If I let myself be cynical (and too simplistic), I’d say that politics/business (the same two-headed beast) have always used science to their advantage – and never let the facts get in the way when their advantage wasn’t clear. Science is a tool of the powerful. It’s put down and ignored when it’s convenient.

The kind of change in legislation you seem to be indicating would call for a major cultural paradigm shift – one which exalted empiricism above all other perceptual approaches. That might be refreshing. I won’t hold my breath.

If you are implying that politicos get in bed with lots of different partners for money, and thereby are unfaithful to reason; can infect partners with non-rational thinking, condoms might be called for. However, isn’t impregnation desired for scientifically meaningful legislation to be the desired offspring of science’s intercourse with politics?

Wall Street, the fossil fuel industry, and corporate agriculture have not used a condom and birthed quite the bastard relative to what the science, and the trends in that science, need birthed: ACES/W-M.

Ha! Sound science better insist on a condom!

Interesting metaphor. Will prevaricating politics ever yield to sound science and give it the intercourse it needs?

I see that this thread is probably the wrong place to have this important discussion. Can you suggest a better thread so that more people can participate in it?

Or would you consider opening up a new thread on the question of how to set targets for 2020, 2030, 2050 and beyond? Because from either a policy viewpoint or a social change viewpoint there is almost no question of greater importance.

Best regards,
Paul

[JR: Well, here at CP, I try to marry political realism with science realism, which, like all marriages, has its ups and downs. That said, no one can truthfully claim I haven't explained in great detail "how vastly much more is needed."]

I don’t see how this report is “blind to the climate science changes.” What we are trying to avoid is a scenario where Russia continues to emit at its current rate without any check. In the current architecture of the UN framework there is nothing to bind them to curbing emissions until they hit their 1990 levels which won’t be until at least 2020. So, to get them to take emissions cuts seriously you have to engage them on the issue. We think the best way to do that is bilaterally and our research shows that the thing that could entice them to do that is engagement on energy efficiency. One might think that a small step but the intention is that it’s a small step on the way to a more ambitious outcome, which is a better agreement at Copenhagen that does correspond with targets that conform to where the science wants us to go.

Best, Andrew

[JR: One needs in 2020 targets, 2030, and 2050, and eventually beyond that. I would add that as a matter of blogging, one can't be expected to repeat every single thing one is written in every blog post. My analysis about what our 2020 target should be is online. That said, 2020 is not the be all and end all. Gettting the United States reducing its emissions along with all of the other rich countries, and it getting China sharply off of its business as usual path are the top priorities.]

The synthesis report warns that what seems to be politically possible is not an option. If the US is to affect leadership it must first effect such. This is the price that must be paid to be a leader. To date, such is not on the table (in part, because such cannot be explained in “positive” ways). Consequently, and as an aside/pun, isn’t the concept of “American Progress” an oxymoron?

That aside, the US has strategically isolated Russia via covert support for the revolutions of color to “secure” access to central Asia oil. Russia has internal economic challenges due, in part, to our actions. As a diversion marketed to its citizens as a distraction, Russia got to stick its finger in our proverbial eye in Georgia last year (and pointed blew up the key railroad bridge for current oil transport across Georgia). As long a C&T with international offsets is the only game in town, control of the transport of Central Asian oil is one of the key means for garnering wealth both while, and after the US dollar functions as the global reserve fiat currency. Isn’t BRIC only a first step in a chess game that has already been systemically lost by the US within the parameters defined by liberal hope.

“After a Rest”?!?, how about after owning up to our duplicity? Isn’t truth telling a social prerequisite for just and fair cooperation? In lieu of that, don’t they hold almost all the cards in the negotiations that this report advocates for?