Should Uncertainty Hinder Environmental Science?

In The New York Times article “Scientists Scramble to Bridge the Uncertainty Gap in Climate Science” (November 9, 2010) Amanda Peterka introduces the topic of her argument by explaining how uncertainties in environmental science are the major factor limiting the application of environmental practices. Specifically, she states, “Skeptics of climate change –a good number of them about to take seats in congress- often point to uncertainties or holes in the science as reasons for delaying or not taking action.” (Peterka 2010). While it is a fairly safe assumption that skeptics would target the unknown aspects of scientific theory behind environmentalism, Peterka would benefit from giving more specific examples of how scientific uncertainties are hindering the progress of environmental policy. “Acid rain and the depletion of the ozone layer” were briefly mentioned; however it needs more analysis of how the science falls short in each case, and whether or not these uncertainties are legitimate reasons for alarm.

The author’s central claim in this article is that new environmental policies should be put in place, despite uncertainties. She supports this claim by stating that science is indefinite in nature, which is true. Scientist are never 100% sure of anything. In making her point, Peterka chooses an oddly worded quote from James McCarthy, "If you were to hear someone say, 'I know with 100 percent certainty that the Earth's climate will change or not,' that would be a statement to walk away from because you would know right away that a scientist hasn't made that statement." (Peterka 2010). Is this quote suggesting that only comments made by scientists are worth consideration? This quote is unclear and could have been omitted. She does make a valid point, but it can easily be argued against. Just because science is indefinite does not mean that a theory cannot be either supported or rejected by repeated experimentation. The author could have mentioned how long term effects often are untestable, and have considerable uncertainty, but should not prevent us from taking any action, ever.

The author then goes on to explain how uncertainty can be integrated into the development of our environmental policies. She states government mechanisms, education, and a liability/bonding system can help create a system wear policies can still be developed despite the inevitable uncertainty. Peterka describes government mechanisms as an organized group scientists working with government to make the scientific aspect of issues understood by policy makers and the public. She provides a good example in the former Office of Technology Assessment in the United States. One problem with government mechanisms is would be directly tied to the government, and would likely skew the scientific evidence in favor of whoever is in power.

She also suggests that a more educated public would have a better understanding of how uncertainties apply to certain sciences. Peterka supports her point well with a quote from Vaughan Turekian, “When you think about critical thinking, you don't take as given either facts or counterfacts that are just imposed on you…rather, you take the time to sort of critically assess which uncertainties are more important and which uncertainties have nothing to do with the broader trends.”(Peterka 2010). If more of the population can think critically about scientific evidence, politicians will be more accountable for the information they give, and the society as a whole will progress a lot more. However the public of the developed nations like the United States, and Canada are accustomed to a life where they can go through their whole lives without ever having an extensive scientific background. Some may not want such an intensive education. Some may be opposed to taking away from other subjects such as physical education, languages, or the arts. Many people are forced out of school in order to make ends meet, and cannot afford a post-secondary education. These are just a few of the other problems that must be addressed before we can have an overall more scientifically educated public. The author should have mentioned how they would go about improving scientific education.

Finally, the author suggest the implementation of a liability system in which companies buy bonds to insure themselves in the worst case scenario of pollution. Peterka explains, “This would create an incentive for emitters to reduce uncertainty by funding independent research or adopting cleaner practices.” (Peterka 2010). They would have to clear a lot of things up for this system to work. For example, how would they determine what the price tag of the worst case scenario is, doesn’t this assessment have its own uncertainty? This might cause a lot of companies to go out of business, especially those that involve an extreme worst case scenario, even if the chances of that scenario are extremely low. In regards to the “independent research” described above, when the polluters fund their own research, they could influence the results in their favor. Also, how long would the polluters be liable for? What about when blame cannot be attributed to a specific company? The author left many unanswered questions regarding the liability system that would allow uncertainty to be integrated into policy making.

Overall, this text has the basis of a valid argument primarily but needs more proofs for its central claim; that environmental policy should be formulated despite uncertainty. The author did not take into account counter arguments to her points, and needed more specific examples as to how uncertainty can be used in environmental policy. After a thorough critical reconstruction of this argument, a case can be made for uncertainty in environmental policy.

References

Peterka, Amanda. Scientists Scramble to Bridge the Uncertainty Gap in Climate Science The New York Times. November 9, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/09/09greenwire-scientists-scramble-to-bridge-the-uncertainty-65524.html?pagewanted=1