Environmental security, climate change, and globalizing terrorism

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of

Facing Global Environmental Change

For many of the world’s poor people, adaptation to climate change is not a choice but a reality. Existing evidence suggests that the poor, particularly those in the developing world, are the most vulnerable to any changes in climate variability and change. Using research methods inspired by the tradition of participatory research, we explore and discuss community perceptions on climate change adaptation governance in South Africa. We examine the myriad ways in which climate change adaptation policies and strategies are developed, and we systematically discuss the factors which either facilitate or hamper the involvement of all stakeholders in the development of these intervention measures. Our findings indicate that women seem to be the group of people who are mostly unaware of community initiatives, policies, and strategies for the adaptation to climate change. Thus, it is argued that, although South Africa has developed good climate change initiatives, policies, and strategies, the implementation of these policies seems to present difficulties, as those for whom they have been developed do not seem to have any knowledge of their effectiveness in helping them build resilience against extreme weather events. This study recommends that, in order to achieve successful public participation in climate change adaptation policy development, there must be an all-inclusive system which incorporates all stakeholders, including vulnerable groups.

Research question/issueWe examine whether linking executive compensation to climate‐related performance is associated with better firm‐level climate change impact. We also explore the interaction of culture and climate‐linked incentive compensation with climate change impact.Research findings/insightsUsing firm‐level climate change strategy and carbon emissions to measure climate change impacts, we find that climate‐linked compensation is associated with improved climate change strategy. Climate‐related incentives for the CEO and other (operational) executives are found to be negatively associated with firm‐level carbon emissions, although the relationship is not as strong; however, no such association is found for climate‐linked compensation of the board and top‐3 executives. Country‐level attitudes to whether solutions for environmental issues are considered a joint (society) responsibility versus an individual's personal responsibility are found to have an effect on the association between climate‐linked compensation and climate change impacts. We also find that country‐level cultural views enhance the positive association between climate‐linked compensation and climate change strategy but not the association with actual firm‐level carbon emissions. Further analysis shows that non‐US firms drive our study's findings. Finally, improvement in climate strategy is found to have a positive effect on Tobin's Q but has no effect on profitability.Theoretical/academic implicationsAcademic research is growing on the role of climate change risk and carbon emissions in corporate decisions. The findings of our study are important given that linking executives' compensation with climate performance is gaining momentum. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine any link between climate‐linked compensation and climate change impact.Practitioner/policy implicationsWhile climate‐linked compensation is associated with positive changes in climate strategy, its association with firm‐level carbon emissions is promising. This is particularly the case when this compensation is offered to executives who are likely to make operational decisions with a direct impact on a firm's carbon footprint and carbon emissions.

Counting carbon costs

Human-induced environmental and climate change are widely blamed for causing rapid global biodiversity loss, but direct estimation of the proportion of biodiversity lost at local or regional scales are still infrequent. This prevents us from quantifying the main and interactive effects of anthropogenic environmental and climate change on species loss. Here, we demonstrate that the estimated proportion of species loss of 252 key protected vertebrate species at a county level of China during the past half century was 27.2% for all taxa, 47.7% for mammals, 28.8% for amphibians and reptiles and 19.8% for birds. Both human population increase and species richness showed significant positive correlations with species loss of all taxa combined, mammals, birds, and amphibians and reptiles. Temperature increase was positively correlated with all-taxa and bird species loss. Precipitation increase was negatively correlated with species loss of birds. Human population change and species richness showed more significant interactions with the other correlates of species loss. High species richness regions had higher species loss under the drivers of human environmental and climate change than low-richness regions. Consequently, ongoing human environmental and climate changes are expected to perpetuate more negative effects on the survival of key vertebrate species, particularly in high-biodiversity regions.

