Politics – Page 134 – a sibilant intake of breath

Socrates and modern America

In their always-worthwhile Christmas issue, The Economist has an article on what Socrates might think of the state of discourse in the United States, especially political discourse:

In 1968 Stringfellow Barr, an historian and president of St John’s College in Maryland, wrote a Socratic critique of American discourse: “There is a pathos in television dialogue: the rapid exchange of monologues that fail to find the issue, like ships passing in the night; the reiterated preface, ‘I think that…,’ as if it mattered who held which opinion rather than which opinion is worth holding; the impressive personal vanity that prevents each ‘discussant’ from really listening to another speaker”.

Socrates’s alternative was “good” conversation or dialectic. To converse originally meant to turn towards one another, in order to find a common humanity and to move closer to the truth of something. Dialectic, in other words, is decidedly not about winning or losing, because all the conversants are ennobled by it. It is a joint search. Unfortunately, as Mr Barr put it, it is also “the most difficult” kind of conversation “especially for Americans to achieve”.

Quite possibly, the worst discourse of all is that surrounding climate change, both in the United States and Canada. People deny that it is happening or suggest absurd causes, they interpret policies to reduce its severity in absurd and hyperbolic ways, and they singularly fail to either convey the most important aspects of the issue to the observing public or engage one another in meaningful discussion.

We have to hope that the climate isn’t as sensitive as the scientists endorsing a 350 part per million target believe; if so, we will probably toast the planet long before our discourse on climate change reaches a level of maturity sufficient to generate good policies.

Heathrow’s third runway and the carbon price

I have commented before on the incoherence of how the United Kingdom plans to both cut greenhouse gas emissions and increase airport capacity. The December 8th report from the Committee on Climate Change perpetuates this mis-match, saying that the third runway for Heathrow could be compatible with government emission reduction targets, provided the price of carbon reaches £200 per tonne by 2050.

To me, this view is rather perplexing. Why build a runway, then use taxes to choke off the demand for it? Either your taxes won’t prevent the flights, making it harder to reach your carbon targets, or they will and your investment in the runway and supporting facilities will be a waste. The committee also assumes that aircraft engine efficiency will improve by 0.8-1.5% per year, that biofuels that don’t compete with food crops will emerge, and that high speed rail will displace a lot of short-haul flights in Europe. To take advantage of assumptions about the future to defend a dubious current policy is a practice all too common. Rather than pretending they can have it both ways, the UK should acknowledge that achieving its climate change goals will require reducing incredibly emissions-intensive activities like air travel.

Thankfully, the British Conservative Party – which is likely to take power with the next election – continues to oppose construction of the runway, precisely because it clashes with climate change objectives.

May you live in interesting times

In Vancouver, I had a conversation with Tristan about some of the major energy and environmental changes we are likely to witness in our lifetimes. These include:

Very significant amounts of climate change, very substantial climate change mitigation efforts, or both.
The probable collapse of most or all commercial fisheries globally.
The peak of global oil production, and progressive subsequent decline.

In some ways, the significance of all three is the same – humanity now has the capability to reshape the planet in very substantial ways and no political or economic arrangement to date has been sufficient to stave off some of our most dangerous and damaging behaviours.

Personally, I think this is a poor time to be bringing children into the world. While the loss of fisheries will be tragic, climate change threatens to undermine the ability of global civilization to feed and support itself, if it continues unchecked. Before I would feel confident that future generations will live reasonably good lives, I will need to see global emissions reach a plateau (very soon, if we are to avoid more than 2°C of warming) and begin the long and determined decline that is necessary to restabilize the climate on human timescales.

Within fifty years, we should have a pretty good idea of whether humanity will put in a solid effort in jumping over the various hurdles before us. Given the feedbacks in the climate system, there is no guarantee that even vigorous effort can prevent abrupt or runaway climate change. That being said, there is a big difference between devoting ourselves to making a real effort to overcome the obstacle and simply ploughing along blindly (accelerating all the while) until we hit it.

Military fuel use and climate

One of the organizations taking possible future fossil fuel scarcity most seriously is the American military. The Air Force is investigating how to make jet fuel from coal or natural gas. Meanwhile, the other branches of the military are looking for ways to reduce their fuel bills and vulnerability to fuel shortages. There is plenty of reason to do so, given that American forces are using about one million gallons of fuel per day each in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the cost per gallon in the most remote locations can run as high as US$400. The average cost for a gallon of fuel at a forward operating base is about US$15.

