Author: Milan

In the spring of 2005, I graduated from the University of British Columbia with a degree in International Relations and a general focus in the area of environmental politics. In the fall of 2005, I began reading for an M.Phil in IR at Wadham College, Oxford. Outside school, I am very interested in photography, writing, and the outdoors. I am writing this blog to keep in touch with friends and family around the world, provide a more personal view of graduate student life in Oxford, and pass on some lessons I've learned here.

Compressed air for mobile energy storage

All of a sudden, the air car concept is popping up everywhere. I hadn’t head of it before someone left a comment yesterday. Now, it is on Metafilter, Slashdot, and YouTube.

I must admit that the prospect of a $7,500 car that can run for 200-300km on $3 worth of compressed air sounds pretty amazing. Of course, the compressed air would just be a storage mechanism for energy generated in other ways. The advantage over hydrogen and fuel cell systems of biodiesel could lie in lower infrastructure costs. Installing compressors in homes and service stations already connected to the electrical grid is a lot cheaper than developing a whole new hydrogen infrastructure, leaving more money to direct towards genuinely renewable sources of energy. The compressors could also be powered directly by wind or water turbines, as well as solar power systems. As for biodiesel, once you factor in the energy required to grow the crops and process them, as well as the inefficiency of internal combustion engines and the continued reality of toxic emissions, it doesn’t seem like a hugely alluring prospect to anyone but corn farmers.

While it is unlikely that one technology will allow us to overcome fossil fuel dependence, it does seem sensible to think that something like this could be part of the mix. Especially if the energy being used to compress the air is coming from a renewable, non-greenhouse-gas-emitting source, these cars could make a big difference in the developing world. They could also help tackle urban air pollution, such as the kind plaguing Beijing.

PS. I got today’s photo of the day in Oriel College, as part of my initiative to photograph each college at least once. While there, I discovered a sizable conference on climate change ongoing, about which I had heard nothing. This goes to show just how many people are working on the issue, both here at Oxford and more generally.

IPCC summaries

Pretty much everyone has read news coverage on climate change, but it seems that relatively few people have read anything the IPCC has actually written. I recommend looking over the 21 pages of the Summary for Policymakers for the Fourth Assessment Report (PDF). It addresses a number of topics covered in the media, from global dimming to variations in solar output.

While few people who read it are personally qualified to gauge its accuracy, and even those who could would need the information from the full report text, it is nonetheless worthwhile to look at the source, rather than the versions processed by the BBC or the New York Times.

For those wanting to track what has changed over the last six years, within the IPCC’s conclusions, have a look at the surprisingly brightly coloured Summary for Policymakers from the Third Assessment Report. Note that, unlike the full reports, the summaries are vetted line-by-line by representatives from member governments.

What’s the big idea?

Sorry to be writing more about the thesis. I spent a good fifteen minutes trying to think up something else to write about, as well as flipping through the websites most likely to provide inspiration.

The trickiest thing I am doing at the moment is trying to come up with an over-arching argument for each of my three substantive thesis chapters. Each one has a lot of content – many sources, issues identified as important, and specific points about those issues – but none really has a single massive point to prove. Personally, I am fairly happy to present things as a series of related vignettes on consistent topics and themes. It seems, however, that something more directed and integrated is required. That creates the danger of setting up straw men to knock down. Coming up with an important, novel point that takes 7000 words and a couple of dozen sources of diverse kinds to prove is not an easy thing.

PS. As part of my thesis-completion drive, I am boycotting Adium (a program that combines MSN, AIM, ICQ, Google Talk, and other message programs). People who want to speak with me should try Skype: more meaningful and less likely to carry on for many hours. My apologies to all the friends I have been neglecting, while trying to get through this.

Heading for the 40th Parliament?

After 15 months with a Conservative minority government, it looks like Canada is heading for a new general election.

For those not paying overly close attention, the Liberal Party held its convention back in December, choosing Stéphane Dion as their new leader. Dion beat out Michael Ignatieff who had, at times, seemed the front-runner. Back in January 2006, the Conservative Party managed to secure a minority government, ending Y years of Liberal control over the House of Commons.

