In 1990 Adam Finkel, then with RFF, produced a short report entitled,
"Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management". He described how ignoring
uncertainties introduces inefficiencies in the regulatory process with
the end result that more money, more labor, and more time ends up being
spent than is really necessary to address a problem. This in turn ties
up funds that could have been expended more productively for other
purposes. Finkel also outlined how uncertainties might be taken into
account, and some of what he had to say can be generalized.

From a policymaking perspective, his discussion at the time fell on deaf
ears.

Even so, what he wrote then remains relevant now: A better understanding
of uncertainties provides an opportunity to more comprehensively inform
decision-makers.

Leaving aside the debate of whether one must act now or not, the more
that is learned, the more there is an opportunity to become better
informed. There is still a lot to learn. Whether something is done or
not, now or later, there are significant research challenges. Some of
these have been identified in this strategic plan, and this undertaking
presents an opportunity to address a number of issues.

That these uncertainties are being given heightened attention is very
encouraging. I don't think that we know as much as some would have the
public believe is now known. The task of learning more, however, is
daunting. It is impossible to get a sufficient number of observations to
describe even one ecosystem in all detail. Yet climate change involves
not one ecosystem, it involves the entire earth, which to fully
characterize (serially), would require that one make about 10^85^
observations, each (on average) in time frame of 10^-69^ seconds. This
of course is impossible to do, and even if one set about attempting it
(via parallel observations where possible), the earth system would have
long since changed to a new state long before the task was completed.

Moreover, from a practical standpoint, at the level of resolution
possible with current and probably future models, many problems with
uncertainty will simply fall off the table, because they can't be
studied. All this begs the question, are some uncertainties more
valuable to try to know about than others? Can they be identified? Can
they be prioritized? The strategic plan is a laudable effort to answer
these questions. From a policy perspective, I would add one more
question: how will we know when we know enough?

If in the context of these questions, the climate change conundrum seems
a Gordian knot, perhaps technological innovation will be the sword that
cleaves it through. But consider this: even if the necessary technology
becomes available, how will it be diffused? How long will this take? At
what cost?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents America's business
community, takes the climate change issue very seriously. For the
business community this and other undertakings will in the long term
ideally lead to improvements in regulatory and cost efficiencies and
will reduce policy uncertainties. This is important: with regard to long
term market place horizons, the more certainty there is in what is
intended to be done, the easier it will be for business to establish
long range plans and do what is possible.

I have several comments specific to the chapter "Human Contributions and
Responses to Environmental Change".....

**Q1:**

-   Consider strengthening the nexus between research needs and research
    questions.

-   It's not entirely evident how some of the research questions are
    addressed via the stated research needs.

-   Be careful not to reinvent the wheel. Identify, aggregate and
    synthesize a view of what is known now, and what might become known
    in the future, then target research to where there are knowledge
    gaps.

-   With regard to addressing technological change, it seems to me that
    this meeting is largely dominated by climatologists. Please be sure
    to be comprehensive in outreach to experts in other disciplines.

-   Over the long term, technology \[probably\] matters most...we heard
    that yesterday, and it's been said on many other occasions. As noted
    a while ago by an astute observer, and I repeat it here for your
    consideration, one issue to consider in evaluating how technological
    innovation may impinge on climate change is this: How much is known
    about how international treaties encourage (or discourage)
    technological innovation and diffusion?

**Q2:**

-   Again, don't reinvent the wheel. Identify, aggregate and synthesize
    a view of what is known now, and what might become known in the
    future, then target research to where there are knowledge gaps.

-   The discussion of products and payoffs seems more imprecise than in
    other chapters.

-   Regarding the statement: "Research on these questions can be
    expected to improve analytical methods and models...." What metrics
    will demonstrate that the models and methods have been improved?

**Q3:**

-   Is there a plan to consider this question in terms of the structural
    \[e.g., societal, political, economic\] characteristics within which
    various stakeholders \[e.g., countries\] operate?

-   Again, the discussion of products and payoffs seems more imprecise
    than in other chapters.

-   There is mention of research needed to enable "better" decisions. Is
    there a need to clarify what is meant by a "better" decision?

-   Per the statement: "Research on these questions....will produce
    decision support resources.".....What metrics will demonstrate their
    utility?

**Q4:**

-   Is the statement "It is well established that human health is
    inextricably linked to the environment" placed in a sufficiently
    broad context? \[there are also links to the economy, political
    realities, technological evolution, access to technology, knowledge,
    and so forth.

-   Understanding ecosystem complexity may prove crucial to the growth
    of knowledge in this arena. Is there sufficient effort to engage
    groups outside the sphere of government?

-   In assessing climate change impacts, be sure to consider the spread
    of infectious diseases in an historical context\-\--for example,
    many people developed malaria in eastern North Carolina before WWII.
    If malaria suddenly shows up tomorrow in that region, it may not
    necessarily be climate change that is driving that occurrence.