̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Mike Hulme

Opinion: Why and how to debate climate change

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:10:27 +0000

I have used classroom debates about climate change in my higher education teaching for over a decade--with environmental science and geography students and with final year undergraduates and Master’s students. For a wicked problem like climate change, where there is no single correct position on how to deal with the challenge, nor why it should be dealt with this way, nor by whom, I have found that structured debates become effective learning devices for students.

Stylised debating positions allow the interweaving of both descriptive (‘this is known’) and prescriptive (‘this is right’) arguments. In other words, through debate students learn not only about the state of academic knowledge on a topic but also see how scientific knowledge is politically and ethically sterile unless it is interpreted using strong normative reasoning. To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, it is necessary to pass judgment on the facts to be able to act politically in the world. Furthermore, through debate students learn that such reasoning often leads to disagreement. But they also learn that disagreement, far from being innately destructive, can be an opportunity for self-reflection and personal learning

There is rising concern about the narrowness of students’ educational experiences and their lack of exposure to people and/or views with which they disagree. There is also growing evidence of online echo chambers and strong social sorting feeding the rise of identity politics and populism in many societies. We owe our students a learning experience which exposes and explains the reasons for answering in different ways the challenging questions posed by climate change.

It is for these reasons that I have developed a new student textbook - Contemporary Climate Change Debates: A Student Primer, published this month by Routledge - that will help students develop their own well-informed position without being told what to think. ̽��ֱ��15 selected debates illustrate the range of cultural, economic, epistemic, ethical, legal, political, social and technological challenges raised by climate change. Each chapter addresses one of these debates, with invited leading and emerging scholars answering either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to each question, laying out the evidential and normative grounds—the descriptive and prescriptive bases--for their competing positions.

̽��ֱ��authors are selected from 12 different countries, drawing equally across gender and from a variety of disciplinary and value commitments. Questions of perspective, identity, value, judgment and prescription are central to many of the disagreements fostered by climate change. My approach leans more on the humanities tradition than on that of the natural or social sciences, but its appeal is to students of climate change across the sciences, social sciences and humanities.

Examining these questions, and understanding how and why different scholars analyse and answer them in different ways, is a crucial learning experience for any student of climate change whether at high school, college or university. Students should be able to arrive at answers to complex questions, giving credible and reasonable accounts of their reasoning, without mere appeal to the authority of others or to calling down your own social identity. To quote philosopher Richard Foley, scholars and students alike “… should minimise the reliance on the opinions of others ‘floating in their brains’ and should instead to the extent possible arrive at conclusions there are able to defend on their own”.

It is important in a democracy to learn to disagree well, to realise that people with whom you disagree are not necessarily misguided, malicious or out to harm you. Their own life experience, education, moral or value commitments, might just mean that they see and interpret the world differently. Being able to recognise this, being able to engage in respectful debate and to learn from your antagonist, is the essence of learning. It helps break a deepening and polarising partisanship which is anathema for democratic deliberation.

Using labels to denigrate one’s opponent without considering in detail the reasons for their views, is a tactic used to ‘win an argument’ without in fact winning the argument. Calling out your opponent as a climate ‘denier’ or ‘contrarian’—or indeed as a climate ‘alarmist’ or ‘zealot’--does nothing to encourage constructive dialogue. Rather what is needed is a clear articulation of the different values that are at stake in the dispute and then to engage in political processes to explore and reach decisions about what to do. Simply listening to “the science” provides no shortcut to this challenging and often messy task. Debating with people who see, think and feel differently about climate change is essential.

What's the best way to debate a problem as big and complex as climate change? In his new book, Professor Mike Hulme from the Department of Geography argues that students need to develop their own well-informed position on the difficult questions raised by climate change without being told what to think.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Crowd holding signs

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Two new Climate Change Master's programmes launched at Cambridge

sc604 — Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:44:01 +0000

̽��ֱ��two Master's programmes, in Anthropocene Studies and Holocene Climates, will welcome their first students in October 2020 and will be hosted in the Department of Geography. They are among the first Master's degrees in the world to study the connected issues of global change, past, present and future from such a cross-disciplinary vantage point. Students on both programmes will complete a common course in interdisciplinary thinking and analysis.

