Law – Page 40 – a sibilant intake of breath

Deep packet inspection in Canada

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has created a new website. In addition to the commissioner’s blog, there is now a website devoted to deep packet inspection, announced here.

Deep packet inspection is quite a profound modification of how the internet works. All information passed across the web goes through a number of machines. In the classic version of this arrangement, they just forward the information to the next link without giving it any consideration. With packet inspection, the datastream can be monitored by those intermediate machines, including the ones at a user’s internet service provider (ISP) between their computer and the rest of the internet. Given that the computers of your ISP see all your traffic, having them implement deep packet inspection raises some especially serious questions. That is especially true given that they may be vulnerable to attack by malicious actors, and may be willing to cooperate with requests from governments, even if those requests are illegal.

The technology could have good uses, like stopping viruses and worms. It could also have many malicious ones. Companies could use it to block competition, by making the internet discriminate against their existing rivals and new startups. It could also be used for data mining, eavesdropping, and censorship. Personally, I would prefer an internet without it, and I am glad to see that it’s something Canada’s official privacy official has been devoting a fair bit of attention towards.

On the complexity level of climate policies

When it comes to policies for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, complexity can conceivably serve three purposes. Two of them have some justification, while the third is largely reprehensible but entirely obvious and largely unavoidable. Unfortunately, it is the two dodgier options that are overwhelmingly more likely to emerge.

The first purpose is environmental effectiveness. For instance, we might add complexity to a pure carbon tax by also banning the construction of new coal-fired power plants. Doing so is likely to reduce emissions somewhat further, especially given that once a coal power plant is built, it takes a brave politician to refuse to grant an exception that will stop a carbon tax from bankrupting it, tossing out those who work there, and nullifying the investments of the financial backers.

The second purpose is economic efficiency. In some cases, it may be that a more complicated policy can achieve the same level of emissions reduction at a lower cost than a simpler one. It may also be that other economic objectives need to be sought in concert with greenhouse gas mitigation. For instance, we might want to increase the total portion of our energy use that comes from domestic sources.

The third purpose is being able to grant hidden favours to friends and contributors. As soon as you start giving away ‘grandfathered’ permits, creating tax exemptions, and the like you, open the door to both soft and hard forms of corruption. The more complex the set of regulations, the easier it is to conceal this. Once you start stacking on special rules for new facilities, different modes of compliance, and complex interactions between carbon policies and other forms of taxation and subsidy, you gain a dense canopy of rules, under which all sorts of shady business can be undertaken.

A government that realized the scope of the threat we face could put a simple policy in place in a matter of weeks or months. They could say:

“If we continue to emit at the level we are now doing, we will probably destroy the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization. This may well happen by the end of this century, especially if our emissions remain on an upward trajectory. To respond to this risk, we are implementing an economy-wide carbon tax. Every time fuel that generates greenhouse gasses is produced or imported, the producer or importer will pay the tax. The cost will then spread through the rest of the economy. This year, the tax will be $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. It will rise by $5 per year until at least 2030. We will use the revenues to provide financing for efficiency improvements in all sectors.”

Instead, we are likely to see governments that fail to appreciate the magnitude of the danger, but fully appreciate the opportunities new regulations provide for them to strengthen their electoral positions. As a consequence, there is a very strong possibility that we will fail to respond effectively to the threat of climate change before it becomes impossible to avoid catastrophic harm.

Crime fighting with DNA ‘family searches’

Over at Slate, there is an interesting and somewhat frightening article about the use of DNA in law enforcement in the United States. As in the UK, the US is now collecting DNA from many people who have been arrested, and retaining the samples even from those never charged or convicted. The next step along this path of DNA surveillance seems to be ‘family searches.’ Here, police look for near matches between crime scene DNA and people in their database. When they find a near match, they investigate that person’s family members.

This is worrisome for many reasons. As the article explains, “courts could well be troubled by the open-ended idea that once you’re arrested and cleared, the state can subject you and future generations of your family members to permanent genetic surveillance.” It is quite shocking really. These days, people are getting arrested for such trivialities as taking photos of major landmarks. The idea that this would then subject their entire family to future police DNA surveillance seems deeply illiberal. The article also makes the point that the DNA kept on file may be re-examined later to test for other traits: for instance, if genes that predispose people to committing rape or murder are discovered. Finally, the article mentions some of the major racial implications of the policy: given the high rates of arrest and incarceration in the African American community, members of that ethnic group are unusually likely to be subject to police surveillance via family searches.

Maintaining a functioning justice system in an era of rapidly changing technologies is a huge challenge. Arguably, search and surveillance are the most worrisome new issues. The automation of both means that huge databases can be maintained tracking emails, cell phone locations, DNA, and much else besides. These databases will inevitably be accidentally leaked and intentionally abused. Just another reason why governments are far more dangerous than terrorists.

Given the popularity of being ‘tough on crime,’ it is easy to see why many people favour a system that sacrifices privacy in exchange to a higher chance of catching criminals. There are certainly arguments on both sides. DNA can help to free the wrongfully convicted, as well as increase the conviction rate for crimes like rape, when the justice system generally does a rotten job of catching perpetrators. Arguably, the fairest system would be to put everyone’s DNA on file. At least that way people would be receiving equal treatment. Of course, that requires putting even more trust and power in the hands of governments and security services that have too often abused it in the past.

