Welcome to COP27: Another year, another COP

Since 2009, Moravian University has sent a delegation of observers to the COPs (Conference of the Parties) – the annual meetings of the signatories (“Parties”) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC. In a welcome message to COP27 attendees, Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt said: 

COP27 in the green city of Sharm El-Sheikh this year marks the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In the thirty years since, the world has come a long way in the fight against climate change and its negative impacts on our planet; we are now able to better understand the science behind climate change, better assess its impacts, and better develop tools to address its causes and consequences. 

I couldn’t help but be reminded of a T-shirt that youth delegates were wearing at COP15 in Copenhagen – our first COP: 

And here we are, 13 years later, still negotiating. Those teenagers are now likely in their early 30’s debating if they should have families, how to work and live in a sustainable manner, and worried about not only their future and well-being (climate grief is high), but also the fate of future generations. 

President El-Sisi continued in his message:

Thirty years and twenty-six COPs later, we now have a much clearer understanding of the extent of the potential climate crisis and what needs to be done to address it effectively. The science is there and clearly shows the urgency with which we must act regarding rapidly reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, taking necessary steps to assist those in need of support to adapt to the negative impacts of climate change, and finding the appropriate formula that would ensure the availability of requisite means of implementation that are indispensable for developing countries in making their contributions to this global effort, especially in the midst of the successive international crises, including the ongoing food security crisis exacerbated by climate change, desertification and water scarcity, especially in Africa that suffers the most impacts. 

Indeed, there is clear science about what is changing and what the likely long-term impacts of climate change will be on human health, cities, infrastructure, biodiversity, and so on. The UNFCCC, one of three “conventions” or international agreements related to the environment that came out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, bound member states to act in the interests of human safety even in the face of scientific uncertainty. At that time, the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had been published in 1990 and there was still much to understand about the science of climate change. Nonetheless, 198 countries (Parties) – including the United States – ratified the UNFCCC which was then enacted in 1994. It had as its ultimate aim to prevent “dangerous” human interference with the climate system. Now, three decades later, the three working groups of the IPCC have published the sixth assessment report (AR6, 2021 – 2022), and there is significantly better scientific information and strong consensus about the anthropogenic causes of climate change. 

There appear to be four main goals of COP27 related to mitigation, adaptation, finance, and collaboration.

1. Mitigation: As always, mitigation is a key focus -- that is, the aim to limit global warming to below 2°C, relative to pre-industrial levels. Ideally, ambitious action by all countries in the world will keep the global temperature to no more than 1.5°C warmer. Throughout the airport and on the drive to the hotel, there were signs referring to ambition to action – an apparent rallying cry for COP27. The Mitigation Work Programme (paragraph 27 of decision 1/CMA.3 of the Paris Agreement) calls for an urgent scaling up for mitigation ambition and implementation. The aim is to have countries submit lower GHG emission development strategies than their original NDCs (nationally determined contributions) by COP27 – i.e., low-emission and long-term strategies. You can learn more about this through the third webinar in a series that was developed by the Research and Independent NGOs (RINGOs), Second Nature, and the University Climate Change Coalition (UC3) from October 24, 2022. 

It should be noted that a report published ahead of COP27 shows that while countries are “bending the curve of global greenhouse gas emissions downward,” efforts remain insufficient to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5°C by the end of the century. In other words, to avoid the worse impacts of climate change, more ambitious goals and action are needed. Interestingly, according to a report from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (IISD), 

COP 26 President Alok Sharma reflected on achievements made at, and since, COP 26, noting that over 90% of the global economy is now covered by net-zero targets. 

In contrast, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hoesung Lee, confirmed on November 6th that the world is not on track to meet the 1.5°C target. Alas, the political posturing and the science are at odds. Shocking.

2. Adaptation: The original framework recognized that climate change impacts will be inevitable and thus there was a need for adaptation as well as mitigation: 

We must plan for the adaptation of natural and human systems to the unavoidable impacts of a warming climate. 

