Main point: While the degree of certainty in modelling improves as more case studies are done, this doesn't mean this lack of full knowledge (today) should hinder or be used to justify a local government's inaction toward mitigation of climate change and its impacts on the communities they serve. The certainty that climate change is happening is undeniable. I propose development of a mathematical "corrective factor" or coefficient to represent any uncertainty about a specific mitigative action (like a placement holder)but will still allow discussions and progress as to responding to the climate crisis. The coefficient will aid courts of law in what will become an onslaught of climate change litigation - domestically and globally because the absolute certainty of climate change impacting communities will not be diminished solely because there is "some" uncertainty about implementing one mitigative strategy over another. Neither does this mean "some action" taken by a government and its agents represents good enough to protect human health and safety. That is a standard that isn't yet defined and must be quantified and qualified between the governments and its citizens, not per se for Courts of Law to decide or lawyers. Otherwise, the legal standard to pursue lack of action and consequences inaction produces is Tort and Contract based and can be measured in litigation. This post isn't attempting to define what is the legal standard but does encourage the discussion.
On February 09, 2023, I attended a virtual webinar hosted by the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss how to access and use the exciting new tool designed to help 40,000 communities across the United States to anticipate, prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The reasons to adapt to what is now observable climate changes was well discussed. ARC-X represents the foundation to the development of a community's strategic plan. Failure to adopt a climate strategic plan might be construed as dereliction of duty and government and officials liable for what is a standard of duty.
Government officials start with ARC-X. There are concerns and questions about the lack of adaptation to possible scenarios caused by climate change and dramatic expenses caused by higher that usual flooding levels, more intense drought and generally, unusual weather patterns. The ARC-X is essentially a mathematical model where the user puts in parameters that cover these concerns, and ARC-X provides "real-time" best course of action that produces the best climate - smart investments and adaptation strategies. It is an interactive resource to help local governments make these decisions as the climate changes. The modeling is based on data inputs and growing number of case studies. While the degree of certainty of any model improves as more case studies are done, this doesn't mean this lack of full knowledge (today) should hinder or be used to justify climate change inaction.
For those like me, with a technical background, I would like to see a webinar or a series of presentations on how to build a case study with assumed, for argument's sake certain parameters. As mentioned during the February 09, 2023 webinar, FEMA maps are limited in their value due to the inherent inability (statistically speaking) to prove anything to 100%. However, the appearance of uncertainty isn't about the flooding possibility but rather HOW MUCH. Climate change means that formerly dry flood plains may become flooded again! The adoption of a mathematical coefficient, as I suggest by science leaders in the respective fields becomes a STANDARD that will allow discussions and progress. Perhaps, the coefficient must be decided here nationally and then adopted later at the international level. By assigning the unknown a factor, we don't diminish or allow diminishment the ultimate factual portion of any conclusions.
Kommentit