Politics – Page 133 – a sibilant intake of breath

China and other developing states

Leaked Chinese documents claim that Canada and other developed nations have “connived” in a “conspiracy to divide the developing world.” It’s not surprising that China wants to be treated in the same way as extremely poor developing states, from whom no costly action is expected. At the same time, we just cannot afford to treat China and India like Mali or Guinea. The kind of climate future generations will live in is being affected strongly by choices made in Beijing and Delhi. That needs to be recognized – as does the need for India and China to accept emissions curbs.

This isn’t to say that India and China don’t have any claim to special treatment. Their per-capita and historical emissions are both low. That being said, the special treatment they receive cannot take a form that allows them to pursue the sort of high-carbon development track they have been. Unfair as it may be, they are going to need to develop primarily on the basis of low- and zero-carbon forms of energy (at the same time as developed states are aggressively cutting back on fossil fuel use) or we will get into a situation where it becomes very difficult to imagine how catastrophic climate change could not occur.

The great majority of the world’s emissions come from a dozen or so countries. Getting them on track towards carbon-neutrality is essential. That isn’t the case when it comes to small and very poor states who can be brought in line later without serious consequences. There is no need to be conspiratorial about it, but China and India really must be divided from the rest of the developing world.

RealClimate on IPCC errors

RealClimate has put out a comprehensive assessment of the various errors that have come to light in the IPCC AR4 – IPCC errors: facts and spin. It includes the Himalayan glaciers claim, sea level in the Netherlands, African crop yields, disaster losses, Amazon dieback, and the ‘gray literature’ controversy.

They highlight the distortions the media has perpetuated in reporting these stories, as well as provide an assessment of whether climate science remains sound, in spite of these errors and controversies:

In some media reports the impression has been given that even the fundamental results of climate change science are now in question, such as whether humans are in fact changing the climate, causing glacier melt, sea level rise and so on. The IPCC does not carry out primary research, and hence any mistakes in the IPCC reports do not imply that any climate research itself is wrong. A reference to a poor report or an editorial lapse by IPCC authors obviously does not undermine climate science. Doubting basic results of climate science based on the recent claims against the IPCC is particularly ironic since none of the real or supposed errors being discussed are even in the Working Group 1 report, where the climate science basis is laid out.

To be fair to our colleagues from WG2 and WG3, climate scientists do have a much simpler task. The system we study is ruled by the well-known laws of physics, there is plenty of hard data and peer-reviewed studies, and the science is relatively mature. The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824 by Fourier, the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other gases were first measured by Tyndall in 1859, the climate sensitivity to CO2 was first computed in 1896 by Arrhenius, and by the 1950s the scientific foundations were pretty much understood…

All of these various “gates” – Climategate, Amazongate, Seagate, Africagate, etc., do not represent scandals of the IPCC or of climate science. Rather, they are the embarrassing battle-cries of a media scandal, in which a few journalists have misled the public with grossly overblown or entirely fabricated pseudogates, and many others have naively and willingly followed along without seeing through the scam.

Unfortunately, it remains clear that a large amount of damage has been done by these media misrepresentations (both active and passive). They have helped to sap the energy that existed, pushing for meaningful climate policies. And they have given those trying to actively delay mitigation efforts much more fodder to confuse the public and encourage inaction.

BuryCoal.com

In brief, I am starting a new group blog at BuryCoal.com. It exists primarily to make the case for leaving coal and unconventional fuels underground, where they cannot harm the climate.

The reading I have done in the last year has highlighted a few important perspectives for me, when it comes to climate change. The most important thing is humanity’s total cumulative emissions. As such, it is not enough just to use fossil fuels more efficiently. We need to stop using them long before they run out: particularly, before the world’s massive reserves of coal and unconventional fossil fuels are tapped. The warming that would arise from burning all the coal, oil sands, shale oil, and methane clathrates would be far greater than that caused by burning conventional oil and gas.

Government plans that include serious restrictions on the use of coal and unconventional fossil fuels have a chance at being compatible with avoiding dangerous climate change, while those that treat this as a side issue do not.

In order to spread the word about the importance of leaving coal and unconventional fossil fuels in the ground, I have launched a new website at BuryCoal.com. It will be accepting submissions on all matters relating to coal and unconventional fossil fuels, including extraction, air and water pollution, climate change impacts, politics and activism, and more. I don’t think there is any other site out there with its main focus on the message that these fuels must be left in the ground, for the sake of improving our chances of experiencing catastrophic or runaway climate change, and on account of the other benefits that accompany moving beyond them. Those include reduced pollution and destruction of habitat, as well as reduced dependence on fossil fuels which will inevitably run out anyhow.

