Article 1 - Getting Serious.pdf

Bulletinof theAtomicScientists

IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

®

Feature

Getting serious about thenew realities of globalclimate change

Jennifer A. Burney, Charles F. Kennel, andDavid G. Victor

AbstractFor two decades, the central challenge facing climate-change policy makers involved efforts to control emis-sions of carbon dioxide. While diplomats looked at many different global-warming pollutants, they designedrules that mostly focused on carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, those efforts have largely failed, which hascreated yet another difficult challenge for the global community: how to manage the severe impacts of awarming world. New diplomatic strategies are needed. Diplomats must work harder on pollutants other thancarbon dioxideÑsuch as sootÑthat will be easier to regulate and can help build credibility in the internationaldiplomatic regime. New science shows that soot and short-lived climate pollutants actually cause almost halfof current global warmingÑmuch more than thought just a few years ago. Fortuitously, these pollutants arealso relatively easy to manage, and success on this front will help catalyze the political support needed for themuch more difficult, yet essential, task of making deep cuts in carbon dioxide. At the same time, the authorswrite, new thinking will be needed on how to help societies adapt, such as building networks of experts andlocal officials who are on the front lines of adaptation.

Keywordscarbon dioxide, climate change, emissions, environment, legislation, politics, short lived climate pollutants

Since 1989, diplomats from aroundthe world have been working tocraft agreements to manage the

threats associated with global climatechange. Their efforts have producedthe 1992 United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change and the1997 Kyoto Protocol. The central obliga-tions under the original Kyoto treatyexpired in 2012, but late last year manycountries agreed to extensions out to the

year 2020. A new round of talks is alsounder way to develop yet another treaty.Along the way there have been numer-ous communiqu�s, initiatives, and othergrand-sounding programs aimed at miti-gating the emissions that are now chan-ging the global climate in increasinglyvisible ways.

While diplomacy hasnÕt been in shortsupply, it hasnÕt had much practical im-pact on the rate of emissions. Worldwide,

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists69(4) 49–57

! The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0096340213493882

http://thebulletin.sagepub.com

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas pollution is at its highest level ever.Emissions of all these gases in 2010 were31 percent above 1990 levels and stillrising, even though emissions wouldneed to be cut 50 to 80 percent over thenext few decades to stabilize the climate(JRC/PBL, 2011). The worldÕs energy andagricultural systemsÑthe main causes ofhuman emissions of warming gasesÑarepointed severely in the wrong direction.

The countries that agreed to makesubstantive cuts in emissions under theoriginal Kyoto Protocol accounted forjust 60 percent of world emissions; bythe time the treaty was ratified, however,that number fell to less than one-quarter.The new, extended Kyoto treaty coversjust 14 percent of world emissions.1

Worse, most of the few areas of appar-ent progress are illusions. Across theindustrialized world, governments arecelebrating the fact that emissions arenow declining slightly. Much of thatachievement, however, stems from fac-tors like the collapse and restructuringof Eastern Europe or the unexpectedappearance of cheap and clean naturalgas from shale in the United StatesÑdevelopments that have no relationshipto treaties on global warming. Few coun-tries have intentionally made substantialcuts in emissions, and no major econ-omy is even close to being on track forcuts between 50 and 80 percent. Eventhe paragons of greenery are doing lessthan meets the eye to address a problemthey consider extremely serious. For ex-ample, since 1990, emissions from Brit-ain have declined by one-fifth, but thatbig reduction disappears when emissionsfrom all the products that Britons importare considered. Such ÒdisplacementÓ ofemissions is rampantÑapproximately one-quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions

are embodied in traded goods (Davis et al.,2011). Climate treaties specify that nationsreport emissions occurring only withintheir own sovereign borders, but suchnational accounting games do not changethe global calculus. That is, globalizationhas made it harder to get serious about cli-mate change because it has made it easierfor nations to shift emissions to those coun-tries where limits are more lax.

