Each year CSTPR hosts a competition to send two CU Boulder students to Washington, DC to attend the AAAS “Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering” workshop.

During the workshop portion, the winners learned about the structure and organization of Congress, the federal budget and appropriations processes, and tools for effective science communication and civic engagement. In addition, the winners participated in interactive seminars about policy-making and communication.

Below are comments by Caroline Havrilla about this year’s workshop. Read also comments by the other AAAS “CASE” winner, Adalyn Fyhrie.

Participating in the 2017 AAAS Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering (CASE) Workshop in Washington, D.C. was a truly transformative experience for me as a scientist. The three‐day workshop was a thought‐provoking crash course in science policy, in the company of a diverse cohort of scientists from around the country, and exposed me to the complex world of policymaking. Each day of the workshop was jam‐packed with a cohesive line‐up of sessions with talks from speakers who shared with us their expertise on a wide range of topics in science policy. We learned about policymaking, the federal budget process, and importantly, how scientists can advocate for science and contribute to decision making within the science policy realm.

One consistent message throughout the workshop was the important distinction between “policy for science” and “science for policy.” Policy for science mostly refers to the federal budget process and the allocation of federal funds to scientific research and development. Science for policy, on the other hand, is the process whereby scientists communicate science to policymakers to inform policy-­making. During the CASE workshop, my cohort first learned about policy for science, mainly focusing on the many challenges of the federal budget process, and how these challenges impact science. One particularly striking issue we were exposed to concerned the balance, or perhaps more fittingly, the imbalance, between mandatory and discretionary spending in the US federal budget. Mandatory spending, comprised of entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, makes up about two thirds of the circa $4.1 trillion US federal budget. Discretionary spending on the other hand, makes up only a third of the federal budget. Because there is bipartisan opposition to cutting entitlement programs, when the budget needs to be trimmed, cuts are made to the non-­defense discretionary budget, which is already a fairly small slice of the budgetary pie. Unfortunately, this is the category in funding for scientific organizations like NSF, NASA, and the EPA fall, making those programs vulnerable to budget cuts when their activities are not deemed “necessary” spending. For me, learning about this aspect of the federal budget process brought into perspective the overarching challenges of continued federal science funding, and made it clear that effective advocacy for science is critical.

After learning about the intricacies of policy for science, we turned our focus science for policy, and how to become more effective science communicators. According to many of the science policy officials we met with in Washington, scientists often miss out on valuable opportunities to effectively communicate their science for policy because their messages often misalign with the needs of policymakers. This misalignment often results from fundamental differences in what information science and policy spheres incorporate into their decision making processes. Policymakers often make decisions based on big‐picture, culturally‐based value systems, while, in contrast, scientists typically make decisions based on highly specific, data‐based evidence. Scientists can more effectively communicate with policymakers by 1) recognizing this communication barrier exists, and 2) incorporating storytelling and discussions of the applications and benefits of their research to addressing broader societal issues. Science is only one small piece of the decision making process, but by aligning research to economic, environmental, and societal outcomes, we can better advocate for incorporation of science into policymaking. On Hill Visit Day, the last day of the CASE workshop, my cohort members and I had the incredible opportunity to visit the Hill and advocate for scientific research with Congressional members and their staffers. With the help of the AAAS staff and our Hill guide, Heather Bené (staff member at CU’s Office of Government Relations), we had the opportunity to practice communicating our science and advocating for the incorporation of basic and applied scientific research into policymaking.

I am tremendously thankful to the University of Colorado Center for Science and Technology Policy Research (CSTPR), the Center for STEM Learning, and Graduate School for sponsoring my participation in the CASE workshop and look forward to incorporating science policy in my future career.

Save

Each year CSTPR hosts a competition to send two CU Boulder students to Washington, DC to attend the AAAS “Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering” workshop.

During the workshop portion, the winners learned about the structure and organization of Congress, the federal budget and appropriations processes, and tools for effective science communication and civic engagement. In addition, the winners participated in interactive seminars about policy-making and communication.

Below are comments by Adalyn Fyhrie about this year’s workshop.

I reached the end of two and a half days invigorated, inspired, and exhausted. I left with more questions than I had arrived with, which I took as a sign of the intensity and breadth of knowledge that I had been exposed to. The CASE workshop provided discussions with an impressive lineup of experts in the field of science policy, from members of Congress to employees of national science agencies. Each moment and every speaker was an opportunity to crack the world of science policy open and I was not about to let that chance go to waste.

