This is integral to the fed govt's v important carbon budget legislation (Bill C-12). Independent advice is critical to ensure govts set appropriate climate targets and stay on course. Can also provide a shared foundation of knowledge for parliamentarians. But.../1
https://twitter.com/JonathanWNV/status/1365017396491259911
There are different approaches. The UK Climate Change Committee is heavily weighted toward researchers, most from academia. theccc.org.uk/about/ /2
The Cdn one announced today is more diverse with representatives from Indigenous communities, govt, labour, ENGOs, business, academia. /3 canada.ca/en/services/en…
I see pros and cons to the Cdn approach. The Panel is more inclusive of diverse perspectives. They bring a broader range of expertise, beyond academic researcher. If these diverse stakeholders can reach agreement, it makes the politics easier for elected MPs and the govt. /4
But I worry about the risk of politicization of facts/advice. Panelists are independent of the govt, but don't have the same independence rel to their employers as do academic researchers (that's why tenure exists.) Imagine a future CAPP co-chair (terms are only 3 yrs!) /5
I worry that a stakeholder body may not achieve the same cross-party credibility as has the UK CCC. I am NOT suggesting that policy should be left to academics! But there's an argument for keeping the fact and value judgments separate /6 tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
Last I worry that there will be pressure for consensus decisions, which is one thing in academia with shared reliance on peer-reviewed scholarship (IPCC). In a stakeholder process, it empower the least ambitious member. Again, imagining that future CAPP co-chair. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