̽��ֱ��programmes will provide students with deep insights into the processes and outcomes of global change in the past and equip them with the tools to understand and question the processes of human and planetary change and transformation taking place now and into the future.

Applications to both programmes are now open, and potential students can find out more at the upcoming postgraduate open day on Friday, 1 November.

̽��ֱ��MPhil in Anthropocene Studies will provide students with the knowledge and skills to study, explore and critique the implications, tensions and challenges inherent in the idea of the Anthropocene: the proposed ‘age of humans’ which reflects the enormous impact of humanity on our planet.

What does it mean for humanity to be considered a geological force? Who might promote, and who might resist, this proposed language signifying the age of humans? How might this idea change how people think ethically about the environment, themselves and their actions in the world? How can the sciences, social sciences and humanities each contribute towards understanding the profound challenges that the Anthropocene signifies?

̽��ֱ��Anthropocene Studies programme is led by prominent geographer and climate change scholar Professor Mike Hulme. He established the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in 2000 and is the author of the book ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change’.

“ ̽��ֱ��academic discipline of geography is perfectly placed to scrutinise the contested idea of the Anthropocene … and to do so in a fresh and holistic manner,” he said. “Geographers recognise and value the multiple ways people come to create and know their worlds and we explore the interactions between human life and environmental change that lie at the heart of the Anthropocene provocation.”

̽��ֱ��Holocene Climates MPhil, led by Professor Ulf Büntgen, will develop students’ expertise at the interface of climate and history in a new way, beginning from the premise that exchange and dialogue across different disciplines should be normal practice.

̽��ֱ��programme will focus on the generation, interpretation and integration of different forms of evidence of past climate change and variability, addressing questions such as: How and why has climate varied during the Holocene? How have such changes and subsequent environmental factors interacted with ecological and societal processes and systems? How might this evidence of past climate change guide today’s responses to future change?

Together with his colleagues, Professor Büntgen conducts fieldwork all over the world, researching the causes and consequences of changes in the Earth’s climate system across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales.

“With its academic expertise, sub-disciplinary breadth and state-of-the-art laboratory infrastructure, Cambridge’s Department of Geography offers a unique opportunity to address a multitude of interrelated questions associated with the entanglements of the volcano-climate-human nexus throughout the Holocene,” he said. “Due to their conceptual understanding of the complexity of past climate variability and human history, geographers are in the pole position to reach out to other disciplines within the natural and social sciences and even the humanities.”

̽��ֱ��two programmes will enhance students’ careers, whether inside or outside academia, public or private sectors, national or international organisations, or in developed or developing world contexts. ̽��ֱ��degrees are designed to accommodate students with a wide range of first-degree backgrounds and are open to international, EU and UK students.

Cambridge researchers are working across the sciences, engineering, humanities and social sciences to develop solutions to climate change. In addition, the ̽��ֱ�� is shortly due to launch Cambridge Zero, an ambitious climate change initiative bringing together the wide range of climate-related research happening at the ̽��ֱ��.

̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge is launching two new climate-focused graduate programmes, exploring the past and potential futures of the interaction between the planet and humanity, to train a new generation of creative and innovative leaders to respond to our most pressing global challenge.

Ulf Büntgen

Alps Tree branch

Yes

Opinion: Betting on speculative geoengineering may risk an escalating ‘climate debt crisis’

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:24:38 +0000

̽��ֱ��opening of the Oscar-winning film ̽��ֱ��Big Short, a comedy-drama on the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, begins with a famous quote: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

This phrase captures one of the main reasons why the US housing bubble popped in 2008, triggering the worst economic recession since the 1930s. ̽��ֱ��movie portrays an eccentric hedge fund manager discussing the idea of betting against subprime mortgage bonds. ̽��ֱ��investment bankers, at first, reply politely: “Those bonds only fail if millions of Americans don’t pay mortgages. That’s never happened in history.”

But it happened. And as a consequence, many people worldwide have suffered severely, and the enduring effects still haunt us, politically and economically, even a decade later.

In a new paper published in Climate Policy, we argue that a similar tragic “debt crisis” could unfold for climate change. ̽��ֱ��“debt” would be measured in excess carbon emissions, which will keep accumulating until we reach net-zero. In this scenario, the bankers are those who assume that the debt will be paid back by removing carbon from the atmosphere.

