share of the fishery quota, but if the species migrates north, should we have more of the quota? What species can act as indicators -- the proverbial canary in the coal mine for the Gulf of Maine? What will happen with algal blooms and red tide as precipitation patterns change? How do we make decisions in a regulatory structure that is not very flexible?

We're locked into regulatory regimes that do not adapt. How can we unhook from these so we can respond more quickly and flexibly to change that is coming? We rely on single-species models to make decisions; how can we change our models to make them multi-species and robust, ecosystem based approaches, so we can manage better? We need to identify key vulnerabilities (e.g. if sea level rises, what happens to our eelgrass habitats and our shellfish flats)? How can we deal with these things proactively?

I think we can do some scenario planning. We can do better synthesizing data from multiple sources. There is a lot of data; pulling it all together is a huge task. Maintaining GoMOOS and other long term monitoring systems is critical. Convening interdisciplinary work groups more will help. We need to move closer to ecosystem level management -- not just at a single-species level, and not just within particular political boundaries.

Q: is there a systematic approach within your department to move toward ecosystem management?
A: at the state level, no. We haven't jumped into that arena yet. The feds have, a little bit. The Canadians have, a bit. The state planning office has looked a little at small bay-scale ecosystem management level. This is an arena for more research and grant work.

Q: You brought up species migration and the possible scenario of a northern state benefiting from a species migrating north. In such a case, there's not an equal exchange of benefits (the northern state gains but the southern state that loses the resource does not!). Will there be resistance to regulation or shifting fisheries rights like that?
A: It'll be a difficult discussion. Boats migrate north and follow the species, but of course some states won't want to give up to other states. I can't think of an example where one state agreed to willingly give up its rights to a resource. But if the resource swims away, they might not have a choice....

Q: to both Linda Mercer and William Brennan: What's it like to sit in the position as stewards of a resource and the gatekeeper of conservation of that resource? How do you balance the human impacts of conserving a resource when it conflicts with economically using or exploiting that resource -- when some human beings will be seriously impacted by your decisions.
A: It's really hard to do. Our offices have an "economic development" mandate as well as a wildlife conservation mandate. It's no different than any other public policy endeavor where you have competing public policy interests. Different stakeholders with conflicting interests have a seat at the table with us. That doesn't make it easy.

Q: by Sean Mahoney of the Conservation Law Foundation: How do "market" and "non-market value" factor into your balancing act when weighing your decision about the use or conservation of a resource.
A: Most of the time we don't have good economic information when we have to make a decision. We base things on biological science data that we have, tempered by social policy that we have -- do 5 people or 500 people come to the public hearing we have on a topic. And what do they have to say? That's our social impact data. Without economic data, we mostly get biased opinions (and short-term perspectives) from locally impacted people.
A: William Brennan -- the short term perspective is pervasive, even covering the statutes that protect our resources.

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.