Stephen Harper is obviously trying to consolidate his earlier victory into a majority government. The election should be an interesting one, primarily because of social and environmental issues. There is a lingering suspicion that the relative moderation the Conservatives have shown in power is a tactical choice for the period until they get a majority government (though those fears may simply be stoked by Liberals hoping to frighten a few votes their way). On the environment, nobody is looking too good at the moment. The Conservatives have all but abandoned Canada’s commitment to Kyoto, which the previous Liberal government had never put a sufficient amount of effort into. The heightened level of concern about climate change will probably make the issue front-and-centre in the campaign. Whether that will lead to anything meaningful or not remains to be seen.

Equilibrium ruminations

Working on chapter three, I have been talking a lot about different kinds of equilibria, and what implications they have for environmental policy. Uncertainty about which sort we are dealing with – as well as the critical points of transition between them – make it exceptionally difficult to consider global environmental problems in cost-benefit terms.

Stable equilibria

One common view of the characteristics of natural equilibria is that they are both stable and singular. An example is a marble at the bottom of a bowl. If you push it a bit in one direction or another, it will return to where it was. Many biological systems seem to be like this, at least within limits. Think about the acid-base conjugate systems that help control the pH of blood, or about an ecosystem where a modest proportion of one species gets eliminated. Provided you like the way things are at the moment, more or less, such stable equilibria are a desirable environmental characteristic. They allow you to effect moderate changes in what is going on, without needing to worry too much about profoundly unbalancing your surroundings.

Unstable equilibria

Of course, such systems can be pushed beyond their bounds. Here, think about a vending machine being tipped. Up to a certain critical point, it will totter back to its original position when you release it. Beyond that point, it will continue to fall over, even if the original force being exerted upon it is discontinued. Both the vertical and horizontal positions of the vending machine are stable equilibria, though we would probably prefer the former to the latter. For a biological example, you might think of a forested hillside. Take a few trees, wait a few years, and the situation will probably be much like when you began. If you cut down enough trees to lose all the topsoil to erosion, however, you might come back in many decades and still find an ecosystem radically different from the one you started off with.

Multiple equilibria

The last important consideration are the number of systems where there are a very great many equilibrium options. One patch of ocean could contain a complex ecosystem, with many different trophic levels and a complex combination of energy pathways. Alternatively, it could feature a relative small number of species. The idea that we can turn the first into the second, through over-fishing, and then expect things to return to how they were at the outset demonstrates some of the fallacious thinking about equilibria in environmental planning.

The trouble with the climate is that it isn’t like a vending machine, in that you can feel the effect your pushing is having on it and pretty clearly anticipate what is going to happen next. Firstly, that is because there are internal balances that make things trickier. It is as though there are all sorts of pendulums and gyroscopes inside the machine, making its movements in response to any particular push unpredictable. Secondly, we are not the only thing pushing on the machine. There are other exogenous properties like solar and orbital variations that may be acting in addition to our exertions, in opposition to them, or simply in parallel. Those forces are likely to change in magnitude both over the course or regular cycles and progressively over the course of time.

How, then, do we decide how much pushing the machine can take? This is the same question posed, in more economic terms, when we speculate about damage curves.

Bad prioritization

Wadham just replaced most of the computers in our lab with brand new HP 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo machines, complete with new keyboards and monitors. This strikes me as pretty wasteful, given that the previous machines were completely adequate for web browsing and word processing – the only tasks for which the computers in the lab are ever used.

The new machines probably cost about £500 each: money that could have been much better spent on scholarships or some other purpose that serves student needs. Having three or four fast computers with Photoshop or similarly resource-intensive software makes sense; buying a dozen high power machines for mundane tasks does not. When running Word and Firefox, the performance difference on the new machines cannot even be noticed.

At least they didn’t upgrade to Vista.

Waiting for SkypeIn in Canada

Canadian telecom regulators should hurry up and allow the allocation of SkypeIn numbers. The deal is that you pay about $50 a year to Skype for a phone number in an area code of your choice. People can then call it from within that area, as though it were a free local call. They would actually be calling a computer that forwards the call to your Skype account, on whatever computer or Skype-enabled phone you are using, anywhere in the world. You can also have it automatically redirect calls to another normal phone, though there is a per-minute charge for that.

The system seems really good because people in your designated area can call you without worrying about long distance charges. Also, people who don’t find the whole Skype system comprehensible can call you without any knowledge of how it all works. Supposedly, it is unavailable in Canada because it is incompatible with 911, but this doesn’t make a great deal of sense, since SkypeIn numbers receive calls, rather than initiate them.