I was impressed to learn about the breadth of science policy that is present in our nation’s capitol. For starters, “science policy” has different definitions — there is science for policy (using science to make policy decisions that are backed by scientific facts) and policy for science (making policy that provides scientific funding and support for research and development). The CASE workshop focused on policy for science, how it is made, and how to advocate for it.

The workshop also exposed me to the wide variety of people who contribute to policy for science. Going in, I knew that members of Congress were important to science policy (they are the ones making the policies, after all), but the CASE workshop demonstrated that they are just the tip of the iceberg. Among many other contributors, there are also scientists who are employed to provide reports and briefings on science-related matters for members of government, employees of national science agencies, and scientists who come for a single day to advocate for science funding. During the CASE workshop I fit into the final category (scientist/advocate), but I had a lot of learning to do before I felt ready to meet with our members of Congress and their staff on the final day of the workshop.

In order to effectively advocate for policy for science, we had to first understand how policy is made and the essence of the mechanics of government. The two biggest takeaways for me were: first, that government doesn’t work the way it appears to in the news or during election time (it is, in general, much less partisan). Second, that governance is much more emotional than logical (stories can be more effective than facts). Honestly, these were counterintuitive to me, especially the importance of stories instead of facts in getting policy to pass. Many scientists (and I am no exception) want to solve problems with logic and facts, but this is not the most effective way to advocate for science and science funding to Congress. People respond to stories, and that is what we had to deliver.

I started the workshop with a tenuous idea of what science policy was and how one could get involved with it as a career. By the last day, I was meeting with members of Congress and their staff and requesting continued funding of the sciences in the upcoming budget. The CASE workshop gave me confidence in my abilities as a science advocate and insight into the myriad of career options in science policy.

by Paul Komor, CSTPR Faculty Affiliate and Suzanne Tegen, CSTPR Visiting Scholar

We are at the early stages of a major transformation of our energy system. And that transformation is being driven by thoughtful government intervention that promotes human health and protects the natural environment. At a time when the very concept of progressive and science-based environmental policy is under attack, this can serve as an example of how policy is supposed to work: policy boosts market demand for renewable energy, which in turn inspires technological innovation, catalyzes private capital investment, and transforms markets.

Here’s that story…but first, a short refresher from Policy 101: One role for government is to provide and protect public goods: products and services that provide public benefits, and for which use by one individual does not reduce availability to others. Examples include national defense, fresh air, and street lighting.

To provide and protect public goods and to solve overarching societal challenges (e.g., climate change), governments devise policy tools – informed by publicly-funded research – that guide, nudge, and steer private sector investment and decisions to take societal issues into account. As the private sector responds, governments gradually withdraw these policy tools, because the market internalizes those former externalities. Markets are created, private sector investment grows, technical innovation blossoms, and problem solved. Voila!

But it doesn’t really work that way, says the policy realist. That sounds good in theory, but in the brutal reality of policy-making, politics and special interests intervene and disrupt the process – resulting in policy decisions that don’t solve societal challenges or protect the public good, economic inefficiencies, and stifled innovation.

Well, in renewable energy, it really has worked that way. Over the last 15 years, governments have used a handful of innovative and thoughtful policies to promote renewable energy. And those policies are succeeding:

• Since 2010, wind power costs have dropped 68%¹ and solar photovoltaic (PV) costs have dropped ~50%.²
• In 2016, wind and solar PV accounted for over 60% of new electricity generation in the U.S. (EIA, 2017).
• In 2015, renewables – mostly wind and solar PV – accounted for more than half of new electricity generation worldwide. Renewables worldwide now provide more electricity than coal. (IEA, 2016b).

What are those policies? In the US, many states use Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs), which are mandates that electric utilities obtain a minimum percentage or amount of electricity from renewable sources.   Although this policy tool has seen its share of controversy – notably the fear that it would drive up electricity prices – recent analyses find that electricity price impacts are minimal and public benefits significant (Wiser, R. et al, 2016; Heeter, J. et al. 2014). And these RPSs are phasing out, just as they should: as renewable energy adoption shifts from policy-driven to market-driven, utilities will meet their RPS requirements and the RPSs will fade away.