S everal weeks ago on this page, I vented some complaints about the Bush administration's draft Climate Change Science Plan (CCSP). That plan was, and is, a complicated hybrid creature consisting of the preexisting Global Change Research Program begun by Bush pere, along with a modest Climate Change Research Initiative added by the incumbents. The latter is aimed at helping managers (for example, those responsible for water resources) adapt to climate change, an objective that certainly makes some sense. The older program contains some potentially useful long-range research elements and has received to date about $20 billion in support. Taken as a whole, however, the draft report was remarkable in that it included no recommendations for emissions limitation or other forms of mitigation. The current climate change policy depends entirely on voluntary reduction targets, which, even if met, would allow U.S. emission rates to continue to grow at around 14% per decade. On balance, it looked like a very disappointing report. That led us to plead that the National Research Council (NRC) committee appointed to review the program should please look hard at what wasn't there, as well as what was. So far, the NRC draft ( Science , 7 March, p. [1494][1]) looks as though it has done half the job. It is sharply critical of the report's lack of vision, calls attention to the lack of adequate funding, and expresses concern about the lack of coordination. That's well-deserved criticism, but how about what's missing from the CCSP report? Does it make sense to offer a plan that lays out some ways of dealing with climate change but has no program for risk reduction? James Mahoney, the director of the CCSP project, promises that the final version will be different from the draft we've seen. One can always hope, but our experience to date has not been encouraging. The failure to act promptly on climate change carries heavy prospective penalties. The administration's plans to date have studiously ignored the need to front-load the reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Their strategy has been to delay these limits, on the assumption that what matters is the final atmospheric concentration of GHGs achieved at some future date, rather than the rate at which they are accumulating in the meantime. But a growing body of evidence disfavors this “slow ramp” hypothesis of global warming, with its emphasis on gradual change followed by societal adaptation to the altered climate regime. Instead, it now appears equally likely that warming events will trigger an abrupt nonlinear process, producing dramatic regional temperature decreases, especially in the temperate Northern Hemisphere. Recently analyzed records of historic climate change show that just such sudden alterations have happened in the past, preceded by radically revised patterns of oceanic circulation. Thus, the “business-as-usual” alternative that defers emission reductions may be a dangerous one. A refreshing counterpoint to the U.S. effort is offered by the British plan announced on 24 February by Prime Minister Tony Blair ([www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/index.shtml][2]). It provides for aggressive short-term emission reduction targets for GHGs; these would actually reduce emissions by 60% by 2050, even without nuclear power. That achievement would, by a large margin, beat the targets established by the Kyoto Protocol—targets that the United States wouldn't even talk about. Moreover, the British plan provides research commitments toward the development of renewables and other alternatives to fossil fuels, and sets industry incentives aimed at eventual energy independence. In all these respects, it is a vast improvement on the U.S. plan. How different things might have been had the United States chosen to participate actively in the post-Kyoto climate framework process after the 2000 elections. Instead, the Bush administration took a contemptuous pass on multilateral engagement with the global warming problem, a stance that began the long, continuing process of eroding its friendships in Europe. Had it chosen to be a player instead of a critical spectator, it might have learned something about the importance of the issue, as the British did. And it might not have generated the kind of smoldering resentment that is currently creating a coalition of the unwilling with respect to the Iraq problem. Actions, after all, do have consequences. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.299.5612.1494 [2]: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/index.shtml

Throughout history and especially during contemporary times, presidential rhetoric sets the foreign policy tone not only for Congress but mainly for the American public. Consequently, US foreign policy is actively marketed and spun to the American public. This book describes the marketing strategy of the War on Terror and how that strategy compelled public opinion towards supporting the spread of the War on Terror from Afghanistan to Iraq. The author investigates how President George W. Bush's initial framing of the September 11th attacks provided the platform for the creation of long term public support for the War on Terror and established early public support for U.S. action in Iraq. Mining public opinion data and nearly 1500 presidential speeches over a four year period, the book argues that presidential framing of threats and losses, not gains, contributed to public support for war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, and President Bush's successful reelection campaign. President Bush's initial framing of the terrorist threat was introduced immediately after the September 11th attacks and reinforced throughout the Afghanistan invasion. During this time period, presidential threat framing established the broad parameters for the War on Terror and enabled the president to successfully market a punitive war in Afghanistan. Second, the president marketed the strategy of preemptive war and led the country into the more costly war in Iraq by focusing on the potentially global threat of terrorism and the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. President Bush's previous war rhetoric was repackaged into a leaner, more focused format in which the Iraq war became part of the War on Terror, resulting in increased support for the president and a successful reelection campaign. Finally, the author examines the withdraw vs. surge in Iraq debate bringing the book up to date. The book shows the influencing potential of presidential spin and of risky foreign policy in the Middle East, and presents a systematic analysis of how a president effectively pursued a marketing strategy that continues to show an enduring ability to influence public support. Even two years after the Iraq invasion, 52% of Americans believed that the U.S. should stay in Iraq until it is stabilized. This finding bypasses agenda setting explanations, which prescribes issue salience amongst the public for only one year. The large speech database available with the study will also be an added benefit to scholars seeking to teach undergraduate and graduate level qualitative research methods.

