So this is interesting
I'm perusing the "Plum Book" and it turns out that Kelvin Droegemeier is NOT actually the president's science advisor.
He carries only the title of OSTP director
And 9/14 positions are vacant
Actually, there is no such title as "science advisor"
Since establishment of OTSP in 1976 most "science advisors" have held the title of "special assistant to the president" but not under Bush or Trump fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R…
I think it almost certain that President Biden's "science advisor" will have the title of "special assistant to the president"
It matters: " The difference between an individual being the OSTP Director and the APST is more than semantic"
The roles of OSTP Director and Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology could, in principle, be filled by two different people
This has never happened
It would actually signify a much greater role for science advice in the White House
President-elect Biden has not named a nominee for OSTP Director or APST
The former role requires Senate confirmation to begin work, the latter could start immediately, without Senate confirmation
Reagan (2nd term), Clinton (1st term) & Obama all nominated "science advisors" before their inauguration
On average, Democratic President's have nominated a science advisor within ~2 weeks of inauguration, Republican presidents it is ~6 months
Correspondingly, OSTP staffing also reached a nadir under Trump
Though it has generally hovered at 30+/- for the past 3 decades
There little indication that @Transition46 sees a significant role for OSTP (beyond its historical role in budget & interagency coordination) or for the next "science advisor"
🧵
NYT article on US Nat’l Climate Assessment/Trump is right & wrong
“Trying to politicize or dismiss climate science is one thing when the warnings come from Democrats or academics. But this report comes from his administration’s very own agencies.”
🧵Another new paper shows implausibility of most commonly used climate scenarios - Liddicoat et al 2020 in JOC doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D…
Assuming constant 2019 CO2 emissions to 2100 (10 GtC via @gcarbonproject) gives cumulative of 1200 GtC 1850-2100, about SSP2-4.5 in Table 5⤵️
Assume net zero CO2 by 2100 give cumulative 800 GtC 1850-2100, or ~10% more than SSP1-2.6 in Table 5
Assume net zero CO2 by 2060 gives cumulative 600 GtC 1850-2100, or ~15% more than SSP1-1.9 in Table 5
Contrast:
SSP5-8.5 has 2580 GtC 1850-2100
SSP3-7.0 has 1909 GtC 1850-2100
So:
To consider SSP5-8.5 plausible requires believing that from now until 2100 the world will _average_ annual FF emissions from CO2 of about 30 GtC, or 3x that of 2019, meaning no peak until >2080 at ~50 GtC/yr
1-Integrate science advice with other forms of advice
Me-Honestly, we would all be better off if we just started using the phrase "expert advice" rather than "science advice" (2021 goals!)
2- Gov't needs to better explain trade-offs
Me- This points clearly to the need for expert advisors to offer decision alternatives, with judgments of expected costs & benefits of alternative courses of action as well as the bases for those judgments, uncertainties, trade-offs.
An interesting article from @jg_environ@michaelvandenb6 that says that it critiques arguments on climate policy advanced by me, Hulme, Sarewitz, Rayner
It is very confusing because it posits "critique" in the guise of enthusiastic agreement
On climate policy JG & MV assert "our preference for an incremental process of muddling through with polycentric governance" as somehow counter to my views, Hulmes, Hartwell etc.
Actually, this perspective is identical to my own, example from The Climate Fix below
Big role for direct air capture in the Omnibus Bill, including creation of a new Direct Air Capture Technology Advisory Board in DOE - apparently, it is coming rules.house.gov/sites/democrat…
Interesting
Act includes a prohibition on asking federal scientific advisors their political party affiliation or voting history