The course of U.S. responses to global change: Can't we do better?

Abstract

There have been enough words written about global environmental change but they have not brought clarity to our public discourse. In fact, what was once a calm rivulet of slow-moving, somewhat cloistered study has become a turbid torrent, a frothing flood of claims and counterclaims, aired in the press and the halls of Congress, on which researchers tide as uptight as they are able, buffeted by waves and vortices and apprehensive that they may capsize at any moment. In what follows I'll examine how this dramatic transition has occurred and identify actions needed to make the ride downstream smoother and safer for the nation and the world generally. Upstream, in the smaller, calmer flow of 30 years ago, a notably clear and prescient study carried out by the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), and stimulated especially by Roger Revelle, summarized what was then known about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, identified possible effects on global climate, and anticipated the development of numerical models capable of predicting climate change. 1 In that same year of 1965 the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) was created, signalling recognition of the increased importance of broad environmental objectives as part of the federal agenda. This action was especially notable because it was carried out by federal administrators (Robert M. White and J. Herbert Hollomon) without Congressional prodding or recommendation by an external committee or commission. These events mark a time when governmental institutions were able to respond nimbly and promptly to new scientific insights and to emerging interests in environmental changes of global scale. Downstream, as flow of the river grew, turbulence increased. The Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act and the National Sea Grant Act were passed in 1966, and the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources (Stratton Commission) was appointed in 1967. These were responses to the interests of the marine resources community and of influential members of Congress in building a stronger federal capability for development of marine resources (oil, gas, minerals, energy, fish). In 1970 ESSA evolved into the new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), signalling an abrupt turn away from broad environmental science objectives toward resource development. True, creation of NOAA didn't result in much difference in what the components of the new agency actually did; in fact, that has been a continuing complaint of the marine resource community. But creation of NOAA and a heavy