But such a bet will be necessary if we recklessly embark on the strategy of reducing emissions slowly and removing carbon later, while in the meantime using speculative technology to block out heat from the sun. Among climate scientists and policy analysts, this is the so-called temperature “overshoot and peak-shaving” scenario.

‘Overshoot and peak-shaving’

In December 2015, the world adopted the Paris Agreement and pledged to limit global temperature rise well below 2℃ – if not 1.5℃ – above pre-industrial levels. Despite that, global CO₂ emissions continue to rise.

̽��ֱ��slow and uneven pace of global emissions reductions is increasing the likelihood of “overshoot” scenarios, in which warming will temporarily exceed 1.5 or 2°C, but will later fall to the target temperature through the large-scale deployment of negative emissions technologies. These remove CO₂ from the atmosphere by, for example, planting trees or scrubbing it through chemical filters and burying it deep underground.

But the world would still need to adapt to the impacts of increased warming during the overshooting period. Because of this concern, the idea of so-called “peak-shaving” has also emerged among some scientists who want to avoid such an overshoot by temporarily using solar geoengineering.

Solar geoengineering means dimming sunlight itself. In theory, the Earth could be cooled very quickly by, for example, spraying sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere.

Small particles in the upper atmosphere could reflect a few percent of incoming solar radiation. Hughhunt, CC BY-SA

̽��ֱ��concept of an “overshoot and peak-shaving” scenario is therefore based on the temporary use of solar geoengineering, combined with large-scale deployment of negative emissions technologies.

In this scenario, the two technologies are in a mutually dependent relationship – solar geoengineering is used to keep the temperature down for the time being, while negative emissions technologies are used to reduce atmospheric CO₂ to the point where solar geoengineering is no longer needed.

Emissions debt and temperature debt

But this assumed reciprocity may not work as intended. Here, the notion of debt is useful. As the sociologist Lisa Adkins suggests, the logic of debt rests on a promise to pay (back) in the future. In this sense, both overshooting and peak-shaving can be seen as acts of “borrowing” or “creating debt”.

Overshooting avoids reducing carbon emissions today by effectively borrowing emissions from the future (creating “emissions debt”), with a promise to pay back that debt later through negative emissions technologies.

Peak-shaving is borrowing global temperature (creating “temperature debt”) through the temporary use of solar geoengineering to cancel excess warming until the point when no further borrowing, of either sort, is needed.

In such an outcome the world will take on a double debt: “emissions debt” and “temperature debt”.

Emissions debt results from the near-term excess of CO₂ emissions in the overshoot compared to the non-overshoot scenario, while temperature debt results from the temporary masking of warming committed by excess emissions above the target temperature. Asayama & Hulme

̽��ֱ��analogy with housing loans

̽��ֱ��fact of being indebted may not sound so bad. (Almost everyone has a debt of some kind in their everyday life, right?) But the key question is: can we duly pay off this “climate debt”? How credible is the promise?

Here, the analogy with housing loans is most useful for properly rating the riskiness of such debt repayment.

Given that overshoot allows slow rates of emissions reductions by “promising” that delays can be compensated later through carbon removal, this looks a bit like borrowing an adjustable-rate subprime mortgage loan. Peak-shaving, on the other hand, is more like borrowing additional loans for “home improvement”, which maintains house values – (keeps global temperature constant during the overshooting period).

Since most negative emissions technologies are still speculative or under development, overshoot should be rated like a subprime loan with a high risk of default. Just as American homeowners weren’t able to keep paying their mortgages after all, so negative emissions technologies may never be an effective enough way to take carbon out of the atmosphere.

This doesn’t sound like a secure, feasible investment. ̽��ֱ��failure to keep the overshoot promise of later repayment would lead to endless peak-shaving. Solar geoengineering would become an ongoing necessity – an unpayable massive “climate debt” accumulating year-by-year.

Framing matters — let’s not blind ourselves

Concerns over crossing so-called “tipping points” – paving the way toward a “hothouse Earth” – may push some people towards accepting overshooting and peak-shaving. But because this is a speculative scenario, it matters how we frame it.

