|
 Climate change skeptics often question the scientific evidence
that risks exist, the magnitude of any risks, and assert that
policy changes will be too costly, according to co-author
Richard Sparks, a retired professional scientist at the Illinois
Natural History Survey (INHS), Prairie Research Institute,
University of Illinois.
Skepticism has now shifted away from outright denial to what the
authors term “neoskepticism,” defined as agreement that climate
change exists, but opposition to mitigation actions.
“As evidence mounts, neoskeptics question the severity of the
problem and argue that as long as uncertainty exists, the
smartest and most financially shrewd move is to do little or
nothing,” Sparks said. “They do not examine the risks and costs
of inaction, and fail to consider that the risks of extreme and
damaging outcomes are continually increasing. Waiting for
harmful effects to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt before
taking action has increasing costs to the economy, ecosystem
integrity, political stability, and human lives.”
A medical analogy is more appropriate than the courtroom
analogy—putting the planet on a diet of reduced fossil fuels and
carbon dioxide based on the growing preponderance of evidence
compared to proving the harmful effects of climate change beyond
all reasonable doubt before any action is taken.
Sparks’ research at the INHS, which included long-term
monitoring of plants and animals, shows that climate change is
occurring. For example, blue catfish were once considered a
southern species in the U.S. and occurred only sporadically in
the St. Louis, MO area of the Mississippi River. Recent surveys
have shown an abundant, reproducing population in that area. In
another example, decades-old garden planting guides compared
with contemporary versions show that planting zones have moved
northward as the warming trend continues.
[to top of second column] |
Although the social and economic sciences can help with
decision-making, the authors do not presume that empirical
analysis of risks or better analogies will end the skepticism
surrounding climate change because skepticism is often motivated
by financial interests tied to the use of fossil fuels.
“From my perspective, animals and plants are responding to climate
change,” Sparks said. “Those who want to take action on climate
change are labeled alarmists, but animals and plants don’t have an
agenda. The consequences are so dire; we must take action.”
About the Prairie Research Institute: The Prairie Research
Institute (PRI) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
comprises the Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois State
Archaeological Survey, Illinois State Geological Survey, Illinois
State Water Survey, and Illinois Sustainable Technology Center. PRI
provides objective natural and cultural resource expertise, data,
research, service, and solutions for decision making, the
stewardship of Illinois’ resources, and the public good.
www.prairie.illinois.edu
[Lisa A. Sheppard]
 |
