The Contested Nature of Global Climate Change

Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)

1. Title

The Contested Nature of Global Climate Change

2. Keywords

Climate change, global warming, greenhouse effect, simulated debate.

3. Introduction

In 1995, the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published the following three major reports(1) on different aspects of global climate change:

Houghton, JT, LG Meira Filho, BA Callender, N Harris, A Kattenberg and K Maskell (eds) (1995) The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Watson, RT, MC Zinyowera and RH Moss (eds) (1995) Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Bruce, JP, H Lee and EF Haites (eds) (1995) Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

These reports are widely regarded as providing the most comprehensive and authoritative statement of current ‘knowledge’ concerning global climate change, and are of central importance to much climate change policy-making at international, national and local levels. However, critics of the reports claim, amongst other things, that the various analyses are based on inadequate computer models (2). This leads some critics to adopt an agnostic position; that is, they hold that there is insufficient evidence – one way or the other – to make any credible predictions about climate change and its consequences. Other critics make the stronger claim that the reports’ conclusions (concerning the extent and/or consequences of climate change) are actually wrong, but are divided as to whether the error is one of over- or under-estimation. Thus, and despite more than a decade of intensive research, the subject of climate change remains a hotly contested topic.

Whilst there is a good deal of variation in views on the science of global climate change, commentators on climate change policy tend to fall into just two main groups. On the one hand, there are those (the ‘act now’ advocates) who believe that current ‘knowledge’ about the risks associated with climate change justify the immediate implementation of more or less costly policy interventions (eg to stabilise or even reduce emissions of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’). Others (the ‘wait and see’ advocates ) maintain, on the contrary, that further research is required before there could be any justification for implementing such policies.

In view of this, it is important that students adopt a critical approach to the topic of global climate change – as opposed to expecting simply to be able to learn the ‘facts’ about it. More specifically, they should be able to make sense of the contested nature of climate change in relation to the social context within which the climate change debate takes place. Amongst other things, this means they should have some understanding of the roles played by a wide range of organisations (eg academic, business, environmental, governmental), each with their own particular purposes, interests and values; and of the tendency of such organisations to respond to new scientific evidence in ways that do not require them to abandon their more or less deep-seated commitments to particular policy orientations (ie to an ‘act now’ or a ‘wait and see’ approach to policy).

4. Aim

The aim of this TLR is to encourage students to think critically about the subject of global climate change. In particular, it aims to help students make sense of the contested nature of global climate change in relation to the social context within which the climate change debate takes place. It seeks to do this primarily by means of a simulation exercise, in which ‘representatives’ of a range of organisations (eg academic, business, environmental, governmental) debate the implications of new scientific research on the subject.

5. Learning outcomes

After using this TLR, students should:

Have undertaken background research, involving print-based and Internet sources.
Have gained experience in marshalling arguments and evidence in an oppositional ‘debating’ forum.
Have exercised and developed generic communicative skills (eg listening, debating, collaborating).
Have actively explored – in part by means of (simulated) direct experience – a range of different positions (and their supporting ‘arguments’) concerning climate change.
Have actively explored – in part by means of (simulated) direct experience – sociological and political questions pertaining to knowledge claims-makers (including academic, business, environmental, governmental).
Be better able to make a more critically-informed contribution (orally or in writing) to debates on global climate change.

6. Pre-requisites

Students should be broadly familiar with the topic of global climate change. In particular, they should have at least an elementary knowledge of (i) the ways in which so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ are alleged to be causing climate change, (ii) the alleged social and environmental consequences of climate change, and (iii) the ways in which governments and other organisations have so far responded to the ‘problem’ of climate change. As indicated by the wording above, it would be helpful if students were aware that – despite more than a decade of intensive research – global climate remains a hotly contested topic.

In addition, it would be helpful if students were familiar with the idea that the production of knowledge can be view as a process of making ‘knowledge claims’, and had had at least some experience of thinking critically about such processes. Where this is lacking, the following TLRs might be used prior to this one:

Ideally, students should also have some knowledge of ‘environmental values’. Where this is lacking, the following TLRs could be used prior to this one:

7. How to use TLR

The TLR has been designed to be used with a class of 10-16 students broadly as follows. (Larger classes could be accommodated by dividing the students into groups of 10-16 students and running separate debates for each group.)