Some scientists say that solar geoengineering is like a drug to lower high-blood pressure – an overdose is harmful, but a “well-chosen” and limited dose can lower your risks, helping you have a healthier life.

They suggest that solar geoengineering is not a substitute for cutting emissions but a supplement for containing global temperature increases. But this works only if negative emissions technologies are rolled out very swiftly on a massive scale.

̽��ֱ��housing loans analogy sheds light on an important assumption that is implicitly built into such a scenario, namely that overshooting is simply like borrowing money (for example, a mortgage) and that people pay back mortgages. This was also the unquestioned assumption in the run up to the US housing market crisis and it created the systemic failure to notice the growing risk of the bubble bursting.

We shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that a similar “debt crisis” will not happen for managing the risk of climate change. Beware the dubious promises of “overshoot and peak-shaving” technologies – they may well turn out to be risky subprime loans.

This article is republished from ̽��ֱ��Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A bold response to the world’s greatest challenge
̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge is building on its existing research and launching an ambitious new environment and climate change initiative. Cambridge Zero is not just about developing greener technologies. It will harness the full power of the ̽��ֱ��’s research and policy expertise, developing solutions that work for our lives, our society and our biosphere.

Professor Mike Hulme and Dr Shinichiro Asayama from Cambridge's Department of Geography discuss the climate 'debt crisis' and why geoengineering may make it worse, in this article originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Cambridge Science Festival returns for milestone 25th year

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:48:27 +0000

Celebrating its 25th year, the Festival runs for two weeks from 11-24 March and explores the theme of ‘discoveries’. An impressive line-up of acclaimed scientists includes microscopist Professor Dame Pratibha Gai, Astronomer Royal Professor Lord Martin Rees, 2018 Nobel prize winner Sir Gregory Winter, geneticist Dr Giles Yeo, statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter, engineer Dr Hugh Hunt, marine biologist and author Helen Scales, THIS Institute Director Professor Mary Dixon-Woods, futurist Mark Stevenson, and science presenter Steve Mould.

̽��ֱ��full programme is teeming with events ranging from debates, talks, exhibitions, workshops and interactive activities to films, comedy and performances, held in lecture theatres, museums, cafes and galleries around Cambridge. There are events for all ages and most are free.
With so many events on offer, audiences will be spoilt for choice. Some of the biggest events in week one include:

Is technology making us miserable? (11 March). Virtually every interaction we have is mediated through technology. Despite being ‘always-on’, are we any better off? Are we better connected? Or is technology making us miserable?
Putting radioactivity in perspective (12 March). Following a renewal of electricity generated by nuclear power, Professors Ian Farnan and Gerry Thomas, Imperial College London, discuss radioactivity in the natural world and the outcomes of decades of study on the health effects of radiation. Could these research outcomes reset attitudes towards radiation and the risks?
̽��ֱ��universe of black holes (13 March). Christopher Reynolds, Plumian Professor of Astronomy, describes how future research into black holes may yet again change our view of reality.
̽��ֱ��long-term perspective of climate change (14 March). Professors Ulf Büntgen, Mike Hulme, Christine Lane, Hans W Linderholm, Clive Oppenheimer, Baskar Vira, and Paul J Krusic discuss how we investigate past climate and the challenges we face in applying this to the policy-making process.
Catalytic activation of renewable resources to make polymers and fuels (15 March). Professor Charlotte Williams, ̽��ֱ�� of Oxford, discusses the development of catalysts able to transform carbon dioxide into methanol, a process which may deliver more sustainable liquid transport fuels in the future.
Does the mother ever reject the fetus? (15 March). Professor Ashley Moffett discusses fetal rejection and explores new discoveries that show that there are multiple mechanisms to ensure there is a peaceful environment in the uterus, where the placenta is allowed to grow and develop to support the fetus.

