Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences
and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson Schoo and the Department
of Geosciences at Princeton University.
He is the Director of the
Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) at the Woodrow
Wilson School and Faculty Associate of the Atmospheric and
Ocean Sciences Program, Princeton Environmental Institute, and the Princeton Institute for
International and Regional Studies.
 |
Dr.
Oppenheimer joined the Princeton faculty after more than two decades with The
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), where he served as chief scientist and
manager of the Climate and Air Program. He continues to serve as a science to EDF and is routinely sought after by the news media for his climate and policy expertise.
Dr. Oppenheimer is the author of over 100 articles published in professional journals
and is co-author (with Robert H. Boyle) of Dead
Heat: The Race Against The Greenhouse Effect. His full biography can be found here.
CE: You
bring a range of experiences to the climate change conversation—from academia
to non-government organizations to the IPCC. With this unique perspective, what
do you find is usually missing in the general public’s understanding of
anthropogenic climate change and its impacts?
Dr. Oppenheimer: What’s
missing is not so much understanding as political leadership. Like most
technical issues, the public doesn't have the time to get deeply into the
factual arguments. Generally, they look to opinion leaders whom they trust: the
President, some Congressional leaders, religious leaders, individuals like Al
Gore to give them a sense of where the reality stands. Of course, on some
issues, the details are less important than overriding concerns like ethical
implications, and people are perfectly prepared to and capable of making their
own judgments. On climate change, I believe the public gets the big
picture, the long-term stakes, the ethical issue, but has a lot of confusion
(exacerbated by intentional obfuscation by some economic interests) on the
details. Clear, consistent political leadership, day in and day out, is the one
irreplaceable factor for overcoming this sort of confusion.
CE: Likewise,
what scientific nuances do government leaders often struggle with?
Dr. Oppenheimer: Governments
on the whole understand the details. They have lots of in-house experts telling
leaders the truth (when they ask). The struggle is over their willingness to
pay short-term costs to preserve the climate and the planet’s sustainability
for the long term.
CE: With
new studies being added to what we already know about climate change in
preparation of the latest IPCC report, what do you think the next six months to
a year hold for policy makers and national and local governments?
Dr. Oppenheimer: It’s
going to be an interesting ride. I’m an IPCC author so I can’t discuss the
details until they are public but I’m confident that the report will provide
further details, allowing governments to sharpen their approaches and adding
another dose of seriousness to the need for international cooperation to solve
the problem. At this point, governments are falling behind what the science
says is needed to stabilize the climate during this century.
CE: Many of us encounter critics of climate change science. What would you say are three or four quick statements that would be helpful when dialoguing with these critics?
Dr. Oppenheimer:
- Carbon dioxide, the main human-made greenhouse gas survives for centuries to millennia once emitted so today's actions commit the climate to harmful changes for many, many generations.
- Earth is already warming, and most of the warming is very likely due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
- The projected warming, if emissions continue to grow, would make earth warmer, and warm faster, than any time in the history of civilization.
- Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy show just how ineffective we are currently at dealing with today’s climate risk. The risk is increasing be the year, and we will inevitably be falling further behind—that means losses of life and losses of property. We need to redouble efforts at adaptation and managing the risk but there’s no way to keep up with the changes without decreasing the emissions causing the problem.
CE: In some circles, there seems to be a growing focus on climate adaptation rather than mitigating the sources of climate change. Given what we know about the rates of greenhouse gas emissions, is mitigation a viable option in the next decade or so? Or is it more realistic to say that adequate emissions reduction will take a century or two to achieve?
Dr. Oppenheimer: We
need to mitigate starting now and we need to improve our ability to adapt,
starting now as well. Mitigation isn't going to avert all impacts and
adaptation can’t possibly sufficiently ameliorate the changes headed our way if
we fail to cut emissions.
CE: Is
there a question that interviewers never ask you but that you wish they would?
Dr. Oppenheimer: After
all these years (32) working on climate, I've been asked it all!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. No input or question is too small. You're encouraged to be passionate, feisty, and humorous. But do so with civility, please.