Meanwhile, many emerging econo-mies have been growing rapidly, mainlypowered by the most emission-intensiveof all fossil fuels: coal (Victor and Morse,2009). Indeed, most future projectionssuggest that all growth in emissions willcome from these countries. The Interna-tional Energy Agency in Paris, for exam-ple, projects that 60 percent of emissionsgrowth between now and 2035 will comefrom one coal-intensive country alone:China (IEA, 2012). Looking at such fore-casts, the rich industrialized countriesblame developing countries for theirfailure to restrain their emissions; thedeveloping countries blame the indus-trialized world for failing to acknow-ledge its historical responsibility formost of the warming societies are com-mitted to today. Neither wants to take thelead without the other. In all this diplo-matic gridlock, the only clear fact is thatthe climate is warming and poised to get alot warmer.

It is time to face new realitiesand shift strategies

Two decades ago the central challengefor policy makers was to coordinate eff-orts to control emissions. They failed.That challenge remains, but now thereis a new one: managing the economicand social risks of unchecked climatechange that have emerged because the

50 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(4)

world missed the chance to act early.Getting serious about these twin chal-lenges will require a new mind-set. Itwill also require engaging new actorsin the policy process.

Efforts are needed on two fronts

First, diplomats must fix the centralproblem in international climate talks:low credibility. ThereÕs no questionthat climate change is one of the hardestproblems that the international commu-nity has ever faced (Victor, 2011), butinternational negotiators have unwit-tingly made a difficult problem evenmore so by focusing heavily on one pol-lutant: carbon dioxide. While it is truethat the Kyoto treaty covers multiplepollutants, what countries actually em-phasize when monitoring and reportingÑthat is, the accounting system that gov-erns the Kyoto capsÑare long-lived pol-lutants, particularly carbon dioxide.Those choices reflected good intentionsat the time. However, while no climatesolution is possible without solving theproblem of carbon dioxide, the seem-ingly exclusive emphasis on this green-house gas has diverted attention fromother ways in which near-term progressto slow climate change is possible.

The politics of getting to long-termsolutions requires tackling a cruellogic. Carbon dioxide lasts more than acentury in the atmosphere (and whendissolved in the oceans lasts 1,000years) (Solomon et al., 2009). Any pro-gram to cut carbon dioxide will beexpensive, since most carbon emissionscome from burning fossil fuels and alter-natives arenÕt ready at scale. And even ifthose big costs are paid, there will be notangible impact on climate warming fordecades. Societies, as a general rule,

arenÕt good at tackling problems thathave high immediate costs, require sus-tained effort over decades, and providefew tangible benefits to those who mustfirst bear the costs.

Boosting credibility therefore re-quires focusing on parts of the climateproblem where reasonably quick, tan-gible success is possible. Some opportu-nities to do this exist. Over the past fewyears, scientists in San DiegoÑworkingwith colleagues around the worldÑhavesuggested a strategy to achieve visibleresults in a few years: launch an aggres-sive program to tackle soot and othershort-lived climate pollutants (Molinaet al., 2009; Shindell et al., 2012; Victoret al., 2012; Wallack and Ramanathan,2009). It has become clear that these pol-lutantsÑsoot in particularÑplay a muchlarger role in changing the climate thanwas thought five years ago (Bond et al.,2013; Jacobson, 2001; Ramanathan andCarmichael, 2008; Ramanathan andFeng, 2008). Slightly less than half ofcurrent global warming is due to fourcategories of non-carbon dioxide pollu-tants: dark soot particles often calledblack carbon, methane gas, lower atmos-pheric ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons(industrial gases used as coolants).Nearly all have life spans of a fewweeks to a decade, much shorter thancarbon dioxide. Yet they are potent war-mers. Emitting one ton of black carbon,for example, has the same immediateeffect on warming as emitting 500 to2,000 tons of carbon dioxide.