Stage 1

i) Introduce the TLR, reviewing the nature of the content, the aims and learning outcomes, and the way in which the TLR will be used.

ii) Give the students a copy of the Briefing Sheet (see Appendix A) and instruct them to read sections A and B.

iii) Divide the class into 5-8 pairs, and assign each pair of students to a different organisation. (See Appendix B for a list of possible participant organisations.)

iv) Instruct each pair of students to produce two Position Statements for their organisation, and to prepare to defend their Position Statements in a simulated debate (as per the instructions given in the Briefing Sheet). Pairs may decide that it is better for individual students to take a lead in preparing one or other of the Position Statements, but they should ensure that the final content of both Position Statements is understood and agreed by both students.

Steps (i) to (iii) and the first part of step (iv) would require about 30 minutes’ of class time. Step (iv) should be completed during independent study.

Stage 2

v) Inform the students that the content of the report is broadly as outlined in Scenario A. Choose one student from each pair to act as ‘representative’ in the debate. Run the debate. This should begin with each representative giving a brief oral presentation (of not more than two minutes) based on her/his Position Statement (the one corresponding to Scenario A), followed by an open discussion in which each representative (staying ‘in-role’) seeks to defend her/his position. Non-participating students should observe the debate as a passive audience.

vi) Repeat the debate. This time, the second student in each pair should take part in the debate, and the debate should be based on a ‘Scenario B’ report.

vii) Conduct an all-class discussion (with the students no longer ‘in-role’) of the key points to have emerged from the exercise. Issues that might be addressed include:

the extent to which the simulated debate represented what might happen in a real debate of this kind.
the extent to which the simulated debate reflected the likely views of all academics (cf, for example, the wide range of personal, as well as institutional, values to which academics might be committed), or all businesses (cf, for example, differences between the commercial interests of oil companies and manufacturers of so-called ‘clean technologies’), or all environmental groups (cf, for example, differences between groups that are more or less committed to the view that ‘nature’ has intrinsic value), or all governmental bodies (cf, for example, differences between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions), or all governments (cf, for example, differences between so-called developed and less developed countries, or the situation of very low-lying countries, or the situation of oil-rich countries), and so on.
possible explanations for any differences in the views expressed by different individuals and/or organisations. For example, to what extent do they reflect the purposes, interests, values etc of those individuals/organisations? And, insofar as this is the case, how can it be explained? For example, to what extent do people deliberately misrepresent what they ‘know’ to be the ‘truth’ (eg by lying or being ‘economical with the truth’) in pursuit of their own personal or organisational interests? Or can (at least some of the) differences in what people ‘know’ be interpreted as genuinely held differences of belief? And, insofar as this is the case, how do such differences arise?
implications of the above for how students perceive the status and origins of their own ‘knowledge’ about global climate change (eg the nature, rate, distribution of changes; the likely social and environmental implications; the most appropriate kinds of response to the ‘problem’ of climate change). For example, to what extent have the students accepted, more or less uncritically, the knowledge claims advanced by some claims-makers (eg academics, business organisations, governmental bodies, media organisations, non-governmental organisations) in preference to those advanced by others (with differing views)? To what extent do they see their own ‘knowledge’ as being as uncertain, provisional, subjective, and value-laden – as opposed to certain, objective and value-free? And, more generally, do they think it is possible for knowledge (about global climate change and other subjects, environmental or otherwise) to be absolutely certain, objective and value-free?

Steps (v) to (vii) could be completed in about 90 minutes’ of class time (if the open discussion part of each debate was restricted to about 15 minutes), but students would probably benefit if more time (eg 120 minutes) were allowed.

8. Instructions to students

See Briefing Sheet (Appendix A).

9. Stimulus Material

See Briefing Sheet (Appendix A).

10. Degree stage

This TLR is mainly intended for use at degree stage three or above.

11. Resource requirements

This TLR has no special resource requirements.

12. Preparation

None.

