I got told of by Laura for not updating the blog enough.

So I'm going to do two things.
Firstly he is a repost of a blog I wrote for http://www.unfairplay.info/. It's more serious than what I usually write on this blog but if you're interested give it a read.
Then I will later post a number of blogs about the last few days.

For days now I’ve been following the discussions on the Kyoto Protocol. I sat writing down often repetitive and technical discussions on, among other things, the gases that should and shouldn’t be included in the protocol; on what mathematical concept should be used in the transfer of excess from one commitment period to the other and on what version of science should be used to measure the ‘Global Warming Potential’ of different gases.


At first this raised a large question for me; what was the political reasoning behind the niggling over the use of science? Yet as time went on, and this niggling only got worse, I started to appreciate that what was happening in that room got right to the heart of the flaws with international negotiations on climate change; in fact on every level of action on climate change.


Climate change is at its core a scientific issue. The evidence of its existence is found is science and the possibilities for its combating are found in science. Yet the people who take the final decisions, be it in national governments or here in Conference of the Parties, are politicians not scientists. As we were given presentations on the affect of using different scientific reports (a more recent one and a less recent one) I could tell that I was not the only one in the room struggling to understand. The negotiators sent here, are undoubtedly, very intelligent and well rounded in their knowledge but they cannot be expected to have a detailed understanding of the complicated scientific concepts put forth in IPCC reports.


Furthermore their ability to understand this scientific knowledge depends heavily on the number of scientific advisors they can bring with them; so while Brazil with their 591 delegates can happily dedicate teams of people to decoding the best way to manipulate the science for their ends, others are left floundering. It appears that complicated science is yet another barrier against some of the most needy delegations here in Cancun.


Today one of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations was simply not scheduled, and another was cancelled. Both of these relate strongly to intricate scientific principles; or lack of the aforementioned. It would appear that talks have ground to a halt, because the honorable delegates cannot agree on matters of science; perhaps most ridiculously on whether to use the latest science, or older science which better fits political aims.


If I ever asked someone to design a house for me, I would not ask a lawyer or a doctor. Not because they are not skilled, intelligent people but because I would know that an architect could do it better; after all it is what they are trained to do. In this vein it makes little sense to me to give the politicians the right to cherry pick science. Especially when some are much more able than others to pick the best cherries. That being said; I do appreciate how difficult it is to orchestrate the kind of international negogiations we are looking for. And I am sure that the UNFCCC is a, if not the, key component of tackling climate change. I also, however, strongly believe in the necessesity to leave science to the scientists.

Only now am I starting to recognize the contrast in these two beliefs.