In an IPPC event at COP27 entitled "Assessing adaptation needs: Findings from the IPCC Working Group II contribution to its Sixth Assessment Report," adaptation needs were defined as "circumstances requiring action to ensure safety of population and security of assets in response to climate impacts." This includes adapting to extreme weather events and enhancing resilience of communities, including those most vulnerable to the impacts. Ideally, there should be a focus on disaster and risk reduction. Assessing adaptation needs is best done at the local and regional levels; for instance, what is needed to adapt to areas prone to flooding is quite different from what regions dealing with extreme drought should be doing. Coastal areas and small islands have unique challenges due to sea level rise, salinization, and storm surge damage. The process should be participatory in nature – utilizing local expertise and indigenous knowledge. This is not the stuff of academic, peer-reviewed publications. The need for a greater focus on adaptation has become more evident the longer we delay ambitious mitigation measures. In the 6th assessment report of the IPCC, there is increased attention on maladaptation – unintended negative impacts from adaptive responses such as having plantation forests (versus native forests) that are monocultures, absorb less carbon, and diminish biodiversity. Currently, there is very little evidence of implementation of truly transformative adaptation measures to date and there has been little monitoring and evaluation for accountability and learning on what works and what does not. 

In just two days, I have heard quite a bit about putting "people at the center" of negotiations and actions and "climate-resilient development." At the IPCC event, it was noted that adaptation cannot be addressed in isolation from mitigation and sustainable development; or in the words of one of the IPCC WG II authors, Siri Eriksen: “We cannot adapt our way out of climate change.” Eriksen went on to discuss the need for an integrated process across society. 

3. Finance: Countries have yet to achieve the finance goals of the Paris Agreement (2015) of annual contributions of USD 100 billion. There are existing (and sometimes unmet) pledges dating back to Copenhagen (COP15, 2009) and Cancun (COP16, 2010). Such finance is critical to meet the clean development needs of Africa, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) – all being hit hard by climate change impacts despite having done little to contribute to historic greenhouse gas emissions. The often contentious debate over Loss and Damage (i.e., who pays for the consequences of climate change) also continues. Today, I bumped into a friend, Marlene Achoki, who I met at a Community Based Adaptation conference in Uganda many years ago. She is now a Party (official country negotiator). I asked her what her country's priorities are for COP27. The answer: finance and loss and damage.

As I write about this particular COP27 goal, I can’t help but think of the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk and how that $44 billion could have been put to such better uses. 

4. Collaboration: There are many forms of collaboration: private and public partnerships, community stakeholders working together, global collaborations, scientists and decision-makers, etc. In other words, we need "one international community working for the common good of our shared planet and humanity." From UNFCCC COP27 news:

The advancement of partnership and collaboration will help deliver our four goals and ensure the world is adopting more a resilient, and sustainable economic model where humans are at the center of climate talks. The UN negotiations are consensus-based, and reaching agreement will require inclusive and active participation from all stakeholders. Governments, the private sector and civil society need to work, in tandem, to transform the way in which we interact with our planet. We must introduce new solutions and innovations that help alleviate the adverse impacts of climate change. We also need to replicate and rapidly upscale all other climate-friendly solutions towards implementation in developing countries. 

The Egyptian COP27 Presidency has set out an ambitious vision for this COP that puts human needs at the heart of our global efforts to address climate change. The Presidency intends to focus the world’s attention on key elements that address some of the most fundamental needs of people everywhere, including water security, food security, health and energy security. Sameh Shoukry, Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs and COP27 President said: “We’re gathering this year at a time when global climate action is at a watershed moment. Multilateralism is being challenged by geopolitics, spiraling prices, and growing financial crises, while several countries battered by the pandemic have barely recovered, and severe and depleting climate change-induced disasters are becoming more frequent. 

With that reference to geopolitics, I was reminded of both Christian Parenti's book: Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the Geography of Violence and the ongoing, senseless Russia – Ukraine war. Besides the unfathomable toll on human lives, infrastructure, and the environment, there has been a global focus on disruption to fossil fuel exports from Russia, the destruction of energy grid in Ukraine and threats to nuclear power plants, and loss of food security with critical shipments of grain from Ukraine being used as a political bargaining chip. 

The first part of the high-level segment of COP 27 (and CMP 17 and CMA 4 -- lots of UNFCCC jargon) is happening during the Sharm El-Sheikh Climate Implementation Summit from Monday, 7 November to Tuesday, 8 November 2022. Delegates in that plenary room or watching virtually will hear statements from Heads of State and Government or sometimes a Vice President designee. The list of speakers includes the brand new prime minister of the UK Rishi Sunuk (interestingly, there were also sightings of Boris Johnson in the room) and there will even be a video message from Mr. Volodymyr Selenskyy, President of Ukraine. Noticeably absent from the list of speakers is the president (or VP) of the United States (perhaps due to campaigning for key elections). President Biden will, however, arrive later in the week. 