I would really appreciate if visitors to this site would do three things to help with the new project:

Please read and comment on the entries on the new site
Please let other people know about it
If you have something to say on a topic within the subject area, please submit a contribution

The kind of world our grandchildren and great grandchildren end up living in will depend a great deal on what proportion of these fuels we dig up and burn. BuryCoal.com has been established to be the antithesis to “Drill, Baby, Drill” and make a forceful and well-reasoned case for leaving all that carbon safely underground, while moving to a zero-carbon, renewable global energy system that can sustain human prosperity and civilization indefinitely.

Does Canada see the north as a colony?

Writing in The Globe and Mail, Doug Sanders makes the interesting and probably not inaccurate observation that Canada treats the far north like a colony:

We own the Arctic but, unlike most of our northern neighbours, we are not Arctic. Rovaniemi is a serious city of 60,000 people, with a major university, a large airport and important ties to the mainstream of Finnish life. Like the Arctic cities of Tromso, Norway (60,000) and Murmansk, Russia (325,000), it’s a major centre of business, learning and tourism.

So when Canada tried to impress the world’s finance ministers and media with its Arctic identity by holding a summit in Iqaluit, a remote and somewhat inaccessible town of 7,000 just below the Arctic Circle in Nunavut, it didn’t completely work. “It looked like the Canadians had just arrived there – they didn’t seem to know the place any better than we did,” one European official told me.

What those leaders realized, and what Canadians instinctively know, is that we relate to the Arctic not as a part of our identity or culture or traditional economy, but as a foreign, faraway land we happen to control. The Far North is, in short, our colony.

To me, it does seem plausible that both Canadian decision-makers and the Canadian public at large see the north through the twin lenses of romance about the place and excited anticipation about what good things we are going to be able to do with it, once that ice is less of a problem and we can get at the shipping routes and fossil fuel resources.

The profound transformation of the Arctic is now all-but-inevitable, probably to an extent that few people realize. It will be interesting to see whether the inhabitants start taking a stronger and more visible stance once it becomes inescapably obvious that the whole region is being transformed, or whether they will just take that as a given and start scrambling for a share of oil and gas revenues.

Blog on the psychology of denial

Climate Change Denial is a group blog that really impresses me. It is focused on the question of where climate change denial comes from, and why it has been so successful at diminishing public support for effective climate change policies.

One especially good post is about how climate change campaigners may be in denial themselves, about the scope and seriousness of the problem and the difficulty of addressing it in the time we have left.

It is a site I will continue to read with interest.

Johnny Appleseed and our present predicament

The first version of the song ‘Johnny Appleseed‘ I learned was the secularized version, in which Appleseed thanks ‘the Earth’ for giving him the things he needs: “the sun, and the rain, and the appleseed.” He concludes that “the Earth is good to [him].”

Later, I learned that this is a stripped-down version of a Christian song about ‘the Lord’ being good to Appleseed. I can understand why this song wasn’t sung at the province-run Outdoor School I briefly visited, but I have to say in retrospect that it makes more sense. It is at least internally coherent to thank a conscious, benevolent entity for giving you things you need. By contrast, it makes very little sense to thank ‘the Earth’ for anything. The Earth is a 5.97 x 10^24 kg ball of iron that has existed for about 4.54 billion years. For most of its history, it would not have been at all hospitable to Appleseed, or any other human.

Indeed, for most of its remaining history, Earth is likely to be terribly hostile to human beings. The carbon cycle may cease, when erosion overcomes volcanoes, killing everything. The sun may become a red giant, burning away the oceans and atmosphere. Much sooner than either of those, human beings may kick off a runaway greenhouse effect, killing ourselves and maybe even all life.

That is the rub. In this day and age, we shouldn’t be thanking the uncaring Earth for bounty. We should be thanking other human beings for not quite killing us yet, often despite their best efforts to destabilize the climate, kill off species, and poison the air and water. The dangerous implication of the thin-soup version of Johnny Appleseed is that the planet itself somehow determines whether or not any particular person gets the things they need. This is demonstrably less and less true.

In conclusion, it is increasingly pointless to thank or condemn any abstract entity for what happens to people. To an ever-greater extent, what happens to people depends on what those people and other people decide to do. As a result, libertarianism is dead, and we really need to learn how to live together.

When a cap-and-trade system stops biting

The relative merits of cap-and-trade versus a carbon tax for pricing carbon have been discussed here before. One characteristic that was not mentioned, and which is a blow against cap-and-trade, has to do with incentives to go beyond the minimum. Specifically, when the government sets a cap and auctions permits, you can be pretty sure the actual level of emissions will not fall lower than the cap. If it did, the market price for permits would plummet and people would rush in to buy the right to pollute.

A carbon tax wouldn’t have this problem, since people would be paying for every tonne of emissions, regardless of where the whole country was relative to the target. Also, a cap-and-trade system could probably be designed in a way that eliminates or eliminates this problem. For instance, the government could mandate a price floor, below which point permits are automatically withdrawn from sale.