Some efforts being made include insulating tents, installing ‘smart grids’ on military bases, increasing usage of renewable forms of power, and investigating ways to use wastes for energy. As with other attempts to reduce fossil fuel dependence, there is no guarantee that these efforts will prove to be beneficial overall from a climatic perspective. If the Air Force manages to produce biofuels that are suitable for use in aircraft, have a decent energy return on investment, and do not compete with food crops, they may develop products and processes with considerable civilian applicability, and potential to mitigate greenhouse emissions. If, instead, they just perfect the oil German and Japanese trick of turning coal into liquid fuel, they may end up making the problem much worse. The very last thing humanity needs is another excuse to burn coal, when we really ought to be working out strategies to leave all that planet-warming carbon safely underground.

Of course, militaries are fundamentally hugely wasteful and destructive things. If we do manage to make a global transition to zero-carbon forms of energy, it seems probable that the world’s various armed forces will be the most resistant to accepting any restrictions on their emissions or fuel use. Much will depend on whether we can find energy sources that are actually cheaper and better than fossil fuels, or whether we manage to content ourselves with inferior options that don’t generate the same sort of climatic risks. In the first case, militaries may largely shift to low-carbon technologies on their own accord. In the latter case, prodding them into environmental responsibility may prove extremely difficult, especially if ongoing climate change has helped to make the world a less geopolitically stable place.

The credit crunch and climate change

The credit crunch reveals at least one important thing about major policy decisions: once they are taken, one way or another, it becomes impossible to fully evaluate what the world would have been like without them.

Plenty of people claim that it was terribly necessary to bail out the banks and car companies, cut interest rates, and wreck the public finances by splashing out on every sort of tax cut and government spending program. They argue that doing so made this into a minor recession compared to a decade-long global recession. Having taken those actions, our ability to know what the world without them would have been like is very limited. The unknowable costs of inaction can always be used to respond to examples of cases where action currently seems unnecessary: “Yes, it was regrettable for the investment bankers to pay themselves off with taxpayer money, but the alternative to all this would have been a terrible global depression!”

The same will eventually be true of climate change mitigation policy. Say we eventually make it a real priority – setting a high price on carbon and really focusing on de-carbonizing our infrastructure. At some point in the distant future, we will look at our efforts and at how much climate change occurred. Provided it was a non-catastrophic amount, we will be in the same situation as we are now in relation to the credit crunch. We will be unable to know how bad things would have gotten if we had not taken action,

That being said, the stakes are enormously higher with climate change than with the credit crunch. While global economic turmoil would hurt, climate change risks destroying or severely degrading the capability of the planet to sustain human life. The risks associated with allowing it to occur to an extreme extent are practically incomparable.

It should also be noted that the credit crunch bailouts served a purpose that we must look on with increasing suspicion: maintaining economic growth. While we should certainly hope that human welfare will continue to improve, it is tautologically the case that we will eventually need to move to an economy in a steady state, when it comes to the resources it extracts from the atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere, and in terms of the wastes it ejects into those places.

Crush the Cell

Michael Sheenan’s Crush the Cell: How to Defeat Terrorism Without Terrorizing Ourselves covers ground that overlaps with that of Ghost: Confessions of a Counterterrorism Agent and Securing the City. Namely, the history of Al Qaeda in relation to the United States, and the question of what sort of policies the United States should adopt in response to terrorism. Sheehan brings an insider’s perspective, having served as New York’s Deputy Commissioner for counterterrorism. While Sheehan provides a lot of information and tries to argue a few key points, the book succeeds more as a source of raw information than as a source of analysis. In particular, Sheehan fails to fully justify his views that Al Qaeda will fizzle out in a few decades, and fails to provide a comparative justification for why targeting cells is the most effective way of undermining terrorist plots while avoiding unwanted secondary effects.

Sheehan covers a number of important and interesting topics: methods for counterterrorism, intelligence, and law enforcement; the (limited) competence of Al Qaeda operatives; the risks that arise then officials practice ‘cover your ass’ security; the significance of weapons of mass destruction; torture and human rights; and the importance of not granting terrorists the psychological advantages that arise when we allow ourselves to be terrorized. In the last of those, he echoes a point well-made by Bruce Schneier. Sheehan also provides an insider’s perspective on the controversial rebuilding of the former World Trade Center site, including why construction has been so slow to begin.