Today is election day back in the U.S. and it has been a contentious campaign season, even though it is for mid-term elections. This isn’t the first time we have been at a COP during election day (I voted by mail both times, for the record). The most notable was in 2016, the presidential election when we also were in northern Africa (Morocco that year) and we woke up to the news that Donald Trump had defeated Hilary Clinton. For several reasons, including ones related to climate change and global relations amidst a campaign season of xenophobic and deeply divisive comments, the mood was extremely dark. I was prompted to write three blog posts which spoke to the mood at the time:

• An Accidental Ambassador (also published for Huffington Post)
• Day 3 at COP22 Part II: Trying to make sense of it all
• Moral Courage

It remains to be seen what I will write in 2022 post-elections.  

Jeeps, Springsteen and Climate Change - Unity or Erasure?

Throughout the day, I have seen a number of high school friends and relatives post on social media about the Jeep/Springsteen commercial that aired during the Superbowl. There has been some interesting analysis about the effectiveness of the ad (or lack thereof) and some surprise that Bruce – in his old age – is selling out to commercialism [see for example, references 1, 2]. But the comments from many of my Facebook connections express frustration over the omission of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan from the map that was shown in the ad. 

This is not the first time that the UP has been left off maps. Or drawn as a part of Wisconsin. Or Canada. Of particular note, the ad was the product of a Michigan agency, from under the bridge of course, but still [3]. 

I get it. To have your home place omitted, casually erased, stings. (In my opinion, the UP is such a wonderful place that I am happy to have fewer people know of its existence!)

This most recent omission reminded me of a U.N. climate conference (COP) several years ago. There was a large globe hanging in the venue that could be used to show impacts of climate change and to let attendees know that we are all in this mess together. Unity, just like the Jeep commercial. 

The problem was that this globe did not include many key island nations, all of which had delegates at the COP. To make matters worse, these small island nations are among the most vulnerable places in the world due to sea level rise and the increasing power of cyclones. Their homeland is being erased – not only on that global depiction – but literally by rising waters and storm surge.

During this pandemic, I haven't been able to travel to the U.P., the place I still call home, even though I moved away a long time ago. I miss it. But I can’t imagine what it is like to be facing the physical loss of the place you call home, that you pledge your national allegiance to, where your ancestors are buried, that your livelihood depends on, where your culture and personal narrative are rooted. Someday, hopefully in the not too distant future, I will be able to travel again and visit home and friends and relatives. Climate refugees, however, will never be able to go back.

Climate change is one of the many topics that divides us in this nation. Despite reams of scientific evidence, this global problem has become hyper-politicized. Perhaps it might be useful for us all to take a map and cut out the place we call home, the landscape that matters most to us. And then remember, that this very erasure of place is actually happening to people who live on islands, on coastlines, in the Arctic, and in areas that have undergone severe desertification and can no longer support life.

 

1. Healey, Tim. Jeep's Super Bowl Ad Won't Unite Us (2/8/21)

 https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/02/opinion-jeeps-super-bowl-ad-wont-unite-us/

 

2. Richards, Chris. If Bruce Springsteen's Jeep commercial doesn't bum you out, congrats on the purchase of your new Jeep. (2/8/21) https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/springsteen-sells-out-jeep-ad-superbowl/2021/02/07/b9bd1fa0-6986-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html

 3. LaCombe, Andrew. Super Bowl commercial leaves Upper Peninsula off map. https://www.uppermichiganssource.com/2021/02/08/super-bowl-commercial-leaves-upper-peninsula-off-map/?

 

What Fires Should Educators Light?

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.

William Butler Yeats

Good educators really “get” the first half of this quote from Yeats.  Rote memorization of facts does little to inspire students.  We doubt that it does much for learning either, preferring to focus instead on developing critical thinking skills and tools for life-long independent learning.  But while few would question the value of a focus on critical thinking, we do debate our role as educators in lighting fires. 

