Whether better “data” can ensure, or even contribute much to, good decision-making is itself an open question. Before we can even think about the decisions themselves, we need to deal with the expectations surrounding the data. [more]
The world might be better off if the Canadian government did not send any representatives to Doha. [more]
A new paper by Wilmers et al. in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, which features a neat analysis of how carbon uptake in kelp forests is affected by the sea otter population, illustrates the likely folly of creating a carbon credit business through fertilizing the ocean with iron, the science and environment scandal of the month. [more]
The organizers of this stunt off Haida Gwaii should perhaps be culpable for the marine pollution, like an oil spill, rather than the attempt at geoengineering. [more]
To really understand how much Canada – and the world – has changed, its worth comparing the Canadian government summary of the original 1992 Earth Summit to its submission to the 20th anniversary summit held in Rio last week. The broad history is well known. In 1992, Canada was seen as a leader, arguably the leader, on environmental issues at the international level. We have since turned inward. At Rio+20, Canada focused entirely on Canada’s own good. Hence the lack of progress on climate policy. Our current government has determined that resource exploitation is more important – for Canada – than addressing climate change. [more]
Andrew Revkin argues that the scientists’ response to the terrible Wall Street Journal op-ed exceeded their expertise. But did it really? [more]
Skepticism about anthropogenic climate change may be reasonable when viewed through the lens of religion or the lens of history. In order to create a lasting public understanding of anthropogenic climate change, scientists and educators need to appreciate that the very notion that humans can directly change the climate may conflict with beliefs that underpin the culture of the audience. [more]
