- Email: [email protected]
Editorial: It's the climate, stupid
New Science Publications
Editorial–
Editor Jeremy Webb Personal Asst & Office Manager Anita Staff Associate Editors Liz Else, Stephanie Pain News Editor Rowan Hooper Editors Linda Geddes, Helen Knight, Celeste Biever, Richard Fisher Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1206 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Reporters LONDON Andy Coghlan, Hazel Muir, Paul Marks, Zeeya Merali [email protected] BOSTON US Bureau Chief Ivan Semeniuk David L. Chandler [email protected] Celeste Biever [email protected] Gregory T. Huang [email protected] SAN FRANCISCO Bureau Chief Peter Aldhous [email protected] Michael Reilly [email protected] Jim Giles [email protected] TORONTO Alison Motluk [email protected] BRUSSELS Debora MacKenzie [email protected] MELBOURNE Australasian Editor Rachel Nowak [email protected] Features Editors Ben Crystall, Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen, Graham Lawton, Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page, Caroline Williams Features Assistant Celia Guthrie Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1201 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Opinion Editor Jo Marchant Editors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter, Alison George, Eleanor Harris Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Researcher Lucy Middleton Editorial Assistant Nigel McPaul Production Editor Mick O’Hare Asst Production Editor Melanie Green Chief Sub John Liebmann Subeditors Vivienne Greig, Julia Brown, Sean O’Neill Art Editor Alison Lawn Design Craig Mackie, Ryan Wills Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave Johnston Pictures Adam Goff, Kirstin Jennings Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Careers Editor Helen Thomson [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1248 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Consultants Alun Anderson, Stephen Battersby, Michael Bond, Michael Brooks, Marcus Chown, Rob Edwards, Richard Fifield, Barry Fox, Mick Hamer, Jeff Hecht, Bob Holmes, Justin Mullins, Fred Pearce, Helen Phillips, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines, Gabrielle Walker, Emma Young, Anil Ananthaswamy Press Office and Syndication UK Claire Bowles Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1250 US Office Tel +1 617 386 2190 NEWSCIENTIST.COM Online Publisher John MacFarlane Deputy Online Editor Shaoni Bhattacharya Editors Maggie McKee, Will Knight Reporters Tom Simonite, Roxanne Khamsi, David Shiga, Catherine Brahic, Sandrine Ceurstemont, Michael Marshall [email protected] Online Subeditor Dan Palmer Web team Neela Das, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner, Ken Wolf, Edin Hodzic, Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey
www.newscientist.com
It’s the climate, stupid November’s election will leave a legacy lasting for generations THREE of the most controversial ingredients in politics – race, gender and age – are conspiring to make this year’s US presidential election one of the most engrossing ever. After seven years of a president from the most predictable demographic (white, male, middle-aged) Americans are facing the prospect of being led by a woman, a black man or a man into his eighth decade (and we’re not talking about Ralph Nader). Voters are bound to be influenced by the personal characteristics of the candidates, just as they will be by economic considerations. But there is another factor that many Americans will hopefully be taking just as seriously because of its future impact on everyone’s lives: how the candidates plan to deal with climate change. All of them appear to recognise the urgency of this issue – to the relief of those who have watched the Bush administration’s attempts to brush it under the carpet. John McCain, the leading Republican, has pledged to introduce a trading system to help reduce US carbon emissions by 60 per cent compared with 1990 levels by 2050. Both Democratic contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have gone further, proposing 80 per cent cuts by 2050 (see page 8). To ensure that such matters get a proper airing, a group backed by several thousand leading scientists and scientific institutions has launched a campaign to persuade Clinton, Obama, McCain and Republican second-placer Mike Huckabee to take part in a presidential debate on science. Lawrence Krauss, one of the organisers, wrote in this magazine two weeks ago that such an event was necessary because our quality of life depends intimately on science and technology and the ability of the US to use them wisely to improve the world (New Scientist, 16 February, p 50). Whether or not that message gets through to voters will depend on the candidates’
