Posts Tagged ‘Science’

Europeans had high hopes for the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15). “This could be the best, last chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming”, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark declared.

And whilst many have blamed the summit’s failure on China and the US, including German Socialist MEP Jo Leinen (head of the European Parliament’s delegation) – ‘China and the US have the main responsibility for the weak outcome of the Copenhagen conference’ – Europe should not believe itself faultless.

COP15 began on 7 December 2009 and was extended to 20 December. The summit, held in Copenhagen, Denmark, involved participants from 192 countries including the US, China, India, Japan and the UK, along with the European Union’s delegation.

The conference followed the most recent assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which claims that the earth’s average temperature has risen by 0.74 degrees in the period from 1906 to 2005 and predicts that the average temperature will continue to rise.

The report goes on to state that the extent and duration of this rise, and the severity of its consequences, depend on how quickly and effectively emissions of greenhouse gases can be restricted and, over time, reduced.

However, the UN failed to reach a unanimous deal obliging countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, confessed the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ was “not the big breakthrough some had hoped for”.

It has been reported that the Accord, proposed by the US, was signed by only 28 nations including China, India, Brazil, South Africa and the UK. It casually states, “[we] shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius…enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change”.

So why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a legally binding agreement?

COP15 saw European representatives push hard for an unprecedented agreement. But disconnected liberal Europeans overlooked the importance of widespread public support.

A recent ICM survey asked if UK voters backed the conclusion of the IPCC that humans are largely responsible for modern day rises in temperatures. Only 52 per cent of voters agreed. Yet EU ideologues continue to ignore similar data and press on regardless.

For decades the EU has failed to recognise the need for public backing, lacking engagement with its citizens. As long as this is the case, Europe’s hands will remain tied at the negotiating table.

Europe, in the same vein, also underestimated the influence of the American public on its President. Obama is, just as any other American President has been, constrained by popular opinion and, by extension, the US Congress. European representatives fatally miscalculated the impact of this pressure.

Furthermore Europe failed to appreciate the extent to which China is unlike itself. Europe, controlled by those whose collective interest is driven more by liberal moral values than authoritarian concerns, should have realised that China would refuse efforts to scrutinise emissions independently.

But not enough was offered to China to secure a deal. Only through hard campaigning will EU leaders gain enough momentum to present an attractive enough offer to a more sceptical China (and US). If European advocates desire serious change by November 2010 in Mexico, they must persuade non-believers to become believers. The EU must realise that it requires the support of its people.

And they should win this through the use of scientists and scientific terminology to enhance the credibility of their argument. The British ‘Daddy-why’s-the-world-ending?’ advert, for example, only serves to scare the public and fails to provide us with any real research or statistics. Current efforts are simply not effective enough.

Moreover, at a time when trust in politicians is particularly low – a 2009 survey by Ipsos MORI found only 13% of people trust politicians to tell the truth – it is even more important that the message comes directly from the scientific community.

Particularly in the US, climate change as a cause is still mired through association with hippies and the extreme left. In order to make progress, the issue must be brought into the centre, and it must be done so with open and honest debate.

Only with robust support will Europe and the US ever be able to offer a deal palatable to China.

Allow Imperial’s newest DJs to introduce themselves. Colin the astronomer and Seth the science philosopher have set up a radio show dedicated to the fun aspects of science or, as Colin describes it, to “tickle London’s scientific underbelly.”

 Capital Science is a radio show with a difference. Projecting live from IC Radio Studio on Tuesday afternoons, Colin and Seth offer light-hearted chat about science news and events. Last week’s show covered “improvements to GPS, throwing darts at the moon, and some very dodgy acronyms,” plus the most exciting upcoming London events, cherry-picked by Seth.

Every week the duo also big-up an unsung hero of science whose name, coincidentally, is also fabulous; the inventor of the submarine for instance, Cornelius Drebbel, who Seth reckons “sounds like a teacher at Hogwarts!”

The show isn’t just for scientists. Rather than being dense and complicated, the guys insist that their show is “not about understanding science,” and that they themselves “don’t understand a lot of the biology stuff.” It is easy listening, and enjoyable science, “the kind of thing you can listen to whilst you’re doing something else.”

If all that wasn’t enough, Colin and Seth will be handing out “gratuitous officerships” on their Facebook group to enthusiastic fans. You can tune in to the cheeky chaps at www.icradio.com live on Tuesdays at 1pm, and past shows will also be available online.
So, do the Capital Scientists have any messages for the students of London? “Tell your friends!”