Transcript Lect 1 - Columbia University

“Living on Earth is expensive, but it
does include a free trip around the sun”
Anonymous
U6220: Environmental Chemistry
and Toxicology
Thursday, June 02 2002
Thursday, June 02 2005
“Reality Provides us with facts so romantic that imagination
itself could add nothing else”
Jules Verne.
Who Am I?
Dr. Patrick Louchouarn
How I got here, etc....
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tecnológico de Monterrey (HS), Mexico City
McGill University – B.Sc., Montréal (Canada)
Université du Québec à Montréal, M.Sc. & Ph.D.
University of Texas at Austin (MSI), Post-Doc (1998-1999)
Texas A&M Univ - Corpus Christi (1999-2002)
Columbia (Biosphere) (2002-present)
“The (real) Life Aquatic”
The story of rivers: from land to the sea
“Black Rain”
Why Study Black Carbon?
 Atmospheric chemistry and health impact (PAHs)
 Radiatively important aerosols (direct and indirect impacts)
 “Short-circuit” in the carbon cycle?
Summer Schedule/Syllabus
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/envp/louchouarn/courses/
And now
Any Questions?
“Double standards in public policy?
Acknowledging the burden on science in
decision-making”
Patrick Louchouarn
Columbia University
“I’ll be so brief, I am already finished”
Dali
Outline
 Introduction
• Addressing the “Grand Challenges in Environmental
Sciences”
 On common grounds
• Defining and acknowledging (un)certainty in
assessing/managing environmental change: a discursive
approach
• Defining risks and the role of experts in public
(environmental) policy
 Concluding Remarks
• The role of education (of scientists and policymakers)
Humanity’s Top Ten Problems for next 50 years
Prof. Richard Smalley, 1996 Nobel Laureate (Chemistry)
UN’s Millenium Development Goals
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Energy
Water
Food
Environment
Poverty
Terrorism&War
Disease
Education
Democracy
Population
Task Force 1 on Poverty and Economic Development
TF 2 on Hunger
TF 3 on Education and Gender Equality
TF 4 on Child Health and Maternal Health
TF 5 on Major Diseases (HIV/AIDS, Malaria, TB)
TF 6 on Environmental Sustainability
TF 7 on Water and Sanitation
TF 8 on Improving the Lives of Slum Dwellers
TF 9 on Open, Rule-Based Trading Systems
TF 10 on Science, Technology and Innovation
National Academy of Science
“Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences” (2001)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Biogeochemical Cycles (human perturbations)
Biological Diversity (ecological & functional importance)
Climate Variability (increase precision and predictive capacity)
Hydrological Forecasting (changes in resources and demands)
Infectious Diseases and the Environment (ecological &
evolutionary aspects of infectious diseases)
6. Institutions and Resource Use (role of institutions in
management/fate of natural resources)
7. Land-Use Dynamics (anthropogenic impacts of land-use
change/dynamics)
8. Reinventing the Use of Materials (green chemistrynanotechnology, recycling)
National Academy of Science
“Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences” (2001)
6. Institutions and Resource Use
 Systematic understanding of the role of institutions in shaping
the use of natural resources (markets, legal and regulatory
structures at regional to international levels, collaborative
resource governance, heterogeneous stakeholders and
management structures)
 Elucidate internal and external conditions that affect institutions’
capacity for adaptive change!
NAS accepts (unconsciously?) the role of science in shaping policy
Departure from common axiology and culture of science developed
since 19th Century and reinforced in mid-20th Century
Science: The Endless Frontier (1945)
(Vannevar Bush - Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development)
"New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are pioneered with the
same vision, boldness, and drive with which we have waged this war we can
create a fuller and more fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life."
Franklin D. Roosevelt - November 17, 1944
"Without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other directions can
insure our health, prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world."
V. Bush - 1945
Isolation of basic Science and the quest for knowledge

Implies a “purity” of the scientific process (independent from the political
process)

