Last Updated:
February 28, 2007

GCRIO Program Overview

Library 
Our extensive collection of documents.

Privacy Policy

Archives of the
Global Climate Change Digest
A Guide to Information on Greenhouse Gases and Ozone Depletion
Published July 1988 through June 1999

FROM VOLUME 8, NUMBER 10, OCTOBER 1995

PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS...
OF GENERAL INTEREST: CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY

Item #d95oct1

"Climate Change and Carbon Dioxide Forever," P.P. Tans (CMDL, NOAA, 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80303), P.S. Bakwin, Ambio, 24(6), 376-378, Sep. 1995.

Reviews the current understanding of the long-term increase of CO₂ in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, as a basis for policy recommendations. Because of the extremely long-term nature of the CO₂ problem, enough is known already for society to start taking steps toward decreasing CO₂ emissions. Outlines a research agenda for the carbon cycle. The importance to society of any serious attempt to curb CO₂ emissions makes it imperative that our knowledge of the carbon cycle is very firm; it should be based on several truly independent lines of evidence.

Item #d95oct2

Global Environ. Change, 5(3), June 1995 contains two comments on a previous two-part article by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen ("Global Climate Protection Policy: The Limits of Scientific Advice"):

"The IPCC: Policy Relevant (Not Driven) Scientific Assessment," R.H. Moss (IPCC Working Group II, c/o U.S. Global Change Res. Prog., 300 D St. SW, S. 840, Washington DC 20024), 171-174. Counters Boehmer-Christiansen's critical view that the conclusions of the IPCC (the scientific advisory panel for the climate convention) are determined by the desire for research funds rather than by scientific rationale, and that the panel is removed from the information needs of the policy community. Argues that the IPCC is an effective link between the policy and scientific communities, represents a broad spectrum of scientific views, and draws on a broad range of disciplines including socioeconomic impacts. However, Boehmer-Christiansen does raise valid concerns about manipulation of uncertainty in politics.

"IPCC Gazing and the Interpretative Social Sciences," S. Shackley (Ctr. for Study of Environ. Change, Lancaster Univ., Lancaster LA1 4YN, UK), T. Skodvin, 175-180. Presents some problems with Boehmer-Christiansen's arguments, stressing the role of negotiation within the IPCC. Also uses this case to discuss the role of the interpretive social sciences in global environmental change research.

Item #d95oct3

"Explaining National Climate Change Policies," I.H. Rowlands (London Sch. Econ., Houghton St., London WC2A 2AE, UK), ibid., 235-249.

First discusses generally the "interest-based explanation" for international environmental policy, which assumes that the world can be viewed as a collection of self-interested utility maximizers. This concept is then tested for climate change policy by evaluating the positions of 24 countries. The policy positions of 11 of these are consistent with the interest-based explanation. Comments on the limitations and potential of the concept.