Also contributing to renewable energy’s massive recent growth and cost reductions are federal tax credits.  Tax credits can be risky, as they can lead to a politically influential constituency that is loathe to give them up.  In the case of renewable energy tax credits, however, Congress passed thoughtful legislation in 2015 that gradually removes them, and 2019 is the last year that renewable energy projects can qualify for the credit (U.S. Department of Energy, 2015).³

Other countries are using different policy tools (see e.g., Cox et al, 2015).  Auctions for renewable energy are quite popular, and have been very successful.  South Africa, for example, used renewable energy auctions to attract USD 14 billion in new private sector investment, and saw renewable energy prices drop by ~50% during just 2.5 years (Eberhard, A. et al. 2014).  Economic development gains were notable, and primarily benefited rural communities.  Noted a recent World Bank review, “[South Africa’s renewable energy auction program] has successfully channeled substantial private sector expertise and investment into grid-connected renewable energy in South Africa at competitive prices” (Eberhard, A. et al., 2014).

Wind and solar PV are expected to see continued rapid growth (IEA, 2016a). Adoption of wind and solar PV technologies, going forward, will increasingly be driven by market prices as the policies that support them fade away.  The public benefits (notably improved air quality and reduced carbon emissions) will flow to all. And thoughtful policy gets the credit.

1. This is for US, 2010-2016. Source is Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger, 2016.
2. This is for US utility-scale solar PV, 2010-2015. Source is Bolinger, M. And J. Seel, 2016. During that same time period, US residential solar PV prices fell 43%. Source is Barbose, G. and N. Darghouth, 2016.
3. It’s interesting to note that worldwide fossil fuel subsides have been decreasing as well, due largely to energy pricing reform. Yet fossil fuels subsidies are still more than twice as large as renewables subsidies (IEA 2016a).

References

Barbose, G. and N. Darghouth. August 2016. Tracking the Sun IX. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Bolinger, M. and J. Seel. August 2016. Utility-Scale Solar 2015. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Cox, S., S. Tegen, I. Baring-Gould, F. Oteri, S. Esterly, T. Forsyth, R. Baranowski. May 2015. Policies to Support Wind Power Deployment: Key Considerations and Good Practices. NREL/TP-6A20-64177. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Eberhard, A. J. Kolker, J. Leigland. May 2014. South Africa’s Renewable Energy IPP Procurement Program: Success Factors and Lessons. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

EIA (United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration), “Renewable generation capacity expected to account for most 2016 capacity additions,” article dated 10 January 2017.

Heeter, J., G. Barbose, L. Bird, S. Weaver, F. Flores, K. Kuskova-Burns, and R. Wiser. 2014. A Survey of State-Level Cost and Benefit Estimates of Renewable Portfolio Standards. NREL/TP-6A20-61042 Golden, CO and Berkeley, CA: National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

IEA (International Energy Agency). 2016a. “Fact Sheet: World Energy Outlook 2016.”

IEA (International Energy Agency). 2016b. Renewable Energy Medium-Term Market Report 2016, 2016.

United States Department of Energy WINDExchange. 2015. Congress Passes Extension of Production Tax Credit, Investment Tax Credit. Published December 18, 2015.

Wiser, R., G. Barbose, J. Heeter, T. Mai, L. Bird, M. Bolinger, A. Carpenter, G. Heath, D. Keyser, J. Macknick, A. Mills, and D. Millstein. 2016. A Retrospective Analysis of the Benefits and Impacts of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards. NREL/TP-6A20-65005. Golden, CO and Berkeley, CA: National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger. August 2016. 2015 Wind Technologies Market Report. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO)
March 2017 Summary

March 2017 coverage on climate change has increased again during the past month. Numbers across all sources in twenty-eight countries showed a 13% increase from February 2017 overall. Coverage of political, scientific, ecological/meteorological, and cultural dimensions of climate change issues increased most prominently in the United States (US) up 35% from February 2017, and a 60% increase from March in the previous year.

Daily newspapers from the Middle East covered climate change topics up 48% compared to the previous month. Climate coverage in South America also increased across all sources by 47% from February 2017. African coverage increased as well from February but was still down 13% from the previous March.

As for political themes, US and some United Kingdom (UK) sources continue to focus on US President Donald J. Trump and his climate politics. Clearly, Trump’s executive order promoting energy independence and economic growth mainly through reduced regulatory constraints on coal production spurred some of the coverage, but it was preceded in Australia and other places too in March. Another topic largely covered discusses EPA budget cuts alongside Pruitt’s statements about the allegedly negligible role of CO2 in climate change.

Also, emergent in March were a number of discussions across sources about the future of coal in the context of economics of energy and effects on climate change. For example, besides articles on Trump’s climate policies in German and US newspapers, China’s promises to stick to the Paris Climate Agreements has popped up in several sources throughout the month.