A second front in a new climate-policy strategyÑadaptationÑis also es-sential. Reducing emissions largely failswithout international coordination, butthe politics of adaptation to the effectsof climate change is quite different.Almost all adaptation is a solitary act.

Burney et al. 51

Each country or city or neighborhoodcan make the calculus on its own.Whether San Diego builds seawalls,nourishes its beaches to compensatefor sand lost to higher seas, or improveswildfire management is mainly a calcu-lation that San Diegans make (San DiegoFoundation, 2012). The costs are in-curred locally, and so are the benefits.

For years it has been taboo to talkabout adaptation because advocates forclimate mitigation feared that adapta-tion signaled defeat; once politiciansstarted bracing for climate change, theywouldnÕt focus on mitigation (Pielkeet al., 2007). This ÒcanÕt walk and chewgumÓ theory of politics has always beenwrong and yet is very popular amonganalysts and activists because it leadsto simple advice for politicians. (It hasalso been applied to short-lived climatepollutantsÑto this day, many advocatesfor action on carbon dioxide abhor dis-cussion of short-lived pollutants basedon the warped logic that those pollutantswill distract politicians from the need tocut carbon dioxide.)

These amateurish theories fail to takeinto account that politics isnÕt a zero-sum game. Decades of failed diplomacyhave done little but foster disbelief inthe possibility of success in fightingclimate change. And pretending thatadaptation is not a looming challengehas just made the impacts of climatechange even more dangerous for unpre-pared societies.

Getting results with short-livedclimate pollutants

The perennial failure to get much donein climate diplomacy is now feeding onitself. When major diplomatic eventslike the 2009 Copenhagen conference

end in failure, people lose faith that ser-ious solutions are feasible. Firms nolonger believe that regulation of cli-mate-altering gases is inevitable, andthey cut back on clean-energy researchand development. Politicians think theycan ignore the problem without muchpublic reproachÑas is evident espe-cially in the United States, which hashistorically led on so many other inter-national environmental issues but lagsconspicuously on climate change. Envir-onmental groups pare back climate-advocacy efforts and start talking aboutother topics, like energy security, whilehoping that the climate agenda can besneaked in. Even individual consumersthrow up their hands: Why bothermaking climate-conscious (and oftenmore expensive) choices with no signof support from leaders or institutions?Failure begets failure.

Dealing with short-lived climate pol-lutants can bring visible success to theclimate-change fight because the politicsof managing these pollutants is easier formost countries to fathom. For example,managing the most noxious short-livedclimate pollutants goes hand in handwith improving local air quality (Barkeret al., 2007). Because methane, ozone,and aerosols interact with one another,a change in the concentration of onechanges the others. Tropospheric ozoneis a major pollutant and threat to humanhealth as well as a strong warming agent;similarly, sulfate pollutants affect thewarming rate from black carbon(Ramana et al., 2010). Thus, when air-quality managers act to reduce theforms of air pollution they are alreadyfamiliar with, they also have a largeimpact on climate change and improvepublic health and agriculture (Auff-hammer et al., 2006). In short, efforts to


cut short-lived climate pollutants yieldtangible, local benefits that can helpeven reluctant nations take action. Theother bit of good news is that scientistshave learned many new ways to regulateshort-lived pollutants.

Societies know how to make deep cutsin soot because a few have already doneso. For example, CaliforniaÕs successfulprogram to limit emissions from dieselengines, power plants, and other sootysources cut black-carbon emissions inhalf in just two decades. The costs ofsoot emissions reduction are not zero,but they are manageable (EPA, 2005;UNEP, 2011). These dramatic reductionswere achieved through a suite of policiesthat capped particulate-matter emissionsacross vehicle types and encouraged useof diesel particulate filters and alternativefuels. In China and India, perhaps theworldÕs biggest emitters of soot, emissioncontrols will be even cheaper, becausethose countries can start by making theleast expensive cuts while also takingadvantage of technologies already devel-oped elsewhere in the world.

