After Copenhagen failure, more to do for climate crusade, panel says

December’s Copenhagen Climate Summit failed to produce a legally binding agreement because of distrust in government and differing priorities among countries, panelists said Tuesday at Boston College.

The panel, “Climate Change Policy: The Road after Copenhagen,” was attended by about 50 people and moderated by BC professor Eric Strauss, who directs the college’s Environmental Studies Program, and featured four speakers.

Brian Gareau, an assistant professor of sociology and international studies at BC, said the Copenhagen Climate Summit failed because of discontent with United States lawmakers and scientists.

“We are less willing than ever to trust scientific expertise operating in global government structures,” Gareau said.

This is because the U.S. is experiencing a “legitimation crisis,” the process of making something acceptable in society, he said.

“In the post-Copenhagen era, I am fearful that the U.S. media has reinforced this level of distrust,” he said.

Joel Smith, vice president of environmental research firm Stratus Consulting, said that wealthier countries needed to help support developing countries as they adapt to climate change.

However, there is the problem of how to allocate funds for developing countries, Smith said.

“Money doesn’t often get to these people,” he said. “This is a real challenge.”

Visiting assistant professor of international studies at BC Elizabeth Chalecki said the cause of the failure at Copenhagen was not due to scientific uncertainty, but to the different perspectives from developed and developing nations.

Developed nations believe that everybody will suffer the effects from global warming, so everyone must pay the economic cost involved, Chalecki said.

“Developing nations disagree. They tell the developed nations, you caused the problem, you developed using fossil fuels for 150 years now,” she said. “You go first, and when we’re at your level of development, we will chip in.”

In order to overcome this problem, change needs to come from lower levels, including states, universities and individuals, she said.

“I don’t think politicians are going to get involved until they understand that this is a locally relevant issue that will impact them in their district,” Gareau said. “We need to show the local relevance ofglobal climate change and I don’t think that this will be done through more science. It needs to be done with more politics.”

Following the presentations, Strauss posed questions to the panelists.

On the question of American media portrayal of climate change, Gareau said the media misconstrues the climate change debate.

“In the media, the climate change debate is being painted as if there were an equal number of deniers and an equal number of believers in global climate change having human-induced causes,” Gareau said. “This is not a debate that is happening with climatologists.”

Americans are also exposed to far less coverage about global climate change compared to citizens Europe and Oceanic countries, Gareau said.

Climate change could also become an issue of national security, Chalecki said. It acts as an instability multiplier because when developing nations experience flooding, droughts and food and water shortages, they become even more strained, she said.

BC senior Mariana Souza, who is minoring in environmental studies, said she thought certain issues, such as sustainable development, were not discussed enough by the panelists.

Sarah King, also a BC senior minoring in environmental studies, said she had hoped the audience would be able to ask the panelists more questions and that the discussion would be less abstract.

“I wish they had focused less on specific legislation that not many people relate to or care about,” King said. “Climate change discussions are very abstract and uncertain. It would have been more valuable to discuss more proactive steps.”