Throughout my teaching career, I have been a proponent of providing opportunities for students to engage in undergraduate research – intense experiences in which students are co-creators of knowledge, rather than simply vessels to be filled with facts and ideas that others have already published.  It was the transformative opportunity of doing independent research that lit my own fire as a first-generation student, so much so that I went on to graduate school to pursue a research-focused career.

As both an undergraduate and graduate student in science, I was trained to believe that the process of doing science is an objective one.  But this never totally made sense to me.  Science performed in a vacuum does little other than to satisfy one’s curiosity about the world around us or about the secrets of life at the molecular level.  What makes science so exciting and so important is that it provides us with the ability to solve complex problems or to create technology which can be used to improve the quality of life.  However, as we learn those secrets of nature and transform them into tools to manipulate elements of our natural world, including humans, we are faced with tremendous ethical dilemmas and a realization that the information we learn can be exploited and used in ways never intended.  Knowledge comes with power, something that is rarely objective.

So as educators of science, do we stick to the facts and theories and “the” scientific method (as if it is a single linear process)?  Do we continue to perpetuate the myth that science is not subjective at times or could never be used for questionable purposes?  I think not.  It is important to teach about the social context of science and to critically evaluate the outcomes of scientific research.  Would this crush an aspiring young scientist?  I certainly hope not.

My personal career path in science and education has certainly not been a linear one.  I was fortunate to have one of those early research experiences – working on a project that had an environmental chemistry focus.  I had, after all, grown up during the first environmental movement of the 1970s and was clearly influenced by it and by the wilderness-like settings I lived in. I then went on to graduate school in plant at a time when genetic engineering of plants was a new field.  Because I understand the science behind the technology, and probably also because I know personally some of the individuals who created the first genetically modified plants, I tend to have more positive views about GMOs than many of my friends, despite my ongoing love for wild places. 

Graduate school was followed by a stint in cancer research when HIV/AIDs first emerged as a new disease within the gay community.  How can you stay objective when you attend a conference in San Francisco and walk to the venue through crowds of terrified men – many the same age that I was – facing an early death and begging you for information on what advances in science will help them?

To this day, I show my students the film “And the Band Played On” so that they might know the early and ugly history of this disease – the science, the cultural context, the politics, the religious fanaticism, and the fear.  This fear was not only experienced by those dying of HIV infection, but also by the public who was afraid they might catch this dreadful disease for which there is still no cure over three decades later.  I share my stories of those days in San Francisco – both the horrors I witnessed and the egos of scientists who cared more about their future fame than the lives of so many.  I find that I can’t simply stick to the facts about the biochemistry of this disease.

As fate would have it, I eventually returned to my environmental roots and now work in the areas of ecological restoration (which involves value judgments about what to “restore to”) and climate change.  Today, it is the scientists who are fearful – this time not about a disease, but about the fate of the planet.  They find themselves caught up in a bizarre social frenzy which is fraught with controversy, public distrust, media manipulation, and politics.  Top climate scientists are the ones facing the threats of death – simply because of their area of research.  There are many who aim to silence the voices of researchers like Michael Mann and James Hansen, attempts that go way beyond those who tried to silence and discredit Rachel Carson as a “hysterical female” who set aside her science and, in a “tragic turn” in career began to write fables that encouraged “some of the most destructive strains within environmentalism: alarmism, technophobia, failure to consider the costs and benefits of alternatives, and the discounting of human well-being around the world.”[1]

Science textbooks don’t tell stories about the character assassinations and death threats.  And nowhere in my science training was I told that these sorts of things might happen, perhaps because it didn’t happen in the past.  But today, be it climate change, evolution, nutrition, or genetic engineering, science has been flung into the throes of political battlegrounds.  Should I ignore this in my teaching?

At a time when society is faced with tremendous challenges of poverty and growing inequality, global environmental problems, food security, new and emerging diseases, scarcity of resources, and conflict, more than ever we need not only science and technology, but also innovative thinkers, advocates and activists.  We need educated people who aren’t content with simply finding a job, but are still idealistic enough to want to change the world for the better.  In other words, we need higher education to lead the charge in lighting fires, to be inspiring the next generation of problem solvers who will work at the front lines of these grand challenges of the 21^st century.