13. Links with other TLRs

The aims and/or learning outcomes of this TLR are related to those of other TLRs listed in the following 'thematic clusters':

Contested science
Case studies

14. Follow-up activities

None.

15. Recommended reading

For further information on the science and politics of global warming, see, for example:

Bruce, JP, H Lee and EF Haites (eds) (1995) Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. (Summary for Policymakers available on the internet at: http://ipcc.ch/reports.htm) [Reports on detailed analyses undertaken by members of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the so-called ‘conventional wisdom’: see Morris, ed, 1997, for a counter-view.]
Grubb, Michael et al (1993) The Earth Summit Agreements. A Guide and Assessment. Earthscan, London. [See especially Chapter 6. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, pp. 61-73.]
Houghton, JT, LG Meira Filho, BA Callender, N Harris, A Kattenberg and K Maskell (eds) (1995) The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. (Summary for Policymakers available on the internet at: http://ipcc.ch/reports.htm) [Reports on detailed analyses undertaken by members of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the so-called ‘conventional wisdom’: see Morris, ed, 1997, for a counter-view.]
Morris, Julian (ed) (1997) Climate Change. Challenging the Conventional Wisdom. Institute of Economic Affairs, London. [Contains a collection essays attacking views put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in, for example: Bruce et al, eds, 1995; Houghton et al, eds, 1995; Watson et al, eds, 1995. Amongst other things, contributors claim that: the IPCC has overestimated the effect of anthropogenic emissions of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHGs) on the Earth’s climate; the IPCC has exaggerated the seriousness of impacts associated with climate change; there is no justification for implementing costly policies to reduce emissions of GHGs.]
Paterson, Matthew (1996) Global Warming and Global Politics. Routledge, London. [Analyses the politics of global warming from the perspective of different theories in international relations, including those based on a constructivist epistemology. Provides a helpful introduction to the historical development of the science and politics of climate change, and a detailed account of “interstate negotiations” before and after the 19992 Earth Summit at Rio.]
Rahman, Atiq (1999) Climate Change and Violent Conflicts. In Suliman, Mohamed, ed, Ecology, Politics and Violent Conflict. Zed Books, London. (pp. 181-210) [Discusses the possibility that climate change may give rise to “a series of major conflicts that may initially follow the traditional North-South pattern, but may soon give way to uncharted territory – new forms of alignment, confrontation, conflict and violence.”]
Warr, Kiki and Sandy Smith (1993) Science Matters: Changing Climate. The Open University, Milton Keynes. (Reprinted, but not revised, in 1998.) [Intended for second year undergraduates. Provides a comprehensive introduction to the science of climate change. Contains helpful ‘end-of-chapter’ summaries and study questions. Draws attention to the uncertain and contested nature of ‘knowledge’ concerning climate change science and policy-making, but approaches the subject from a broadly realist – rather than constructivist – perspective.]
Watson, RT, MC Zinyowera and RH Moss (eds) (1995) Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. (Summary for Policymakers available on the internet at: http://ipcc.ch/reports.htm) [Reports on detailed analyses undertaken by members of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the so-called ‘conventional wisdom’: see Morris, ed, 1997, for a counter-view.]

Appendix A

The Contested Nature of Global Climate Change

Briefing Sheet

A. Introduction

In 1995, the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published the following three major reports (1) on different aspects of climate change:

Houghton, JT, LG Meira Filho, BA Callender, N Harris, A Kattenberg and K Maskell (eds) (1995) The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Watson, RT, MC Zinyowera and RH Moss (eds) (1995) Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Bruce, JP, H Lee and EF Haites (eds) (1995) Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

These reports are widely regarded as providing the most comprehensive and authoritative statement of current ‘knowledge’ concerning global climate change, and are of central importance to much climate change policy-making at international, national and local levels. However, critics of the reports claim, amongst other things, that the various analyses are based on inadequate computer models (2). This leads some critics to adopt an agnostic position; that is, they hold that there is insufficient evidence – one way or the other – to make any credible predictions about climate change and its consequences. Other critics make the stronger claim that the reports’ conclusions (concerning the extent and/or consequences of climate change) are actually wrong, but are divided as to whether the error is one of over- or under-estimation. Thus, and despite more than a decade of intensive research, the subject of climate change remains a hotly contested topic.