determination to keep climate change in the public consciousness – and in McCain’s case to stick to his guns in the face of opposition from some others in his party. They would all be wise to place it centre stage, given what we know about Americans’ fears over global warming: a poll conducted last year by New Scientist and Stanford University found that 7 out of 10 wanted Washington to do more to tackle the threat (New Scientist, “Ignoring global 23 June 2007, p 16). Long-term warming would environmental issues lead to an have a habit of dropping down the economic crisis agenda at election that would cut time. People’s living standards primary concern is the economy, and the by a fifth” future beyond the next four years can seem too far off to contemplate. Yet ultimately climate change is an economic problem too: failure to deal with it will not so much hit people in the pocket as pull them over by the coat-tails in coming decades. Consider the warning by Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, who in a 2006 report for the UK government predicted that doing nothing about global warming would lead to an economic crisis that would cut living standards by a fifth and trigger a prolonged global recession (New Scientist, 4 November 2006, p 5). Those who oppose climate legislation on the grounds that it could hurt the economy are being dangerously short-sighted. It’s time to take the long view. A new study shows that delaying cutting emissions by even a few years would have a devastating impact on atmospheric temperatures (see page 14). If elections are all about the economy, the climate should play a big role in this one. ●
ARE you a graduate with a burning desire to be a science and technology journalist? New Scientist’s editorial trainee scheme, which runs for six months, provides paid work experience and training in our London office. The start date is negotiable. Applicants need a degree in science or technology and should demonstrate their flair for journalism by sending in an unpublished article of not more than 400 words describing a recent advance in science or technology. The article should be written in New Scientist style. Applications, including a CV, the 400-word article and any published writing, should reach us by 21 March, either by email to [email protected] or by post to the London office. There is no application form and no further details can be provided.
1 March 2008 | NewScientist | 5
Editorial–
Editor Jeremy Webb Personal Asst & Office Manager Anita Staff Associate Editors Liz Else, Stephanie Pain News Editor Rowan Hooper Editors Linda Geddes, Helen Knight, Celeste Biever, Richard Fisher Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1206 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Reporters LONDON Andy Coghlan, Hazel Muir, Paul Marks, Zeeya Merali [email protected] BOSTON US Bureau Chief Ivan Semeniuk David L. Chandler [email protected] Celeste Biever [email protected] Gregory T. Huang [email protected] SAN FRANCISCO Bureau Chief Peter Aldhous [email protected] Michael Reilly [email protected] Jim Giles [email protected] TORONTO Alison Motluk [email protected] BRUSSELS Debora MacKenzie [email protected] MELBOURNE Australasian Editor Rachel Nowak [email protected] Features Editors Ben Crystall, Kate Douglas, Clare Wilson, David Cohen, Graham Lawton, Valerie Jamieson, Michael Le Page, Caroline Williams Features Assistant Celia Guthrie Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1201 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Opinion Editor Jo Marchant Editors John Hoyland, Amanda Gefter, Alison George, Eleanor Harris Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1240 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 [email protected] Researcher Lucy Middleton Editorial Assistant Nigel McPaul Production Editor Mick O’Hare Asst Production Editor Melanie Green Chief Sub John Liebmann Subeditors Vivienne Greig, Julia Brown, Sean O’Neill Art Editor Alison Lawn Design Craig Mackie, Ryan Wills Graphics Nigel Hawtin, Dave Johnston Pictures Adam Goff, Kirstin Jennings Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Careers Editor Helen Thomson [email protected] Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1248 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Consultants Alun Anderson, Stephen Battersby, Michael Bond, Michael Brooks, Marcus Chown, Rob Edwards, Richard Fifield, Barry Fox, Mick Hamer, Jeff Hecht, Bob Holmes, Justin Mullins, Fred Pearce, Helen Phillips, Ian Stewart, Gail Vines, Gabrielle Walker, Emma Young, Anil Ananthaswamy Press Office and Syndication UK Claire Bowles Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1210 Fax 7611 1250 US Office Tel +1 617 386 2190 NEWSCIENTIST.COM Online Publisher John MacFarlane Deputy Online Editor Shaoni Bhattacharya Editors Maggie McKee, Will Knight Reporters Tom Simonite, Roxanne Khamsi, David Shiga, Catherine Brahic, Sandrine Ceurstemont, Michael Marshall [email protected] Online Subeditor Dan Palmer Web team Neela Das, Cathy Tollet, Ruth Turner, Ken Wolf, Edin Hodzic, Vivienne Griffith, Rohan Creasey