Personally, I think it is possible to design either system well. It would also be possible to use an alternative cap-and-dividend or fee-and-dividend system, with automatic recycling of revenues. The key thing is to put a price on carbon domestically, and do so in a way that can eventually be integrated with systems elsewhere. By itself, carbon pricing won’t be enough. The volume of coal and unconventional fossil fuels out there makes them too dangerous to allow continued growing use. Before carbon prices, I would be happier to see both developed and developing states adopt moratoriums on new coal-fired facilities, except perhaps those that actually capture and store the great majority of their greenhouse gas emissions.

Rebutting Wente

Writing in The Globe and Mail, World Wildlife Fund President Gerald Butts has done a good job of expressing what is and is not important about the recent errors in IPCC reports that have gotten so much attention and rekindled the fires of the climate change denier community:

Yes, some scientists showed poor judgment in private e-mail exchanges later hacked and made public. Yes, some errors in fact and incomplete citations have been found in the IPCC’s 1,000-page reports. That said, even scientists who have criticized the IPCC agree that anthropogenic climate change is both a fact and an urgent threat to the planet.

All independent reviews undertaken so far (by The Associated Press, the University of Michigan and The Economist, for example) agree that none of the stolen e-mails or errors bring into question the science supporting climate change. To conclude otherwise is to misunderstand the process and power of science, and to dismiss the need to draw on the best available evidence and consensus to guide national policies.

Science is not a cold body of facts, but an organized system of inquiry, discovery, evaluation and learning. Science not only welcomes the correction of errors, its key attribute is that it is self-correcting over time. As new research arises, old hypotheses gain or lose support. While this process never stops, generally accepted conclusions do accumulate, based on the overwhelming weight of evidence. The fact and threat of anthropogenic climate change are clearly among those conclusions.

It is encouraging to see such an effective rebuttal printed to Margaret Wente’s misleading recent column, though it remains dispiriting that The Globe and Mail is still happy to give a platform to people as irresponsible and scientifically illiterate as Wente and Rex Murphy. Wente’s column is a prime example of a position that – on first glance – appears prudent, in suggesting that we shouldn’t take serious action while there still seem to be scientific uncertainties about climate. Unfortunately, the known characteristics of the climate system make this position irresponsible. The full effect of emissions today will take decades to fully manifest, and the climate system has the capacity to amplify small changes into much larger outcomes. What we know about the history and character of Earth’s climate tells us we need to take action now, not at some future point when the faulty claims of deniers have finally been deflated in the eyes of the public.

I suspect that, a few decades from now, people will be puzzled about why we were so unable to separate signal from noise, when it came to hearing what scientists were saying about climate change. Part of that is surely the result of actions taken in bad faith by those seeking to prevent policy action (people quite capable of exploiting the peculiar phenomenon that arise at the intersection of science and the media). That said, much of the explanation has to lie with the complacency of a public happy to hear that no action is required at the moment, no matter how thin the credibility of those making this announcement.

Another shot at shutting down InSite

Disappointingly, the federal government is going to the Supreme Court to try to shut down InSite – Vancouver’s safe injection site (mentioned here before). It seems astonishing to me that any government would want to emulate the hard anti-drug stance embraced in the United States, given the extent to which drug prohibition has wrecked their justice system. It defies both evidence and logic to suggest that the proper response to drug use is to lock up the people doing it.

Here’s hoping the Supreme Court rules that facilities of this sort are permissible, given the proven success of harm reduction programs in diminishing the negative effects of drug addiction. Giving InSite a clear legal mandate to exist could encourage the emergence of similar programs in other areas where drug problems are a major concern.

[Update: 10 February 2010] There is a good post about InSite and the Conservative government over on Knitnut: Ideology trumps evidence: Conservative drug policy.

Cash versus goods donations

Over on the RedCrossBlog, Claire Durham has an interesting post on why non-cash donations are unhelpful. It seems important, given the continued willingness of people to send things that are less than useful, expensive to transport, and liable to jam up logistical systems. Providing some guidance to those trying to help the victims of the earthquake in Haiti also makes sense at this time.

As an example of how non-cash donations can be useless or even harmful, Durham highlights how donated pharmaceuticals often end up being worse than useless:

Drugs that are not required, those that have expired or have no expiry date have to be destroyed. Incineration is preferred as this prevents the hazard of land filled medicines contaminating water supplies or drugs being collected and sold on the black market. In Eritrea after the war of independence, seven truckloads of expired aspirin took six months to burn. The real tragedy is the cost of this process. In the Venezuela floods in 2000, seventy percent of donated pharmaceuticals had to be destroyed. To be able to cover this cost, a support line to provide psychological support to the survivors had to be shut down.

None of this is overly surprising. The chaotic and uncoordinated efforts of the general population, being undertaken after a disaster has occurred, is no substitute for the strategic pre-positioning of plans and resources. In addition, longer-term planning allows for greater standardization (easing training difficulties), cost effectiveness, and the matching of goods to local tastes and needs. Providing regular funding to professional organization with the skills to do this well is probably the single best thing ordinary people can do to lessen the human suffering that accompanies disasters.