For German newspapers, climate coverage went up relating to Trump’s plans to dismantle former US President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan. German newspaper coverage portrayed opposition to Trump’s support of coal as a pathway to job creative and decreased unemployment.

Note new counts of climate change (“Klimawandel”) or global warming (“Globale Erwärmung”) in two German newspapers (Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Tageszeitung) from January 2004 through the present. Figures are available here.

Stories connected to cultural themes populated articles on Earth Hour 2017. The WWF for example announced that 2017 has been the biggest Earth Hour event so far with 7000 cities and 184 countries participating in switching off the light for one hour on March 25 to set an example for climate protection.

In ecological/meteorological news, stories about the death of coral reefs due to ocean acidification and warming, and unusual high temperatures and rapid ice melt in the Arctic were published throughout the month of March around the world. For example a photo exhibition from James Balog tracks the worldwide melting of glaciers and shows results of his work on display at Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry showing that “more than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are melting”.

As 2017 takes hold, it remains to be seen to what extent the previously detected ‘Trump Dump’ – where where media attention that would have focused on other climate-related events and issues instead was placed on Trump-related actions, leaving many other stories untold in this month – will give way to sustained and substantive media engagement with climate change. March 2017 trends show mixed signals.

Figure Caption: Climate change and global warming coverage in March 2017 from US (left) and UK (right) sources. For US: The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times. For UK: the Daily Mail & Mail on Sunday, Guardian & The Observer, The Sun, the The Daily Telegraph & Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mirror & Sunday Mirror, The Scotsman & Scotland on Sunday, and The Times & Sunday Times.

– report prepared by Gesa Luedecke, Max Boykoff, Kevin Andrews, Meaghan Daly and Ami Nacu-Schmidt

Jeremiah Osborne-Gowey, Doctoral Student, Environmental Design and Environmental Studies
Bruce Goldstein, Associate Professor, Environmental Design and Environmental Studies

As part of our research program into the transformative potential of learning networks, wevisited a range of communities affiliated with the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network, a network of communities that exchange information, collaborate to enhance the practice of fire adaptation, and work together at multiple scales to live more safely with fire. As part of this work, we have developed an informal 4-part typology of community fire-adaptation practices:

• communications and messaging,
• relationship and trust-building,
• projects and practices, and
• co-management of fire risk.

In this blog post, we briefly illustrate these practices, and describe how they can help communities more safely live with and manage fire risk.

Communications and Messaging
Communities engage in a range of communications about their efforts to decrease risks, restore the social, ecological, and economic integrity of communities, and efforts to learn how to better live with fire. On popular approach is to offer the public a wildfire adaptation toolkit to help businesses and homeowners prepare for and deal with pre- and post-fire impacts.

Relationship and Trust Building
Forging connections and building relationships and trust are essential for efforts to promote fire-adapted concepts at the community scale. In addition, community organizers often seek to connect to external partners in order to expand their capacity to restore forest health, improve species habitats, leverage existing capacities and resources, create educational and outreach programs and develop management plans for private landowners.

Projects and Practices
Fire-adapted actions are most easily visible in communities when fuels reduction and fire mitigation projects are actually carried out. This is where the communication and messaging combine with relationship and trust building to build enough collective will for changes in wildfire practice, such as prescribed burning. Organizers often coordinate activities like community wildfire protection workdays where landowners can sign up for home and landscape assessments and participate in fuels reduction activities.

Co-management of Fire Risk
Wildfire risk occurs at various scales and under different social, ecological and political contexts both in communities and across landscapes. An important aspect of changed practice is moving toward shared responsibility of wildfire risk, or co-management. Cutting across jurisdictional various scales and social and ecological contexts is a key focus of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, which seeks solutions to wildfire management issues and provides direction for wildfire practice in the United States. Across the fire landscape, communities are working toward co-management of fire risk using a number of approaches, such as incorporating cultural values in community decision-making and practice or managing at the watershed scale.

Summary and Conclusions
We think of fire adaptation in communities in fire-prone landscapes in the United States as occurring through these four kinds of practice: 1) communications and messaging, 2) relationship and trust-building, 3) projects and practices, and 4) co-management of fire risk. While these categories provide a framework for differentiating types of activities, they also enable us to develop an integrative perspective on community fire adaptation. For example, many communities are now hosting chipper and fuel reduction workdays, which are practices and projects that include substantive “communication and messaging” in the community. Events like these serve as an incubator for trust-building, which is foundational for co-management activities.