Provides a service to society by “fueling” its progress (war against
disease, National security, public welfare)  indirectly linked to the
political process
Re-Thinking Science
(Helga Nowotny - Chairwoman of the EC’s European Research Advisory Board)
Europe: “The old paradigm of scientific discovery “characterized by the
hegemony of disciplinary science,with its strong sense of an internal hierarchy
between the disciplines and driven by the autonomy of scientists and their
host institutions, the universities” is being superseded (but not replaced) by a
new paradigm of knowledge production
 “socially distributed, application-oriented, trans-disciplinary and subject to
multiple accountabilities”.
USA: NRC’s report on scientific advisory committee (2004): “Political
considerations should not play a role in the process of deciding whom to
appoint to policy panels”
 “But in fact politics is unavoidable in the empaneling process. The real
question is whether we want to openly confront this reality or allow it to play out
in the proverbial backrooms of political decision making”. (R. Pielke Jr. 2005)
Re-Thinking Science’s “neutrality”:
The status of experts
The “neutrality” of science in societal (and political) debates is still
viewed as
 ultimate quality of this (social) knowledge-production activity
 a warranty for reliability and legitimacy of this knowledge
“As scientists debate the various sides of politicized issues, their
involvement undermines the assumptions that have given experts their
power and the neutral arbiter of truth” (S. Bocking, “Nature’s Experts: Science,
Politics, and the Environment” Rutgers Univ. Press, 2004)
“By participating in political debates as advocates for (special) interests,
scientitst are reducing their claim to authority”. (R. Pielke Jr. “A part but apart
from politics”, Nature 2005)
Environmental sciences:
a value-laden and mediatized field
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Scientists as Activists and the Legitimacy of Science
“The Administration and the Scientist”
Jim Hansen (2005): I have been told by a high government official that I
should not talk about “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate,
The opinions and interpretations that I express today are my personal views. I
am a government employee, but I am on leave today, I travel here at my
expense, and I speak as a private citizen […]. I hope to convince you that I am
knowledgeable about climate change and that the information I provide
warrants your consideration, but the views that I present have no official
sanction.
“The Corporation and the Scientist”
Hydro-Quebec (2002): “For boreal reservoirs, IRN quotes mainly Eric
Duchemin who is an environmental activist of the Union Québécoise pour la
Conservation de la Nature, a Canadian environmental group that has opposed
any hydro project in the last 15 years”
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Environmental science:
Decision making in the face of (un)certainty
The acceptance of a valid definition (and role) of uncertainty
in science is not as critical as clearing the confusion that
arises when science “argues with itself”.
When people hold a strong idea that science is somewhat
certain and predictable, then a strong puzzlement arises
when scientists have more than one answer for an issue and
disagree among themselves.
The power (and weight) of metaphors
The case of the “Hockey Stick”
When the strongest symbolism becomes a confusing notion
“It seems that metaphors in science carry a greater burden then in
metaphors of literature or history”. Alan Lightman (2004 - A sense of the
mysterious: Science and the human spirit)
A. Moberg et al. (2005) Nature
Climate of (un)certainty…
Critics say we shouldn’t’ act on the Kyoto protocol or even
curb GHG emissions before we obtain confirmation of climate
change from “sound science”
“Soundness” of science is defined in terms of perceived (un)certainty
1) Forcings
Hansen, J. 2004 (2004) Defusing
the global warming time bomb,
Scientific American, 290, 68-77.
What about science (un)certainty?
Taking the forcings at face value
FCCC vs. IPCC
The politicization of (un)certainty

The FCCC definition of climate change requires detection and
attribution of climate change leading to "dangerous interference”

There is NO CONSENSUS on the definition of Climate change, let
alone on what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference”
with the climate system (R. Pielke Jr. (2004). What is climate change? Issues in
Science & Technology. Jul. 9).