While the stars are now aligning forserious action on short-lived climatepollutants, efforts to manage carbondioxide remain mired in political diffi-culties. Until new technologies areavailable and international institutionsbuild much higher credibility, efforts tomanage this greenhouse gas will involveswimming upstream against heavy polit-ical currents. Not only are the costs andbenefits of carbon controls mismatchedin time, but the geography of costs andbenefits is also toxic to politicians. Mostof the harm caused by each nationÕscarbon dioxide is felt in other countries.Each nation, thinking about its owncosts and benefits, becomes reluctantto take action on carbon dioxide unless

confident that all others are engaged in asimilar program. Getting serious aboutcutting soot and other short-lived cli-mate pollutants wonÕt be easy, but theeffort is less likely to be derailed by self-ish, short-sighted logic. Much of theharm from short-lived climate pollutantsis felt within each nation, and so is muchof the benefit of reductions.

In part, the gridlock on global warm-ing for the past two decades reflects basicpolitical logic. Climate scientists, wor-ried about long-term global warming,have asked politicians to take heroicactions that no one keen on re-electionwould be wise to embrace. Insteadof imagining politics in the mode ofMr. Smith Goes to Washington, a smarterstrategy finds ways to align the climateproblem with the logic of real-world pol-itics. Short-lived climate pollutants canhelp immensely on that front, becausethe political logic for action on soot andother such pollutants involves swim-ming with the current.

Success with short-lived climate pol-lutants can help fix the problem of cred-ibility in international climate-changepolicy. By demonstrating that countriescan work together to make visible im-provements to the climate, mitigation ofshort-lived climate pollutants can helpbuild credibility along with practicalexperience that will be essential for themuch harder problem of tackling carbondioxide. Working hard on these short-lived emissions, starting now, is not asubstitute for serious action on long-lived pollutants like carbon dioxide. Poli-tically and environmentally they arecomplements; swift action on short-lived climate pollution could slow by afew decades some of the more severeeffects of climate warming, such as arise in sea level (Hu et al., 2013).

Burney et al. 53

Adaptation is not afour-letter word

After decades of inaction, the planet isnearing the cusp of what may be majortipping points in the climate system. Forexample, by increasing the absorption ofsunlight by the Arctic Ocean, the retreatof Arctic sea ice and snow cover is chan-ging the pattern of polar warming andincreasing its rate. The consequences forweather patterns around the world arebeginning to be felt (Liu et al., 2012;Screen and Simmonds, 2010). By workingto cut short-lived climate pollutants, majorcountries can delay these and other recon-figurations of the climate system. Even so,the need for adaptation is inescapable.

Climate adaptation isnÕt a discrete act.Done well, it is part of an overall risk-management strategy. Risk is conven-tionally defined as the product of theprobability of a given event and the mag-nitude of its impact. For decades, climate-change policy makers have focused on thefirst part of the equation by focusing onmitigation. While continued efforts toreduce the probability of catastrophic cli-mate changes remain essential, it is foolishto ignore the second factor. Adaptationhelps cut the costs of climate warming,which is critical for reducing the humantoll of climate change.

Because adaptation to climate changeis mostly an intensely local activity, ithas a cruel political logic of its ownÑalogic that has profound implications forclimate policy. The countries most vul-nerable to changing climate tend to bepoor. Poor countries have fewer re-sources to invest in adaptation; theireconomies also tend to be based moreheavily on agriculture, the economicsector most immediately vulnerable tochanges in climate and weather. The

poor countries by and large are leastresponsible for causing climate changein the first place, but they find them-selves on the front lines of an economicdisaster they didnÕt create.