Whilst there is a good deal of variation in views on the science of global climate change, commentators on climate change policy tend to fall into just two main groups. On the one hand, there are those (the ‘act now’ advocates) who believe that current ‘knowledge’ about the risks associated with climate change justify the immediate implementation of more or less costly policy interventions (eg to stabilise or even reduce emissions of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’). Others (the ‘wait and see’ advocates ) maintain, on the contrary, that further research is required before there could be any justification for implementing such policies.

In view of this, it is important that you adopt a critical approach to the topic of global climate change – as opposed to expecting simply to be able to learn the ‘facts’ about it. More specifically, you should be able to make sense of the contested nature of climate change in relation to the social context within which the climate change debate takes place. Amongst other things, this means you should have some understanding of the roles played by a wide range of organisations (eg academic, business, environmental, governmental), each with their own particular purposes, interests and values; and of the tendency of such organisations to respond to new scientific evidence in ways that do not require them to abandon their more or less deep-seated commitments to particular policy orientations (ie to an ‘act now’ or a ‘wait and see’ approach to policy).

B. Simulated Debate

This exercise is based on an imaginary situation in which a major report on global climate change is about to be published. The report is expected to provide ‘authoritative’ new evidence on the likely extent and consequences of climate change. Not surprisingly, the report is keenly awaited by, amongst others, scientists, policy-makers, environmentalists and at least some members of the business community. No information concerning the report’s contents has yet been released, and its authors have been sworn to secrecy until after publication. This has led some commentators to speculate that the findings contained in the report could prove to be a turning point in the climate change debate. Some believe that it will finally provide ‘irrefutable’ evidence that climate change is taking place, and that it poses a serious threat to both society and the environment (Scenario A). Others, however, are convinced that it will finally expose what they believe to be the myth of climate change; showing that any changes due to anthropogenic activities will be small in absolute terms, and negligible in comparison with naturally occurring climate change (Scenario B) (3).

For the purposes of this exercise, you will be assigned to play the role of an interested party in the global climate change debate. More specifically, you will be required to act as the representative of an organisation which has a direct interest in climate change. Your task will be to prepare Position Statements (two – see below) outlining your organisation’s response to the report; and then to take part – as your organisation’s spokesperson – in a debate (involving other students representing a range of organisations) on the report. Your goals in the debate will be:

to defend the views outlined in your Position Statement (especially those concerning what you see as the policy implications of the report – see below) against any criticisms that might be made by other participants in the debate, and
to win support for your views amongst the debate’s audience (which you should assume to be made up of members of the general public).

The situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that the debate will take place on the very day that the report is due to be published. Your organisation is anxious that it is prepared for all eventualities. Consequently, you have to prepare two position statements in anticipation of two different scenarios:

Scenario A: In which the report provides strong evidence that global climate change is taking place, and that its social and environmental consequences are likely to be serious.

Scenario B: In which the report provides strong evidence that any global climate change due to anthropogenic activities will be small in absolute terms, and negligible in comparison with naturally occurring climate change.

C. Preparing Position Statements

Once you have been assigned to an organisation, you should begin working on your two Position Statements as indicated above. These should be word-processed and not more than one side of A4 paper in length. Amongst other things, they should contain information concerning:

the nature, purpose, activities etc of your organisation.
the nature of your organisation’s interest in global climate change.
your organisation’s reaction to the report, including: the extent to which your organisation is inclined to welcome/endorse its content; your organisation’s views concerning the report’s implications for policy-making (local, national, international) on climate change; and the responsibilities of your organisation and other organisations (eg business organisations, governmental bodies, NGOs, research institutions, the mass media, the general public) with regard to any policies that you advocate.

In order to produce your Position Statements, you will need to undertake a certain amount of background research on your organisation. Much of the information you require may be available on the organisation’s website, but you may also find it helpful to obtain print-based literature (eg booklets, leaflets, reports) – which can sometimes be obtained from organisations at little or no cost.