So is this happening?  Today, there is pervasive criticism of higher education on many fronts ranging from tax payers to the White House.  Administrators don’t want to rock the boat, or more precisely, are begging faculty not to rock the boat.  They implore us to be more balanced in what we teach or in who we invite as speakers to campus – so as not to offend or discourage potential donors or prospective students.  Public institutions fall into line of submission for fear of losing state and federal funding.  The modus operandi is to keep the faculty busy learning new technology which supposedly will enhance learning or filling out assessment reports to appease Washington, so they say.  But perhaps it is really just to keep faculty busy so that we don’t have time to incite a movement or write a provocative op-ed.  We wouldn’t want to tarnish the image of the institution. 

What happened to the times when college campuses were at the forefront of calling for social change – be it during the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, or calling for divestment during the times of apartheid?  I applaud the handful of students who are now calling for divestment of another sort – aimed at shifting investment funds from fossil fuel-related corporations and calling attention to global climate change.  And kudos to the almost 400 students who were arrested in Washington, D.C. this past weekend.  They, along with busloads of others were protesting the Keystone XL pipeline project. 

A few years ago, during the fall of the Occupy Movement, I participated in a march in Washington about the same pipeline project.  When I came back to campus and told students in my Introduction to Environmental Science course about the experience, it was obvious that they were a) shocked that I would do something like this (it isn’t what scientists do), and b) fearful that it was my expectation of them to do sometime similar (it wasn’t).  But, we talked about their obvious aversion to political activism.  Some noted that such activity would be a black mark on their record, thus hurting their chances for securing a job in the future.  Most didn’t have a clue as to what the Keystone Pipeline XL project was.  My bad.  I hadn’t yet gotten to the chapters on energy or climate change.  But surely they must have seen something via social media from 350.org or other organizations?  Nope, they had no idea who Bill McKibben is.  I witnessed, with some sadness, the same reaction and lack of awareness of current events from students in my first year seminar which had the title of The Future of Nature and Humans: 21^st Century Environmentalism.  My fault I guess.  I hadn’t yet added those details into their pails. 

Since that incident, I have been thinking a lot about these messy issues.  My work with the United Nations on climate change has taught me that while science might get countries to the negotiations table, policy and multilateral agreements will ultimately be battles about economics, cultural differences, national priorities, and politics.  Nothing about the process is objective or logical.  But the process is filled with passionate people who care about the future of the planet, or at least their countries, and about protecting their people and national interests.  In too many of my students, I see apathy, disconnect with current events, and a lack of awareness of historical context.

Over the past few years, we have brought some fascinating speakers to campus.  Some were involved in the civil rights movement (Jesse Jackson and John Lewis).  Winona LaDuke talked about environmental and cultural sustainability initiatives on reservations.  Students wanted to know how she dealt with the label of “activist’.  Her response:  “I don’t consider myself an activist, just a responsible citizen.”  Perfect.  Ph.D. biologist and author Sandra Steingraber spoke of the need for a liberal arts education to understand issues like natural gas extraction (fracking), to be able to formulate educated positions about whether it is a good idea or not.  Yes, she is an activist, but that wasn’t her message on our campus.  Each of these speakers illustrated to students what it means to be engaged in a cause, to care about something. 

What has been the response?  Students texted during the talks, and administrators ask us to be more balanced in our choice of speakers (reportedly because some donors and board members were upset).  Aren’t issues like inequality, the impact of the forces of capitalism, the consequences of past and present exploitations, social and environmental justice, clean energy (or energy independence), and climate change the very ones that we should be lighting fires over?  If not us in higher education, then who?  Many colleges and universities have somewhere in their mission statement a line about preparing students for “service for the common good.”  If we aren’t tackling the big questions of our time, what “common good” are we working towards?  And who decides?  These aren’t questions that are objective, or ones that any science I know can answer.

Recently, I was reading a blog post that pointed out that more than twenty years ago the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 1990) concluded that scientific goals to solve society’s problems are fostered by a greater emphasis on liberal education.[2]  In other words, it is the liberal education of students that will help move science out of the laboratory and into practice for the common good.  To create those responsible citizens that Ms. LaDuke spoke of.  Along these lines, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) has a major initiative known as LEAP:

Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) is an initiative that champions the value of a liberal education—for individual students and for a nation dependent on economic creativity and democratic vitality.[3]

In making a “Civic Case” for a liberal education, AAC&U has a slide presentation on their LEAP website (see reference 3) that is really worth all of us on college campuses to peruse.  Two slides in particular that caught my attention contained excerpts on “Education and Citizenship” from Ben Barber in An Aristocracy of Everyone[4]:

 

The fundamental task of education in a democracy is the apprenticeship of liberty—learning to be free... The literacy required to live in civil society, the competence to participate in democratic communities, the ability to think critically and act deliberately in a pluralistic world, the empathy that permits us to hear and thus accommodate others, all involve skills that must be acquired..