There is a compelling moral argumentto help these countries adapt. Just send-ing money, however, isnÕt very practical.Most adaptation involves things thatcountries should do anywayÑfor exam-ple, some are already investing in betterstorm-warning and crop-forecasting sys-tems, since those help farmers and otherson the front lines deal with the vagariesof weather while, over the long term,probably also make them more adaptive.Calculating the Òagreed incrementalcostÓ of those programsÑthe normalstandard for international financing,widely used in other international envir-onmental treatiesÑis all but impossible.WhatÕs needed, instead, is a big invest-ment to help spread information aboutbest practicesÑan idea that in other stu-dies has been called Òknowledge actionnetworksÓ (Kennel et al., 2012). Directtechnical funding also plays a role, buteffective organization of knowledge-sharing is the key missing ingredient(Kennel, 2009; Kennel and Daultrey,2010; Rosenzweig and Wilbanks, 2010).

If, or when, it appears that warming istoo rapid and the costs of adjustment toogreat, then even more aggressive effortsto mitigate emissions will be needed.Here, too, short-lived climate pollutantshave a prominent role to play. Cuttingthem is the only means of mitigationthat can slow warming on a time scalethat is relevant for practical adaptation.Indeed, delaying some climate impactsby just a decade or two could make adap-tation much more tractable, becauseit would allow adjustments with thenormal turnover of human infrastructure.


Asking cities to deal with imminent unex-pected impacts from higher sea levels andstorms, or changing agricultural methodsunder similar hurried conditions, isexpensive. Given enough time, the costscan be folded into infrastructure andmaintenance budgetsÑan outcome thatis not just economically more efficientbut also politically more feasible. Andsystems made more resilient will prob-ably perform better, day by day.

Getting serious about climate riskmanagement will also require lookingclosely at other taboos, such as thoserelated to geoengineering. In an emer-gency, the ability to quickly respond toclimate change with crude offsettingmeasuresÑfor example, injecting re-flective particles into the upper atmos-phere to cool the planet, as volcanoesdo periodicallyÑcould be useful. Suchmeasures are fraught with the dangerof unintended consequences, but un-checked catastrophic changes in climatecould be even worse. The odds of trulycatastrophic changes in climate arerising, and the world needs insuranceagainst truly horrible outcomes (Parsonand Keith, 2013; Victor et al., 2009).

The new realities of climate change,however, are first and foremost politicalin impact. For years, it has been conveni-ent for both deniers and activists tofocus on science (Oreskes and Conway,2010). Deniers have set standards for sci-entific proof that canÕt be met, while sup-porters have claimed that the science isso ÒsettledÓ that no further motivationfor action is needed. Deniers claim thatthe science is full of holes, not goodenough to prompt immediate action.Supporters of action react by redoublingtheir efforts to bolster the scientific case.Indeed, each successive report from theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate

ChangeÑthe international body thatdoes a full assessment of climate scienceevery five to seven yearsÑhas madeincreasingly definitive warnings. If thosewarnings were sufficient, there wouldhave been political action already. In prac-tically every grand and difficult topic inscience, the experts disagree on manymatters. Scientific uncertainties are notcause for paralysis. Instead, they are fun-damental to understanding the chal-lenges of climate change as matters ofrisk management.

Inaction on climate change reflectsthe lack of a political strategy thatrewards those who take action; it is notthe product of scientific doubt. Thebeauty of science is that it is neversettled; last yearÕs results are precursorsto next yearÕs discoveries. The trick forclimate scientists of the warming gener-ationÑjust as it was for the atomic scien-tists of the bomb generationÑis to marrygood science with smart politics.

Funding

David G. Victor leads the Laboratory on InternationalLaw and Regulation at the School of InternationalRelations and Pacific Studies and is funded by theUniversity of California, San Diego; BP PLC; the Elec-tric Power Research Institute; and the NorwegianResearch Foundation. Charles F. Kennel is fundedby the University of California, San Diego; JenniferA. Burney is funded by the University of California,San Diego.

