Skip to main content

Draft Climate Change Plan Lacks Focus, Requires Revisions

The president's draft plan for climate change research overlooks past scientific work, says Dean William Schlesinger.

 

The president's draft plan for climate change research is a disappointment for an administration that proclaimed a new emphasis on global change research right after declining to sign the Kyoto Treaty, says Duke University's William H. Schlesinger .

Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, is a member of the 17-member National Academies' committee that reviewed the draft plan. The committee's report was issued in a public briefing this morning (Feb. 26, 2003).

"By overlooking a great deal of past scientific work, the plan does not focus on the most important new science that needs to be done to understand how ecosystems will respond to climate change," said Schlesinger, who is James B. Duke Professor of Biogeochemistry.

"A number of critical, large-scale and long-term experiments would help refine ecosystem response to climate change. The plan's recommendations for ecosystems are among its weakest elements, and maintaining the flow of goods and services from ecosystems to the American public will be an essential goal if we are to respond appropriately to climate change," Schlesinger said.

The federal government formed the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) a year ago to facilitate climate-change research across 13 federal agencies. CCSP released its draft strategic plan for public comment in November and also held a workshop in Washington where hundreds of climate scientists and other stakeholders commented on the plan. CCSP asked the National Academies National Research Council to review the draft plan as well.

"In contrast, the president's plan did a good job in its recommendations for further studies of the global carbon cycle. Much of that section was derived from a previous report by the U.S. Department of Energy on priorities for carbon cycle research -- the effort of a large number of scientists. However, I was surprised that there was no emphasis on interactions among the global cycles. It will be hard to predict what carbon will do in forests and in the sea if we do not understand simultaneous changes in the availability of nitrogen," Schlesinger said.