Researchers applaud “grassroots” climate change study
White House tries to bury the National Assessment, but experts say that the project was successful and innovative.
Begun in 1998 and completed in 2001, the U.S. National Assessment is the only study to broadly examine how global warming might affect communities in the U.S. Because of the subject matter, however, the assessment has been mired in political controversy since its release, and officials in the Bush Administration have sought to remove any reference to the report from publications coming out of their Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). However, in a paper posted to ES&T’s Research ASAP website (es050865i), researchers report that the National Assessment successfully involved a wide group of people in a “grassroots” effort to teach U.S. citizens about global warming.
“It was a real innovation,” says the study’s lead author Granger Morgan, professor and head of the department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. “It would be a shame if there is nothing learned so that we can’t do it better the next time,” he says.
Morgan calls the assessment—a congressionally mandated effort to examine the impacts of climate change—a successful first effort. He adds that if the U.S. government eventually works on another broad report, the effort would benefit from better budgeting to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources to various groups. The study also found that participants in future assessments should be better trained and that federal agencies should actively support future assessments.
The National Assessment involved 9 different government agencies and 20 regional workshops attended by a broad array of academics, policy experts, and even laypersons who provided expertise on local issues. Farmers, for instance, detailed how increased rainfall or extended drought might change agricultural practices. A team of researchers then summarized all these findings into an overview document and several specialized reports.
To analyze the effort’s success, Morgan’s group sent surveys to people who were on the National Assessment mailing list. “It’s not a statistical survey,” Morgan says. “It was just a way to seek comment from people.” Morgan and colleagues then prepared a handful of papers and held a workshop in early 2004 in Washington, D.C. Morgan says that close to 100 people attended the meeting, including Jim Mahoney, director of theCCSP.
Although Mahoney did not actively participate, Morgan says that his presence can be interpreted as a sign of support. “There has been a great deal of politically inspired criticism of the National Assessment,” says Morgan, “and the fact that Jim Mahoney came and took it seriously was a very constructive move on his part.”
Is it all just politics?
As reported by ES&T in June, the White House prohibits mention of the National Assessment in any publications issued by the CCSP. According to Rick Piltz, a government employee who previously worked in the program, the White House fears the National Assessment because it does not delve into complicated science. Instead the National Assessment clearly explains how global warming will affect average citizens.
Former director of the climate program, Mike MacCracken, agrees that the current administration has scrubbed out references to the National Assessment and has halted outreach “where there was to be a siginifanct communications campaign to help people in the US understand the situation they are facing.” MacCracken adds that despite these efforts to suppress the National Assessment, it has nonetheless spurred efforts that have blossomed under other programs and efforts by non-profits.
He adds that the work also helped Native Americans understand the implications of climate change. “Now climate change is a huge issue for Native Americans,” he wrote in an email.
William Clark, a professor of science and public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, notes that suppressing the National Assessment is obviously a political ploy, but he adds that all assessments are political in nature.
“It’s furnishing knowledge in a public-policy context,” he says. “So if it’s any good, it’s a power play, and the scientific community has a real problem with that.” Clark says that although scientists usually avoid political controversy, politics is inescapable in situations where the science is actually important to society. “You only get apolitical if you’re doing something on a topic that nobody cares about,” he adds.
Clark says that the real question to ask is not whether the National Assessment is political but whether it is politically fair, technically credible, and relevant to policy. “I was reasonably impressed with the outcome,” he says.
Mahoney has told ES&T that federal researchers are restricted from referring to the National Assessment, but academics and members of nongovernmental organizations actively consult it, Morgan says.