Note

1. See United Nations (1997, 2012) and BP(2012). Fractions computed based on carbondioxide emissions data reported in BP (2012)for emissions from fossil fuels. If carbondioxide emissions from changes in land use,such as deforestation, were included, thecoverage of Kyoto would be proportionallysmaller.

Burney et al. 55

References

Auffhammer M, Ramanathan V, and Vincent JR(2006) Integrated model shows that atmosphericbrown clouds and greenhouse gases havereduced rice harvests in India. PNAS 103(52):19668”19672.

Barker T, Bashmakov I, Alharti A, et al. (2007) Miti-gation from a cross-sectoral perspective. In: Cli-mate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution ofWorking Group III to the Fourth AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Cambridge and New York: CambridgeUniversity Press, chapter 11. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter11.pdf.

Bond TC, Doherty SJ, Fahey DW, et al. (2013) Bound-ing the role of black carbon in the climate system:A scientific assessment. Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Atmospheres. DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50171.

BP (2012) BP statistical review of world energy June2012. London: BP PLC. Available at: http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId¼7500&contentId¼7068481.

Davis SJ, Peters GP, and Caldeira K (2011) The sup-ply chain of CO2 emissions. PNAS 108(45):18554”18559.

EPA (2005) National clean diesel campaign: Innova-tive strategies for cleaner air, 2005 progress report.Washington, DC: United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

Hu A, Xu Y, Tebaldi C, et al. (2013) Mitigation ofshort-lived climate pollutants slows sea levelrise. Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1869.

IEA (2012) World energy outlook 2012. Paris: Interna-tional Energy Agency. Available at: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2012/.

Jacobson MZ (2001) Strong radiative heating due tothe mixing state of black carbon in atmosphericaerosols. In: Letters to Nature. Nature 409(Febru-ary): 695”697.

JRC/PBL (2011) Emission database for global atmos-pheric research (EDGAR), release version 4.2.Joint Research Centre of the European Commis-sion/Netherlands Environmental AssessmentAgency (PBL). Available at: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu.

Kennel CF (2009) Climate change: Think globally,assess regionally, act locally. Issues in Scienceand Technology 25(2). Available at: http://www.issues.org/25.2/kennel.html.

Kennel CF and Daultrey S (2010) Knowledge actionnetworks: Connecting regional climate changeassessments to local action. University of

California e-scholarship, February. Available at:http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8gd6j0k5.

Kennel C, Goldin D, Clark M, et al. (2012) Knowledgeaction networks and regional climate changeadaptation. Declaration of the Adjunct Sessionof the 2012 Science and Technology in SocietyForum, Kyoto, October 6”9.

Liu J, Curry JA, Wang H, et al. (2012) Impact of declin-ing Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall. PNAS109(11): 4074”4079.

Molina M, Zaelke D, Sarma KM, et al. (2009) Redu-cing abrupt climate change risk using the Mon-treal Protocol and other regulatory actions tocomplement cuts in CO2 emissions. PNAS106(49): 20616”20621.

Oreskes N and Conway EM (2010) Merchants ofDoubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured theTruth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to GlobalWarming. New York: Bloomsbury.

Parson EA and Keith DW (2013) End the deadlock ongovernance of geoengineering research. Science339(6125): 1278”1279.

Pielke R, Prins G, and Rayner S (2007) Climatechange 2007: Lifting the taboo on adaptation.Nature 445(February): 597”598.

Ramana MV, Ramanathan V, Feng Y, et al. (2010)Warming influenced by the ratio of black carbonto sulphate and the black-carbon source. NatureGeoscience 3(8): 542”545.

Ramanathan V and Carmichael G (2008) Global andregional climate changes due to black carbon.Nature Geoscience 1(4): 221”227.

Ramanathan V and Feng Y (2008) On avoiding dan-gerous anthropogenic interference with the cli-mate system: Formidable challenges ahead.PNAS 105(38): 14245”14250.