Minimizes the need for decarbonization of the energy system and
for the reduction of human and environmental vulnerability to
climate

FCCC disregards adaptive measures and will only consider
mitigation under strong scientific consensus. But there IS scientific
consensus !
The politicization of (un)certainty
 IPCC notes that under its definition of climate change,
effective action requires "decisionmaking under
uncertainty”
 But much of the uncertainty in climate change scenarios
is related to non-science issues (demographics,
economy, energy production, innovative technology
diffusion)
 “Decisionmaking under uncertainty” is a challenge
familiar to decisionmakers and research communities in
social sciences
“Making prediction is very difficult,
especially about the future”
Casey Stengel

Social Security:
– Social Security is projected to start paying out
more in benefits than it collects in taxes in
2018
– Can pay full promised benefits only until 2042
(solvent until 2052)

QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
How can solvency be restored to Social
Security?
– massive tax increases
– massive benefit cuts
– Investment of payroll taxes in privatized
accounts
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Process of Public Environmental Policy
(S. Cohen, 2001)
 Environmental policy  Closely connected to issues of
economical development and income (wealth) distribution
 Environmental policy thus appears as a set of individual and
collective patterns of choices about resource deployment
and management  Social learning
 The assignment and distribution of benefits and costs
creates political conflicts that both impede and distort social
learning  Filters on information flow
Process of Public Environmental Policy
Process of environmental policy is characterized by disjointedincremental steps and heterogeneous structures  Large
number of separated centers
Eventually, decisions happen
 Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, Superfund Program.

However, this process becomes highly complex when it
deals with deep uncertainty with respect to the behavior of
non-linear systems (i.e. ecosystems, climate, etc)
Process of Public Environmental Policy

Decision models under deep uncertainty DO exist:
 Scenario-Based Planning (discursive process)
 Help groups of individuals reach consensus on strategies
even when members cannot agree on the most likely future
(Does not systematically correct for fallacies in human
reasoning)
Computer Assisted Reasoning (inductive process) 
Determination of robust regions (domains of choices)
 Market-based (diffusion of innovative technology)
Lempert R.J. (2002) and Robalino D.A. and Lempert R.J. (2000)
Decision in the face of (un)certainty
Precautionary Principle



Its about minimizing potential deleterious impacts in face of
incomplete information (managing risk)
Risk avoiders try to minimize the potential for “misfortunes of the
second kind” (“accept something they should have rejected” Type II errors )
By doing so, they increase the potential for “misfortunes of the
first kind” (“reject something they should have accepted” - Type I
errors )
Accept null
hypothesis
Reject null
hypothesis
State of Nature
Ho
Global Change does
not occur
Correct Conclusion
Type I Error
H1
Global Change is
real
Type II Error
Correct Conclusion
Precaution vs. Resilience

Europe has moved strongly in favor of Precautionary
Principle (Climate Change, GMOs)

U.S. seems more inclined towards Resilience Principle
(c.f. Wildavski): building capacity (adaptations)

To give the critics of PP some credit, this principle is
rather loose on the definition of science (un)certainty

However, we fail to recognize that the discussion of
(un)certainty is one of statistical likelihood of any event
occurring
Risk Assessment/Management
 And,
not all risks are the same!
“when we have two options for actions where the same unwelcome event will occur
with different probability, the conclusion for a decision under uncertainty is clear: each
rationally thinking human being would choose the option for action with the lower
probability of occurrence” (Klinke A. and Renn O. 2001)
Risk Assessment/Management

Not all risks are the same!
Damocles
Typical of technological risk (extent of damage inversely proportional to probability
of occurrence): High damage - Low probability of occurrence
High persistency!
 Nuclear disaster, dam failure, chemical accident
Risk Assessment/Management

Not all risks are the same!
Pythia
Damocles
Large uncertainty in probability of occurrence, extent and cause of damage
High persistency!
 Human intervention in ecosystems (dams, artificial groundwater recharge)
 GHG and CFC releases
Risk Assessment/Management