With a combination of SkypeIn and Skype Unlimited (which costs $30 a year and includes unlimited calling to landlines), I could speak an unlimited amount to friends in North America for less than $75 a year, with benefits such as being able to use any internet cafe that has Skype installed as though it were my home phone. I just need to wait for Canadian regulators to permit the final link in the chain.

PS. I realize that I could buy a SkypeIn number for New York or Seattle, which would be very cheap for friends in Canada to call. Losing the convenience of it being a local call, for them, is the reason I have not done so thus far, though you can attach SkypeIn numbers in up to ten area codes to a single Skype account.

Getting things done

After multiple recommendations, I started reading David Allen’s Getting Things Done: How to Achieve Stress-free Productivity. So far, most of what he sets out is familiar to me. I already deal with emails using an algorithm almost identical to the one he suggests. Likewise, my calendar and to-do list usage is closely akin to what he describes. What I am most hoping to get from the book is the ‘stress-free’ part. I have spent enormously more time worrying about the thesis than actually working on it (because I worry about it every minute of every day).

Hopefully, the nuts and bolts of his approach will help in the completion of the thesis, during the course of the next five weeks. I still have about half the book to go, so I am hoping it proves worth the time and money spent reading it.

[Update: 18 Mar 2007] As part of the ‘collection’ phase of GTD organization, I have started making project lists and reading lists on the wiki.

Presenting science

When thinking about the social roles of scientists, it is helpful when they come out and speak on the subject directly. As such, an article in the BBC headlines feed for today is interesting. Basically, it is about some scientists who feel that it is both misleading and a tactical error to play up the catastrophic possibilities of climate change. One, Professor Paul Hardaker from the Royal Meteorological Society, argues:

“I think we do have to be careful as scientists not to overstate the case because it does damage the credibility of the many other things that we have greater certainty about,” he said.

“We have to stick to what the science is telling us; and I don’t think making that sound more sensational, or more sexy, because it gets us more newspaper columns, is the right thing for us to be doing.

“We have to let the science argument win out.”

The first thing to note about this is the implicit position that it is up to scientists to actively tune what they say to the audience they are addressing. This is done for the explicit reason of retaining “credibility” and thus influence. What is suggested, furthermore, is that scientists basically know what is to be done (even if that is more research, for the moment) and that they should be saying the right things in public to keep things on the right track.

Of course, science cannot tell us how much risk we want to bear. While runaway climate change – driven by methane release, for example – may not be a probable outcome, the very fact that it is possible may be sufficient to justify expensive preventative measures. Science can likewise tell us what areas and groups are most likely to be affected, but hardly requires one or another course of action in response. Bjorn Lomborg has famously argued that general increases in foreign aid are the best thing the developed world can do for the developing world, so that the latter will be richer by the time the major effects of climate change manifest themselves.

The position of scientists is a somewhat paradoxical one. In the first place, their influence is founded upon their supposedly superior ability to access and understand the world. Their credibility relies upon being relatively neutral reporters of fact. When they begin dealing with data at the kind of second-order level embodied in the above quotation, they are seeking to increase their influence in a way that can only diminish the original source of their legitimacy. In an area like the environment this is inevitable, but it does render invalid the idea that science, in and of itself, can guide us.

Information saturation

There is no time when it is easier to get distracted from a task than when it is something long, complex, and challenging. My room is never cleaner than at the periods before exams, nor my emails so well managed as at times when I have some massive research project to complete. The number of possibilities on the web: from blogging to instant messaging, compound the danger. So too, the special stresses involved in thesis writing.

This month’s issue of The Walrus includes an article called “Driven to Distraction” that addresses the issue of how many such temptations exist in a digital age. I subscribe to 127 different information feeds: most of which get updated more than once a day, and some of which are regularly updated more than twenty times a day. Beyond that, I have email, the manual screening of spam from blog comments and wiki pages, Facebook, constantly updating access logs for various sites, text messages on my cell phone, and news websites that I track.

Just as I have frequently used music and immersion in a laptop-free coffee shop environment to try to get some reading done, I am going to try to reduce the frequency with which I am checking my various feeds: staying logged out of Bloglines and email and checking each only a few times a day (or at least every couple of hours, instead of virtually constantly). Maybe then I will be able to finish hammering out a new version of chapter two, as well as drafts of chapters three and four, before Dr. Hurrell departs for Brazil, leaving me to finish my thesis entirely on my own.