Priority focus areas for a sub-national response to climate change and health: A South African provincial case study

Human-induced climate change will likely cause more intense and frequent cyclones and typhoons, as noted in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Within the Asia-Pacific region, regional security discussions at the leadership level focus on the imminent threats to states and societies of more frequent and intense extreme weather events and sea-level rise as it is the world’s most exposed region. This article examines recent developments and discourse regarding climate change in the Asia-Pacific security architecture using the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a case study. It finds increasing recognition of climate change and its implications for peace and security within the regional security architecture. Debates over how best to address it to overcome an atomised approach to climate change impacts on peace and security in the region remain unresolved, but recent pronouncements at the leadership level signal an emerging mindset shift in understanding climate change within the regional security discourse. However, the substantive discussions largely take place in hybrid forums, albeit with official recognition in more traditional platforms, which may undermine efforts for an inclusive regional discourse on the climate change impacts on peace and security in ASEAN.

This article describes how the interrelationship between the media and pro-Israeli, neo-conservative lobbyists helped to create a climate of opinion in the United States that enabled the Bush administration to secure acceptance for the war on Iraq. Many neo-conservatives move easily from government positions to highpaying jobs as lobbyists or as columnists or pundits in the media especially the electronic media and then back to the government. This revolving door allows a few committed neo-conservatives and Zionist sympathizers to exercise undue influence on the formation and implementation of foreign policy as in the case of the Iraq war. In the run-up to the war, the media was complacent if not complicit in accepting government distortions and lies about the causes for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Even by 2006, having learned little or nothing from the failures in Iraq, the Bush administration and pro-Israeli lobbyists, with extensive support from the media, was considering further wars against Syria and Iran.