“Democracy is not a natural form...; it is an extraordinary and rare contrivance of cultivated imagination... [E]ndow the uneducated with a right to make collective decisions and what results is not democracy but...the government of private prejudice and the tyranny of opinion...”

Reviews of this book indicate that Barber’s perspectives are controversial, critical of conservative views, and exciting.  Exactly the types of topics we should be debating on campuses over twenty years later.

In 2010, I wrote a chapter for a monograph published by the Council on Undergraduate Research entitled “The Role of Department Chairs in Promoting and Supporting Transformative Research.”[5]  In that chapter, I noted that

 

In defining liberal education, the AAC&U LEAP initiative speaks of preparing individuals to deal with complexity—to “develop a sense of social responsibility, as well as strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills such as communication, analytical and problem-solving skills, and a demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings.”

The goal of creating an academic environment that could lead to transformative research is certainly not contrary to the institutional goals of liberally educating students and preparing them for making a positive impact on society. Indeed, students who are being taught in an environment that promotes critical thinking, a sense of social responsibility, and the application of knowledge gained to solve real-world problems are precisely the type of students who will likely be the next generation of innovators.

In rereading this now, I realize that the experiences of my non-linear career path were starting to converge in those words.  My role as educator, was to not only teach students about science and to give them experiences in research, but also to inspire in them a desire to be socially responsible and use their knowledge and experience to solve some of the world’s most challenging problems.  A lofty ambition, perhaps, but in my mind, an essential one.