D. Participating in the Debate

Just before the debate begins, you will told whether the report turned out to be as anticipated in Scenario A or B; and, therefore, which of the two Position Statements you will be required to use. At the start of the debate, you will be required to give a brief oral presentation (of not more than two minutes) based on your organisation’s Position Statement. You will then be expected to participate in an open debate – staying ‘in-role’ (ie speaking as the representative of your organisation). Amongst other things, you should prepare for the debate by considering the ways in which you might make use of the following in pursuit of your goals (and respond to their use by other debate participants in pursuit of their goals):

arguments based – explicitly or implicitly – on key social values. For example, what does your organisation believe about the role of the state in relation to regulation of the market? or the extent to which corporations have social responsibilities? or the responsibilities of so-called developed countries towards less developed countries? or the roles of experts and/or the general public in public decision-making?
arguments based – explicitly or implicitly – on assumptions about the value of ‘nature’. For example, does your organisation believe that the environmental impacts associated with global climate change are important only insofar as they affect society (an instrumentalist approach to environmental value) or because ‘nature’ is assumed to have intrinsic value (ie value in itself, independent of any usefulness it might have for humans)?
deployment of ‘known’ scientific ‘facts’ (theoretical and/or empirical) concerning global climate change insofar as they provide support for the views expressed by your organisation.
appeals to so-called authority figures (eg academic, political, religious), ‘public opinion’ or ‘common sense’ insofar as they provide support for the views expressed by your organisation.
the assertion that all knowledge claims, including scientific knowledge claims, are inherently uncertain, provisional, subjective and value-laden of as a basis for contesting the report’s content.
deployment of the ‘Precautionary Principle’ as a basis for action in the face of scientific uncertainty.
use of language, including literary devices (eg metaphor, emotionally-charged language), to make your arguments more persuasive and, more generally, to portray your organisation in a positive light.
use/avoidance of technical terms – either because they help to convey a sense of your own expertise or because they hinder attempts to get your views across.
attempts to form strategic alliances with other participants whose views are broadly similar to your own.
attacks on opposing points of view or those who espouse them.

Appendix B

The Contested Nature of Climate Change

Debate Participants

A list of possible participant organisations is provided below, organised into five categories. In order to ensure that a wide range of views is expressed in the simulated debate, it is recommended that at least one organisation is chosen from each category. (The list of organisations is not, of course, intended to be exhaustive or definitive: tutors/students may, therefore, prefer to think of their own organisations, rather than using those listed below.)

Business Organisations

Global Climate Coalition (http://www.globalclimate.org/)
International Climate Change Partnership (http://www.iccp.net/)
Institute of Economic Affairs (http://www.iea.org.uk/)
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (http://www.wbcsd.ch/)
Individual companies

Environmental Pressure Groups

Friends of the Earth (http://www.foe.co.uk/)
Greenpeace (http:// greenpeace.org.uk/)
Worldwide Fund for Nature (http://www.panda.org/)

UK Governmental bodies

Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions (http://www.detr.gov.uk/)
Environment Agency (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/)
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/CR_div/)

UK Academic Institutions

Atmospheric Research and Information Centre, Manchester Metropolitan University (http:www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/)
Birmingham Climate and Atmospheric Research Centre, University of Birmingham (http://bham.ac.uk/geography/met/bcar.htm)
Buxton Climate Change Impacts Laboratory, University of Sheffield (http://shef.ac.uk/~nuocpe/bccil/)
Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia (http://www.uea.ac.uk/environment/cserge/)
Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/)

Notes:

(1) Summary reports prepared for policymakers are available on the internet at: http://ipcc.ch/reports.htm

(2) See, for example, Climate Model Simulations Versus Climate Reality – The Heated Debate Continues (pp. 39-51) by Robert C. Balling, Jnr. in Morris, Julian (ed) (1997) Climate Change: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom (London: Institute of Economic Affairs).

(3) There are, of course, other possibilities. For example, the report could be inconclusive; or contain evidence suggesting that relatively rapid climate change will occur – but without posing a serious threat to society and the environment; or contain evidence suggesting that relatively slow climate change will occur – but that the consequences, nonetheless, will be serious; and so on.