Rainbow Blindness: Same-Sex Partnerships in Post-Coalitional Australia

ISSN 1948-6596 news and update update From acorns mighty micropockets grow Dispersal processes may be critical in determining rates of species range shifts under future climate change. Travis Marsico, Jessica Hellman and Jeanne Romero-Severson, writing in the Journal of Biogeography, shed new light on the future by examining the past shifts in Oregon oak since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) (Marsico et al. 2009). They find that it doesn't take a village, it just takes a single tree. This helps support an emerging new view of how plant range shifts are realized when climate shifts rapidly. Until recently, prevailing concepts of bio- logical response to rapid warming in North Amer- ica and Europe were of large, monolithic range shifts in which species totally vacated habitat of waning suitability, moving to new, completely dis- junct range. This view began to change in 1995 when Matt McGlone and Vera Markgraf pre- sented a starkly contrasting model of vegetation shift in the Southern Hemisphere. In New Zealand, McGlone found recolonization of the South Island to be much more rapid than could be accounted for by long-distance dispersal (McGlone 1995). In southern South America, Markgraf documented vegetation change keeping pace with extremely rapid climate 'flickers' (Markgraf and Kenny 1995). Both authors suggested that micropockets of vegetation could explain the very rapid observed changes in dominant vegetation. Such micropock- ets of vegetation were very plausible in these southern settings where no large continental ice sheets existed. Evidence has since grown that micropockets may be important in Northern Hemisphere set- tings as well (recent literature is briefly reviewed by Marsico et al.). Tree remains very close to the boundary of the ice sheet have been found in pa- leorecords of both Europe and North America. Pollen signatures that were previously assumed to be from long-distance blow-in are now being rein- terpreted as possible evidence of vegetation mi- cropockets. If the growing consensus around micro- pockets is correct, the implications for vegetation response to future, human-induced climate change is profound. Patches of vegetation of a few tens of meters on a side might provide source material at rapidly expanding range margins. Long-distance dispersal might establish micro- pockets of vegetation that would serve as step- ping-stones for additional long-distance dispersal. Marsico et al. show that in Oaks in the Pa- cific Northwest, dispersal was primarily from indi- viduals on the leading edge of the range. Chloro- plast DNA markers were remarkably homogenous in their samples. At 16 of 22 sites all individuals sampled shared a single chloroplast haplotype. Having identical chloroplast haplotype indicates a common maternal ancestor, so these populations were established from single colonizations or mul- tiple colonizations by seeds from the same tree (which seems much less likely). The implication is that single trees are criti- cal for establishing populations in newly suitable range. Micropockets of vegetation would have ample sources of seeds for range shifts, if all it takes is a single tree. Marsico et al. found much more diversity in nuclear DNA, indicating that once single colonizations occur, populations grow and are diversified by wide pollen flow from many individuals. Colonists from micropockets and di- versity from broader populations may be a key mechanism in rapid range shifts as rapid human- induced climate change gathers force. Markgraf, V. & Kenny, R. (1995) Character of rapid vegetation and climate change during the late- glacial in southernmost South America. In Hunt- ley, B., Cramer, W., Morgan, A.V., Prentice, H.C. and Allen, J.R.M. (eds.) Past and Future Rapid Environmental Changes: The Spatial and Evolu- tionary Responses of Terrestrial Biota, pp. 81- 102. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Marsico, T.D., Hellmann, J.J. & Romero-Severson, J. (2009) Patterns of seed dispersal and pollen flow in Quercus garryana (Fagaceae) following post-glacial climatic changes. Journal of Bio- geography, 36, 929-941. McGlone, M.S. (1995) The responses of New Zealand forest diversity to Quaternary climates. In Hunt- ley, B., Cramer, W., Morgan, A.V., Prentice, H.C. frontiers of biogeography 1.1, 2009 — © 2009 the authors; journal compilation © 2009 The International Biogeography Society

Given the radical reduction in carbon emissions required from developed countries, a robust and justice-orientated educational response is necessary to support the collective actions needed to mitigate climate change. This exploratory study uses thematic analysis of interview and focus group data to investigate the understandings of educators, student teachers and environmental specialists on the issues of climate change, climate justice, and climate change education. The findings of this study present two contrasting perspectives on climate change and climate change education. The first perspective is predominant amongst teachers and students teachers. Its focus is on climate change as a geographical process with individual private actions as the possible solution. The second perspective, predominant amongst environmental specialists, characterises climate change as a global injustice requiring political, social and economic mobilisation. This study suggests that a critical, open-ended, holistic approach to climate change education is required, which provides multiple spaces for reflection and engages children with models of citizenship which embrace political action. It highlights the need for teacher education which support teachers’ understandings of the social, economic and justice aspects of climate change and also their confidence in exploring controversial and political issues in the classroom.

This study evaluated the effects of viewing Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 with a survey conducted in 4 California theaters. Seventy-three prefilm participants completed surveys as they were about to see the film, and 127 postfilm participants completed surveys as they exited the theater (N = 200). Compared to prefilm participants, postfilm participants were more likely to attribute the war to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, oil companies, defense contractors, and the Saudi leaders. Also, postfilm participants were more likely to see a desire for oil and global domination as motivations behind the Bush administration's initiation of the war and less likely to endorse the Bush Administration's rationales. Furthermore, postfilm participants viewed President Bush more negatively, reported less likelihood that they would vote for Bush for President, and they felt angrier, more fearful, and sadder. These results indicate that a documentary film can have significant immediate effects in the direction inten...