www.newscientist.com
It’s the climate, stupid November’s election will leave a legacy lasting for generations THREE of the most controversial ingredients in politics – race, gender and age – are conspiring to make this year’s US presidential election one of the most engrossing ever. After seven years of a president from the most predictable demographic (white, male, middle-aged) Americans are facing the prospect of being led by a woman, a black man or a man into his eighth decade (and we’re not talking about Ralph Nader). Voters are bound to be influenced by the personal characteristics of the candidates, just as they will be by economic considerations. But there is another factor that many Americans will hopefully be taking just as seriously because of its future impact on everyone’s lives: how the candidates plan to deal with climate change. All of them appear to recognise the urgency of this issue – to the relief of those who have watched the Bush administration’s attempts to brush it under the carpet. John McCain, the leading Republican, has pledged to introduce a trading system to help reduce US carbon emissions by 60 per cent compared with 1990 levels by 2050. Both Democratic contenders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have gone further, proposing 80 per cent cuts by 2050 (see page 8). To ensure that such matters get a proper airing, a group backed by several thousand leading scientists and scientific institutions has launched a campaign to persuade Clinton, Obama, McCain and Republican second-placer Mike Huckabee to take part in a presidential debate on science. Lawrence Krauss, one of the organisers, wrote in this magazine two weeks ago that such an event was necessary because our quality of life depends intimately on science and technology and the ability of the US to use them wisely to improve the world (New Scientist, 16 February, p 50). Whether or not that message gets through to voters will depend on the candidates’
determination to keep climate change in the public consciousness – and in McCain’s case to stick to his guns in the face of opposition from some others in his party. They would all be wise to place it centre stage, given what we know about Americans’ fears over global warming: a poll conducted last year by New Scientist and Stanford University found that 7 out of 10 wanted Washington to do more to tackle the threat (New Scientist, “Ignoring global 23 June 2007, p 16). Long-term warming would environmental issues lead to an have a habit of dropping down the economic crisis agenda at election that would cut time. People’s living standards primary concern is the economy, and the by a fifth” future beyond the next four years can seem too far off to contemplate. Yet ultimately climate change is an economic problem too: failure to deal with it will not so much hit people in the pocket as pull them over by the coat-tails in coming decades. Consider the warning by Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, who in a 2006 report for the UK government predicted that doing nothing about global warming would lead to an economic crisis that would cut living standards by a fifth and trigger a prolonged global recession (New Scientist, 4 November 2006, p 5). Those who oppose climate legislation on the grounds that it could hurt the economy are being dangerously short-sighted. It’s time to take the long view. A new study shows that delaying cutting emissions by even a few years would have a devastating impact on atmospheric temperatures (see page 14). If elections are all about the economy, the climate should play a big role in this one. ●
ARE you a graduate with a burning desire to be a science and technology journalist? New Scientist’s editorial trainee scheme, which runs for six months, provides paid work experience and training in our London office. The start date is negotiable. Applicants need a degree in science or technology and should demonstrate their flair for journalism by sending in an unpublished article of not more than 400 words describing a recent advance in science or technology. The article should be written in New Scientist style. Applications, including a CV, the 400-word article and any published writing, should reach us by 21 March, either by email to [email protected] or by post to the London office. There is no application form and no further details can be provided.
1 March 2008 | NewScientist | 5