Will Obama be good for climate science? Prominent UC Irvine scientist weighs in

The Orange County Register

November 7th, 2008

By Pat Brennan

President-elect Obama has urged action on climate change. But how will an Obama administration truly affect climate research and other fields of science? Answers from UC Irvine professor Michael Prather, 61, might surprise you.

Prather creates models of Earth’s climate to better understand its dynamics. He has conducted climate research for many years and has been an author on many reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He also consults with the U.S. State Department, and holds the Fred Kavli chair in Earth System Science at UCI.

When Obama takes office, how do you think he will deal with climate issues, and how might he differ from President Bush?

It’s clear that we have an economic crisis. And we also have an environmental crisis. In the environmental crisis, the Bush administration has done many things, and they include a loss of leadership by the U.S. on environmental issues. I think the most urgent action now is to set the groundwork for leadership. We have lost the high ground; we’ve even lost the intellectual leadership. Our country is playing catch up.

Do you think Obama will increase funding for climate research?

I honestly cannot see significant growth in research funding at present. With the current economic crisis, I am optimistic, and would like to see climate research sustained, but in the current environment. The issue is to really make strides in leadership. What will our Earth look like in the next 20, 30 years? This kind of leadership doesn’t cost money of the financial bailout; it costs intelligence and leadership. The question is — even before we make specific commitments to greenhouse gas mitigation — what do we think the future will look like? What will the economies and living conditions be? How must people’s habits and living styles change?

What should the planning focus on?

We’re not going to be in a recession forever. Let’s start thinking now, about our long-term goals on issues like environmental conservation, the national parks, climate change and biodiversity. Clearly energy policy is up front, with the economy. But I’d like to see a clear vision of how the mantra of “energy independence” matches with guardianship of the environment and sustainable use of other resources like clean air and water. Rather than a single direction such as ‘Let’s go forward and build hydrogen-fuel vehicles or CCS coal plants”, I would like to see a concerted and balanced effort on many fronts: from global change to energy to sustainable resources. What will the whole country look like if we develop wind and solar power? Can redesigned cities use less energy? Even with major sources of alternative energy, let’s figure out how to use it well, use it wisely.

What should the government’s role be?

In addition to the science agencies maintaining the research necessary to inform decisions, my recent experience suggests that the State Department should be out front. I know they can do it; they should be given the mandate and backing of the President, they are the ones to negotiate treaties and bring back American leadership on issues from climate change to wildlife trafficking. From my experience, they should be given the environmental leadership role, and begin creating new alliances. This I see as urgent, it does cost much, but leadership is essential in building a workable approach to environmental problems.

Are you more optimistic about science under an Obama administration than under Bush?