I take students to the United Nation climate change conferences so that they can see the many world views on this topic that differ from the official position of the U.S.  We grapple over environmental and social justice issues when we are in the field of the largest Superfund site east of the Mississippi River, trying to figure out how to revegetate a mountain.  We even read excerpts from those who started the environmental movement and maintain it today.  Some of those famous scientists, writers, and activists have radical views, but they have changed public policy in this country, and some have had global impacts.  Certainly not the stuff of objective science, the type that is safely done in laboratories, hidden amongst the beakers and solutions and equipment.  If my students and I simply stayed in the labs and focused only on reciting the facts, would we be working on problems that really matter?  And if so, we would be doing so without really understanding the social and political context of the problems or any solution that we might come up with. 

~~~

If you are still following this rambling, you may be wondering what prompted this diatribe.  Several times in the past few months, I have found myself at conferences where the question of whether scientists should be engaged in advocacy on issues such as climate change.  I have been approached by some who fear that my climate change work is too liberal.  And recently, our college president chose to publicly admonish a colleague who wrote a thought-provoking, well-written opinion piece that was published in a local paper.

 What is this left-leaning work of mine that has some concerned?  I lead a project that involves ecological monitoring of eastern Pennsylvania, to see if there are signs of the impacts of a changing climate and whether we can predict vulnerability of species and habitats.  I serve on both state and international committees trying to advocate for science to be used in developing policy related to climate change.  My students, colleagues, and I blog from the U.N. meetings to report on what we are hearing and learning, since most of this is not covered by the U.S. media.  I even occasionally have an op-ed published, some of which are subjective, non-scientific pieces.[6]  Others are carefully crafted responses (retorts) to some really uneducated letters-to-the-editor that are filled with all sorts of factual errors, especially ones on the topic of climate change.  All radical stuff, I suppose, at least for a scientist and an educator.

I have a number of colleagues from other institutions who believe that it is an ethical obligation of higher education to deal with climate change – through curriculum, research, modeling best practices of sustainable practices, and public outreach.  I was recently reading a blog post on this topic and realized that Dr. John Lemons from the School of Law at Widener University captured the very essence of what I have been thinking in a much more articulate way that I could have written.  So to conclude, I share four excerpts from Dr. Lemons’ essay with emphasis added.[7] 

Why should universities deal with global climate change in a more wide-spread and comprehensive manner? The reason lies within university responsibilities to educate about important societal issues across all disciplines, including the benefits of liberal education for all students. Recent quantifiable scientific evidence concludes that mitigation of serious and irreversible consequences of global climate change are plausible but only if urgent action is taken within about a decade or so. Drawing on assessments about the efficacy of environmental and sustainability programs, it seems clear that “piecemeal” approaches to addressing the complicated root causes and possible solutions to global climate change will not work. Because of the pervasive influences that have caused global climate change, its solution needs to include all disciplines and programs.

In order to foster comprehensive education about global climate change, it will be necessary for educators and environmental scientists and managers, and high-level university administrators to advocate for university reform. One might not relish being involved in advocacy, but the stark choice is this: Either engage in advocacy or not. But if not, understand that this is a decision, intentional or unwitting, to support the status quo that is responsible for global climate change. Scientists or other educators who might be reticent to engage in advocacy because of fear that it might compromise real or perceived objectivity would be well advised to read Lemons (1987), Nelson and Vucetich (2009), and Moore and Nelson (2010) which dispel myths about the legitimacy of such reticence.

 

Seth (2008) makes explicit the failure of higher education to address the strong ties between capitalism and ever-increasing consumerism which, of course, increases the problems of global climate change. Vucetich and Nelson (2010) demonstrate how the lack of inclusion of ethics into sustainability programs, and by extension those with a focus on global climate change, is stifling progress. Nussbaum (2010) also lends her voice to how universities have neglected liberal and civic education and by doing so contribute to the root causes of problems such as global climate change.  

The failure of universities to develop comprehensive global climate change programs might also stem from a lack of attention to responsibilities that come with the protection of academic freedom, which not only allows faculty to conduct their own teaching and research, but also entails the responsibility to enable all students through university-wide programs of study to acquire learning to make significant contributions to society (AACU 2006). Academic freedom therefore requires faculty to advocate for the inclusion of comprehensive global climate change programs. Surely, global climate is a huge societal problem. Further, if faculty members avoid taking action this implicitly or unwittingly represents a form of advocacy because it is tantamount to supporting continuation of the status quo that is responsible for global climate change.

 

These excerpts include citations that can be found at the link that I provide; I highly encourage you to read the entire piece by Dr. Lemons.  And thanks for reading mine.

---

[1] Roger Meiners and Andrew Morriss, Silent Spring at 50: Reflections on an Environmental Classic, PERC Policy Series #51, 2012, available at http://perc.org/articles/silent-spring-50.  Or, see Miller, H.I. and Conko, G. “Rachel Carson’s Deadly Fantasies”, an op-ed in Forbes (9/5/12) available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/05/rachel-carsons-deadly-fantasies/.

[2] AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990) The Liberal Arts of Science: Agenda for Action. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.

[3] See: https://www.aacu.org/leap/ 

[4] Benjamin R. Barber, An Aristocracy of Everyone: The Politics of Education and the Future of America, Oxford University Press, 1992.