Institutionalizing concern for future generations

Within political and bureaucratic processes, nobody really speaks for future generations. In the area of the environment, there may be some voters, politicians, environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs), and bureaucrats who are concerned about the effects of current policies and behaviours on future generations. What is lacking is an organized mechanism through which those concerns can be made influential. At present, near-term concerns have an overwhelming grip on political influence. This is because of election cycles, as well as the willingness of almost everybody to delay pain and difficult decisions.

The question, then, is whether any political or bureaucratic mechanism could help shift the balance of influence towards those who are not yet here to express their preferences. Most depressingly, we could conclude that only extreme prosperity puts people in a position where they are willing to make small sacrifices for the benefit of future others. Arguably, Norway’s stabilization fund is an example of this. Most optimistically, it could be argued that all that is necessary is to provide clear information on the future consequences of present actions, and people will make changes voluntarily. Between those views is a perspective that focuses on building institutions that think for the long term. Doing so is certainly challenging, since such organizations must be shielded from year-to-year demands in order to function. That challenge is made even more acute by the necessity that, if any such organization is to be effective, some organization that currently exists and operates will need to cede some power to the new body.

Wood stoves, air pollution, and climate

Yesterday, Stella reminded me of one of the many trade-offs associated with climate change and environmental policies, generally. Montreal is considering a ban on new wood-burning appliances, on account of the local air pollution they cause. Wood certainly isn’t the cleanest burning stuff, especially when it is used in stoves that fail to achieve an ideal temperature and fuel-air mixture. That being said, burning sustainably harvested wood does not add greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. This is because the trees being grown to supply the wood absorb as much carbon as the stoves are emitting.

In the long run, only biomass and renewables offer the prospect of unending energy. Encouraging the development of both is thus critical to making the transition to a zero-carbon global society. At the same time, other drawbacks do need to be considered: whether it’s the land and water use associated with biofuel production, the air pollution from biomass burning, or the damage caused by dams. These trade-offs illustrate how technology is never really a self-sufficient answer to environmental problems.

There are also further complexities on the climate side. What is the source of the wood? Is logging altering the albedo of the area, leading to greater or lesser absorption of solar radiation? Are the trees being felled absorbing atmospheric carbon at the same rate as the trees that will replace them? What are the climatic impacts of the physical cutting and transportation of the wood? What effect will the aerosols from the wood burning have on climate?

In the specific case of Montreal’s wood-burning stoves, I don’t know enough about the trade-offs involved to make a sensible suggestion. Perhaps it would be better to mandate that any wood-burning appliances meet emissions standards, rather than banning them completely, or perhaps that is infeasible for some reason and only a ban will work. For instance, it might just be too costly and impractical to create and enforce emissions standards for wood-fired devices. In the end, the business of living together in a finite world is inevitably one of compromise and politics.

Environmental assessments in Canada

Reading about the plans of Canada’s federal government to limit environmental assessments, I was left wondering whether the term ‘environment’ is itself somewhat marginalizing. These days, people seem to generally accept the idea that ‘environment’ and ‘economy’ are competing interests and, by extension, that the former should sometimes be sacrificed for the latter. I wonder, then, what would change if part of the environmental assessment was split off and called a ‘human health assessment.’ People seem much less willing to accept a trade-off between money and health.

If there was a separate study on things like lung diseases, cancers, and human toxic exposure likely to arise from a project, it might get a lot more attention. That being said, there does seem to be a risk that once you isolate human health from the rest of the environmental assessment, nobody will care about the nature portion. I mean, who really cares about birds, fish, or polar bears anyhow?

Legalizing drugs

In a recent leader and briefing, The Economist has reiterated its support for worldwide drug legalization. They argue that, while legalization will certainly bring problems of its own, it is better than another century of failed attempts at prohibition. All told, the case is a very strong one. Legalization could bring with it government control: tax revenues, funds to treat addicts, quality control of products, and public information. Legalization would bring the problem into the open, as well as allow the billions of dollars spent on anti-drug policing and prisons to be put to better uses. In their leader, the magazine makes the surprising suggestion that the participation of legitimate drug companies in the development and improvement of recreational drugs could make them safer.

Legalization could also undercut organized crime, the body that probably benefits most from the current arrangement. That, in turn, would cut down on the crime associated with an illegal trade. Legalization would also suspend the situation in which governments criminalize large segments of their own population. The point is made that Barack Obama could easily have ended up in prison for his youthful experiments with cocaine. Certainly, prison sentences for drug use have the capacity to ruin what would otherwise be excellent lives by stigmatizing those who receive them and exposing them to one of the most intolerable social environments that exist within secure states.

An interesting rebuttal is offered to the idea that looser drug laws turn more people into drug users and addicts. Comparisons of otherwise similar states (harsh Sweden and laxer Norway, for instance) suggest that laws have little impact on the level of drug-taking in society. Under a legal regime, there would also be an opportunity to dispel misinformation about drugs. Certainly, the arguments that politicians have sometimes made about the ‘extreme’ danger of marijuana undermine their credibility when talking about substances that are genuinely far more dangerous.