Top picks for the second week include:

Cambridge gravity lecture: Sir Gregory Winter (18 March). Sir Gregory is a molecular biologist and 2018 Nobel Laureate best known for his work on developing technologies to make therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. His research has led to antibody therapies for cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.
Discoveries leading to new treatments for dementia (18 March). Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Associate Director of the UK Dementia Research Institute, Giovanna Mallucci discusses how new research leading to insights into dementia and degenerative brain diseases may lead to new treatments.
Improving quality and safety in healthcare (19 March). THIS Institute Director Professor Mary Dixon-Woods looks at the challenges to improving quality and safety in healthcare and considers why it’s so hard to answer the question: Does quality improvement actually improve quality? With Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief of ̽��ֱ��BMJ.
Immunology: the future of medicine? (19 March) Professor Clare Bryant and a panel of Cambridge immunologists discuss how understanding disease triggers may enable entirely new approaches to treating and potentially preventing disease.
Polar ocean: the dead end of plastic debris (19 March). An estimated 80% of all the litter in our oceans is plastic, and a significant concentration of plastics debris is found in both polar oceans. ̽��ֱ��impact of this debris on the sensitive polar ecosystem could be profound. Pelagic marine ecologist Dr Clara Manno, British Antarctic Survey, explores the current research and existing situation in the polar regions.
Reluctant futurist (19 March). Old models for healthcare, education, food production, energy supply and government are creaking under the weight of modern challenges. Futurist Mark Stevenson looks at the next 30 years and asks, how can we re-invent ourselves for the future?
Adolescent mental health: resilience after childhood adversity (20 March). Adolescence is characterised by huge physiological changes as well as a rapid rise in mental health disorders. Around 45% of adolescent mental health problems are caused by childhood difficulties but fortunately not all who experience difficulties develop mental health disorders. Dr Anne-Laura van Harmelen discusses mechanisms that may help adolescents with a history of childhood difficulty to become more resilient.
Making algorithms trustworthy (21 March). Increasingly, algorithms are being used to make judgements about sensitive parts of our lives. How do we check how their conclusions were arrived at, and if they are valid and fair? Professor David Spiegelhalter looks at efforts to make algorithms transparent and trustworthy, using systems that make predictions for people with cancer as an example.
On the future: prospects for humanity (22 March). Professor Lord Martin Rees argues that humanity’s prospects on Earth and in space depend on our taking a different approach to planning for tomorrow.

This year’s Cambridge Science Festival also celebrates significant milestones in science, including the 200th anniversary of Cambridge Philosophical Society, Cambridge’s oldest scientific society, and 150 years since the publication of the modern Periodic Table.

Speaking ahead of the Festival, Dr Lucinda Spokes, Festival Manager, said: “We are tremendously proud of this year’s programme due to the variety of events and the calibre of our speakers from a range of institutions and industries.

“Alongside the meatier topics we have an array of events for all ages and interests across both weekends. We have everything from the science of perfumery and how your mood affects your taste, to a science version of 'Would I Lie to You?'

“One of my personal top picks are the open days at the various institutes and departments based at the West Cambridge site on Saturday 23 March. As always, the site is hosting some truly fascinating events, everything from the future of construction and how to make Alexa smarter, to how nanotechnology is opening up new routes in healthcare, and state-of-the-art approaches to low-cost solar energy and high-efficiency lighting solutions.

“A Festival of this magnitude would not be possible without the help from many people; we thank all our scientists, supporters, partners and sponsors, without whom the Festival would not happen. Most of all, we thank the audiences – there are more than 60,000 visits to the Festival events every year. We very much look forward to welcoming everyone from all ages to join us in March to explore the fabulous world of science.”

You can download the full programme here.

Bookings open on Monday 11 February at 11am.

This year’s Festival sponsors and partners are Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� Press, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Illumina, TTP Group, Science AAAS, Anglia Ruskin ̽��ֱ��, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge Science Centre, Cambridge Junction, IET, Hills Road 6th Form College, British Science Week, Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� Health Partners, Cambridge Academy for Science and Technology, and Walters Kundert Charitable Trust. Media Partners: BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and Cambridge Independent.

̽��ֱ��2019 Cambridge Science Festival is set to host more than 350 events as it explores a range of issues that affect today’s world, from challenges around climate change policy, improving safety and quality in healthcare, and adolescent mental health, to looking at what the next 25 years holds for us and whether quantum computers can change the world.

We have everything from the science of perfumery and how your mood affects your taste, to a science version of 'Would I Lie to You?'

Dr Lucinda Spokes

Yes