Not all risks are the same!
Cassandra
Pythia
Damocles
Paradox: Probability of occurrence is known as well as extent of damage
(confidence level is low)
Long latency which generates little mobilization
 Anthropogenic climate change
 Loss of biodiversity
Risk Assessment/Management

Not all risks are the same!
 Neither is their management.
(Klinke A. and Renn O. 2001)
Baromètre IRSN 2004
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Risk perception in France
Social issues amount > 50%
Environmental concerns ~13%
Baromètre IRSN 2004
Perception of role and acceptance of experts
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Of a paradigm of Science Education
Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers (2001)
Unlocking Our Future: Towards a New National Science Policy
“US science policy is outdated; the American public does
not understand science or its practice; US scientists are
not sufficiently engaged in the political process”
 The majority of jobs in the 21st Century will depend on
scientific and technical expertise.
 Science curricula should be inquiry-based and involve
hands-on (minds-on) experimentation so “children”
can experience the thrill of learning science.
Science (Environmental) Education
Of Scaffolding and Authentic Inquiry
Science of Learning
Construction of Meaning
Mental Models
Educational Theory & Pedagogy
Active Learning that accounts for
Motivations, preconceptions, prior knowledge,
cognitive skills, metacognition, context,
And social interactions
Instructional
materials
Information
Technology
Representations
Simulations
Information Managmt
Communication
Authentic Inquiry
Learning
Environments
Knowledge
Centered
Learner
Centered
Assessment
Centered
Nature of Science
Scientific knowledge
Scientific models
Complex data sets
Community
Feedback
to learner
Assessment
Learning
Objectives
Learning Outcomes
Designs of effective learning environments following
The How People Learn (NAS, 2001) Framework
 Mental models (metaphors)
 Physical models
 Computer simulations/Mathematical
models
 Visualization of complex real data
sets
Humanity’s Top Ten Problems for next 50 years
Prof. Richard Smalley, 1996 Nobel Prize Laureate (Chemistry)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Energy
Water
Food
Environment
Poverty
Terrorism & War
Disease
Education
Democracy Today the world runs on ~14 terawatts of power, (220 106
barrels of oil/day)
Population
6
2050: we’ll need 28 terawatts (>440 10 barrels of oil/day)
Where’s the Sputnik generation of the 21st Century?
Ph.D. Degrees in Physics
as a Percentage of GDP
The Sputnik
Generation
0.05
Percent
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
GDP is expressed in constant 1996 dollars (in million)
Source: American Institute of Physics & National Science Board,
Science and Engineering Indicators, 2002.
Social/political/ethical (economical) cause for intellectual mobilization
For Science, Against Scientism
Scientism: The claim that science is disinterested and extrasocial, that its truth claims are self-sustaining without reference
to philosophical assertions, and that science represents the only
legitimate mode of knowledge” (I. Wallerstein, 2004)
Our (apparent) social insistence to preserve the idea of scientism
as the modus operandi of science is paradoxically what
delegitimizes science:
 Supports claims from (nihilistic) relativists that there exists no
universal truth and that all knowledge assertions are subjective
 More importantly, generates the perception that any social
implication on the part of scientists falsifies the scientific process
 removes it from its purity and therefore undermines its
reliability/credibility
Concluding Remarks
 Knowledge production: Participatory process
“Reliable knowledge can become socially robust only if society
perceives the process of knowledge production to be participative. This,
in turn, depends upon a reciprocity in which the public understands how
science works, but, equally, science understands how the public works”
Nowotny et al. (2003) “Mode 2 revisited: the New production of Knowledge”, Minerva.
 Regulatory science can work only within the framework
of an ethically defensible and socially acceptable
distribution of burdens of proof
(H. van den Belt and B. Gremmen (2002) Between precautionary principle and “sound
science”: Distributing the burdens of proof. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics. 15: 103-122).
Thank you!
“Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, when
it’s the only one you have”
Alain (Emile Chartier)
“You are educated when you have the ability to
listen to almost anything without losing your
temper or self-confidence”
Robert Frost