In short, drug legalization does seem to offer the prospect of weakening the connections between many different harmful phenomenon: from the way in which poppy eradication is undermining peacemaking efforts in Afghanistan to the way in which the poor are more likely to go to jail for drug offences than their richer fellow citizens. While it would be asking too much for governments to take the plunge and legalize everything instantly, it may not be too much to hope for gradual progress in that direction, with a growing emphasis on harm prevention and a more evidence-based approach to policing, lawmaking, and judicial decisions.

Cap-and-trade schemes and price increases

An exciting element of the new American administration’s climate change agenda is the promised cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gas emissions. During the campaign, Obama pledged that the system would auction 100% of the permits. The government would issue a set number of permits each year, which firms would need to bid for competitively. That way, the price of permits would be established through a market mechanism and whatever opportunities existed to mitigate emissions for a lesser cost would be captured. The revenues from the auctions could be used in various ways.

One big rhetorical counter-argument, employed largely by those seeking to stall the regulation of greenhouse gasses, is that this will increase consumer prices. At least when it comes to greenhouse gas intensive products, this is necessarily true in the short to medium term. The whole idea behind carbon pricing is to alter the relative cost of high-carbon and low-carbon goods: encouraging people to switch from the former to the latter, and generally minimize the consumption of high-carbon goods altogether. Prices are an important mechanism through which this information is conveyed. Also, the existence of a significant and rising cost of carbon is necessary to drive the kind of investments required to produce a low-carbon society.

There are a number of important responses to the point about raising prices. Firstly, it is important to highlight how the transition to a low-carbon economy is necessary and one-off. Putting society on a sustainable footing is a huge task, but also one of humanity’s biggest opportunities. Managed properly, our response to climate change can establish key parts of the foundation for a sustainable society. Secondly, it is key to realize that energy companies will pass along the cost of permits, even if they receive them for free (this previous post explains why). This leads to the third point, about the importance of where the funds go. In a system where permits are ‘grandfathered’ and given to power plants and industrial facilities for free, the price increases will translate into profits for those polluting firms. Cap-and-trade revenues, however, go into the public coffers. They can then be used to help individuals deal with the difficulties of economic transition, reduce taxation elsewhere, and help fund green infrastructure projects.

The 100% auction plan is certain to face stiff opposition in Congress. In spite of that, it is very much worth putting through. It is far better to get a weak but decently-designed system in place, ready to be tightened up later, than introduce something that is compromised from the start. Putting a small but real price on every tonne of emissions is thus better than entrenching a system of free emissions for favoured firms, even if non-favoured firms face higher initial carbon prices. Here’s hoping the Obama administration has the resolve and skill required to really kick off America’s urgent transition towards carbon neutrality.

Regulating dirty coal in the US

The New York Times is reporting on how the Obama administration in the US is going to propose new regulations on the wastes from coal combustion, including coal ash of the kind that spilled so dramatically in Tennessee, causing $100 million in damage. The wastes contain toxins like arsenic, mercury, and lead at higher concentrations than in previous decades, partly because the scrubbers used to keep these toxins out of the plant’s air emissions lead to them ending up in the ash instead. In 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies researched the mean concentrations of toxins in the ash: arsenic (43.4 ppm); barium (806 ppm); beryllium (5 ppm); boron (311 ppm); cadmium (3.4 ppm); chromium (136 ppm); chromium VI (90 ppm); cobalt (35.9 ppm); copper (112 ppm); fluorine (29 ppm); lead (56 ppm); manganese (250 ppm); nickel (77.6 ppm); selenium (7.7 ppm); strontium (775 ppm); thallium (9 ppm); vanadium (252 ppm); and zinc (178 ppm). In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that: “The presence of high contaminant levels in many CCR (coal combustion residue) leachates may create human health and ecological concerns.”

At present, coal ash facilities are regulated far less stringently than landfills for municipal waste, despite how they are fundamentally more hazardous. The new regulations will aim at preventing spills, as well as the leaching of toxins into the water supply.

It just goes to show that, even with effective carbon capture and storage technology, coal will probably never be a clean source of energy. By the time coal-fired power stations are required to mine, burn, and dispose of coal in a more environmentally benign manner, the cost advantages associated with coal are likely to vanish as well.

Access rights to Canadian waterways

According to Saxe Environmental Law News, the federal government has proposed to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act in a way that would limit future public access to navigable waterways:

Ever since Canada was first settled, anyone in a canoe has had a right to paddle rivers, lakes and streams with enough water to float in… Now the federal government is proposing to give away much of this power.

The right to free navigation in public space seems to be an important part of living in a just and open society. Having limits on the extent and character of private property is an important mechanism for maintaining an overall civic structure, in which everyone has equal rights under the law. As someone who has enjoyed a fair bit of canoeing (and some kayaking) in the past, I find this potential change of rules worrisome. Hopefully, this decision will get appropriate scrutiny from lawmakers and the public.

The post also includes a link to a memorandum on the issue (PDF), written by Ecojustice.