Rosenzweig C and Wilbanks T (2010) The stateof climate change vulnerability, impacts, andadaptation research: Strengthening knowledgebase and community. Climatic Change 100(1):103”106.

San Diego Foundation (2012) Sea level rise: Adapta-tion strategy for San Diego Bay. Available at:http://www.sdfoundation.org/Portals/0/Newsroom/PDF/Reports/SLRAStrategy_Exec_Sum.pdf.

Screen JA and Simmonds I (2010) The central role ofdiminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperatureamplification. Nature 464(7293): 1334”1337.

Shindell D, Kuylenstierna JCI, Vignati E, et al. (2012)Simultaneously mitigating near-term climatechange and improving human health and foodsecurity. Science 335(6065): 183”189.

Solomon S, Plattner G, Knutti R, et al. (2009) Irrever-sible climate change due to carbon dioxide emis-sions. PNAS 106(6): 1704”1709.


UNEP (2011) Near-term climate protection and cleanair benefits: Actions for controlling short-livedclimate forcers. Nairobi: United Nations Environ-ment Programme.

United Nations (1997) Kyoto Protocol to the UnitedNations Framework Convention on ClimateChange. December 11. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf.

United Nations (2012) Doha Amendment to the KyotoProtocol. Available at: http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2012/12/20121217%2011-40%20AM/CN.718.2012.pdf.

Victor DG (2011) Global Warming Gridlock: CreatingMore Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Victor DG and Morse RK (2009) Living withcoal: Climate policyÕs most inconvenienttruth. Boston Review (September/October).Available at: http://bostonreview.net/BR34.5/victor_morse.php.

Victor DG, Kennel CF, and Ramanathan V (2012)The climate threat we can beat. Foreign Affairs91(3). Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137523/david-g-victor-charles-f-kennel-veerabhadran-ramanathan/the-climate-threat-we-can-beat.

Victor DG, Morgan MG, Apt J, et al. (2009) Thegeoengineering option: A last resort againstglobal warming? Foreign Affairs 88(2). Availableat: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64829/david-g-victor-m-granger-morgan-jay-apt-john-steinbruner-and-kat/the-geoengineering-option.

Wallack JS and Ramanathan V (2009) The other cli-mate changers: Why black carbon and ozone alsomatter. Foreign Affairs 88(5). Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65238/jessica-seddon-wallack-and-veerabhadran-ramanathan/the-other-climate-changers.

Author biographies

Jennifer A. Burney is an assistant professorat UC San Diego, where her research focuses

on simultaneously achieving global food secur-ity and mitigating climate change. A physicistby training, she is particularly interested in thescience, technology, and policy of short-livedclimate pollutants and the role that mitigationof these compounds can play in meeting bothclimate and food security objectives.

Charles F. Kennel was educated in astronomyand astrophysics at Harvard and Princeton andtaught physics at UCLA for many years. Hebecame the ninth director of the Scripps Insti-tution of Oceanography and Vice Chancellorand Dean of Marine Sciences at UC San Diegoin 1998, stepping down in late 2006. In 2005,Kennel founded the UC San Diego Environ-ment and Sustainability Initiative, embracingteaching, research, campus operations, andpublic outreach. He is now professor emeritusat Scripps, as well as a visiting fellow at Christ'sCollege, Cambridge.

David G.Victor is a professor at the School ofInternational Relations and Pacific Studies atthe University of California, San Diego, and dir-ector of the schoolÕs new Laboratory on Inter-national Law and Regulation. His researchfocuses on how the design of regulatory lawaffects issues such as environmental pollutionand the operation of major energy markets.Prior to joining the faculty at UC San Diego,Victor served as founding director of the Pro-gram on Energy and Sustainable Developmentat Stanford University, where he was also a pro-fessor at Stanford Law School.

Burney et al. 57

Copyright of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is the property of Bulletin of the AtomicScientists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Article 1 - Getting Serious.pdf