[5] In Kerry K. Karukstis and Nancy Hensel, eds., Transformative Research at Predominately Undergraduate Institutions, CUR Publications, 2010, available at: http://www.cur.org/assets/1/7/TRFull.pdf 

[6] My most recent op-ed can be found at http://articles.mcall.com/2013-12-06/opinion/mc-nelson-mandela-tribute-husic-yv-1207-20131206_1_nelson-mandela-u-n-climate-conference-apartheid

[7] John Lemons, Universities And The Need To Address Global Climate Change Across Disciplines and Programs, See: http://blogs.law.widener.edu/climate/2011/03/26/universities_and_the_need_to_address_global_climate_change_across_disciplines_and_programs/#more-120

 

 

 

A Lament amongst Celebration

I am feeling a bit blue tonight, perhaps from the exhaustion of the end of the semester.  Maybe it is because some really superb students graduated today, and while they are all headed to really exciting next-steps in their careers, I will miss them a lot.  Or perhaps it is because of the recent horrific news stories ranking from the senseless deaths in Bangladesh to the bombings in the Boston region to the monster that held three girls – now women – for a decade and subjected them to unimaginable physical and mental abuse.

Besides these potential explanations, I have been pondering the significance of the planet hitting the 400 ppm atmospheric CO₂ mark this week.  When I was in graduate school, we used 340 ppm for setting instruments and calculations.  This summer, my research student Marla (who graduated today) used 400 ppm as "ambient conditions" to calibrate the equipment that she was using.  Perhaps it is these types of little things that make the issue so real for me. 

Another graduate from today, Caiti, has already taught the public about the impacts of climate change at Exit Glacier in the Kenai Peninsula.  After a lot of research and personal experience, she wrote an amazing paper this semester on climate change and coastal communities -- focusing on NJ, the islands off of Louisiana, and Alaskan communities - weaving common themes between these seemingly disparate regions of the country. 

I wonder what the CO₂ number will be when Marla and Caiti will be teaching students or National Park visitors in the future.

Today’s faculty speaker at graduation (Chris, from my department) spoke of the importance of education, of fighting against those who would try to keep us ignorant.  Malala Yousafzai comes to mind.  But Chris reminded us of the 25 year old U.S. diplomat Anne Smedinghoff, killed in April while delivering books to a school in Afghanistan.  This sad story gets buried under all the current media coverage and politics surrounding the attacks in Benghazi.  Was Anne’s death any less disturbing or important than that of Ambassador Christopher Stevens?

Chris spoke of the growing anti-intellectualism in this country.  This is something I worry about a lot, especially as it related to the public's fear-turned-distrust-turned hostile sentiments towards science.  We all know of climate deniers and those who say evolution just couldn’t be true.  (Because us scientist types like to make up elaborate hoaxes.)  But there are also plenty of other examples where ignorance, especially about science, rears its ugly head.  This piece is just one small example of what we are up against:

https://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/humans-are-animals-8-year-old-vs-misinformed-teacher/32709.  Thank goodness for children who try to educate the teachers and for those like Adam Frank who say it like it is:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/02/14/146857164/science-its-really-really-hard-and-thats-something-to-celebrate

But I digress from my ponderings on greenhouse gases and their impact on our world.  My honors student from last year (Anna, '11), examined long-term data sets, and documented the changing migration patterns of songbirds.  When she enters medical school, she is likely to hear about the health impacts of climate change.  Very likely she will be treating patients in the future for diseases once considered tropical, for heat stroke, or for pathogens we don’t even know about yet.   So many changes in the world around us; perhaps this is why I am sad.

A former student Sarabeth ('10) has gone to Peru and seen first-hand the impacts of climate change (water shortages) in rural communities - where many people don't know about climate change (as opposed to denying that it exists).  Paradoxically, next year, as she enters graduate school, she will work closely with a professor who studies the sociological impacts of flooding along the Mississippi River.  In a recent email, Sarabeth wrote

After coming home from Peace Corps, its became clear to me that community efforts at a local level are enough to get larger, regional forms of government to step-up and pay attention.  If they have a leader willing to put it all on the line...
 

You are so right Sarabeth.

I am beginning to sense that the current youth are igniting an activist movement that will once again – as has often happened in history – change the course of events for the better.  Recently, efforts at several colleges and universities aimed at getting campuses to divest in fossil fuel companies have caught the media’s attention:   

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/10/182599588/college-divestment-campaigns-creating-passionate-environmentalists

http://www.thenation.com/blog/173927/nyu-divest-meets-senior-administrators-calls-climate-justice)

I can't imagine that my institution will go this route any time soon, but as the NPR story notes, "So far only a few small colleges have opted to drop investments in fossil fuel companies."  Small schools like College of the Atlantic and Swarthmore are taking the lead.

There are things for which my institution has taken a leading role (thanks mostly to faculty and students).  One example is our accreditation status as U.N. civil society observers for the climate conferences (the “COP” meetings).  Like with divestment, only a few small colleges (5 to be exact) have this distinction.  Sadly, it is not recognized by everyone on campus as something to promote and support more fully.  There is a growing call by many others for higher education to step up and show leadership with respect to climate change; thus, we should be proud of our leadership role here.

Another example where the college shines is in the number of students who have done important research in the restoration work at the Palmerton Superfund Site or within local watersheds.  Restoration is becoming increasingly linked to sustainability and building resilience to climate change.

So while I am extremely proud of the students who have walked across the stage at recent Moravian commencements, I am also frightful of what the future will hold for them and for my own children.  Maybe that is why I am a bit sad tonight.  But when I reflect on what they have already accomplished, what they will be doing, and the deep passion they demonstrate to be change agents, my sadness is tempered with a sense of hope.