Among the three books I have recently read on this subject, Securing the City probably provides the most insight into effective counterterrorism strategies developed and deployed in New York, while Ghost may be the most compelling personal account (though one lacking in balance). Crush the Cell occupies a middle territory – worth reading for those who want even more details and examples than they have found from other sources, but probably not essential reading for those only moderately interested in the subject.

The torture prorogation?

It was bad enough to prorogue Parliament to avoid an election, but doing the same to try to silence questions about Canada’s role in torturing detainees is far more dubious. As an article in the Ottawa Citizen explains:

When Harper prorogued last fall it was to avoid a vote of non-confidence. This time, it will be to avoid something possibly far more serious — Parliamentary censure of the government, the banishment or imprisonment of Harper and some of his ministers, or the RCMP being asked to execute a Speaker’s warrant.

While the torture allegations are being treated as a partisan issue, I don’t think that is the appropriate frame of view. This is an issue of international law, human rights, and how Canada is going to conduct itself in international military operations. The precise manner in which Canada should deal with detainees and other governments is one that should be scrutinized by Parliament (and, if necessary, the courts) and that scrutiny should occur where Canadians have the opportunity to observe it.

Our procedures for military oversight also need to be examined, to evaluate the question of whether key information is being properly routed up through military and civilian command structures.

[Update: 25 January 2010] This whole situation generated a considerable amount of protest: 200,000 or so coast to coast.

India’s voluntary climate actions

In international climate negotiations, India has been one of the states asserting most forcefully that developing countries should not have mandatory emissions caps applied to them. It argues, quite rightly, that states that are now rich largely became that way on the basis of fossil fuel use, and that it still has high levels of extreme poverty to address. That being said, all global emissions will eventually need to be cut. Approaches like contraction and convergence seek to address these practical and ethical issues, by giving states like India and China a bit of space in which to keep increasing emissions, before theirs peak at a level far below where rich states are now, and eventually fall to zero.

While India isn’t signing on to such schemes now, they are taking some voluntary actions unilaterally: “a proposed $20 billion investment in solar energy; a plan to return a third of its area to forest; and many energy-efficiency measures.” These are the sorts of win-win measures that generate positive secondary effects. Solar power doesn’t cause air pollution, and can help countries reduce their dependence on imported fuels. Reforestation protects watersheds and decreases erosion. Energy efficiency might be the single area where it is most possible to actually save money while reducing emissions.

Eventually, India will need to be brought into a binding global emissions reduction regime. For now, whatever actions that can be taken to drive their development process towards a low-carbon course should be undertaken.

Gas by gas, or all together?

The various chemicals that cause the climate system to warm vary considerably in their characteristics:

How strong a warming effect they have
How long they remain in the atmosphere
What processes produce them
Whether they have other positive or negative effects
Etc

For instance, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas (GHG) than carbon dioxide (CO2), but it stays around a lot less time. CFCs and HCFCs are very powerful greenhouse gasses that are produced by a relatively small number of companies for specific applications; CO2, by contrast, is produced by most forms of economic activity everywhere.

Faced with these sorts of variation, some people have argued that having one regime for all GHGs is not the best approach. Because of the damage they cause to the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer, CFCs are covered by the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention. That limited agreement has produced about 175 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent in emission reductions, compared to just a handful from the partially implemented Kyoto Protocol.

The advantage of putting all GHGs into the same legal instrument is that it could allow for mitigation to be balanced in the most efficient way. If Gas X is five times more problematic than Gas Y, the value of the carbon tax paid or auctioned permits purchased would also be five times greater. That way, people would focus on cutting emissions where it is cheapest and easiest to do so. The major disadvantage of bundling the GHGs together is that doing so can distort markets. One gas – HFC-23 – is so powerful and so cheap to get rid of that it has seriously skewed prices in global carbon markets. Rather than paying people huge sums of HFC-23, we should just be sharply limiting how much of the stuff people are permitted to make in the first place.

In an ideal world, it should be possible to have a well designed system that incorporates all GHGs. It should also be possible to have a series of overlapping agreements that do so. In practical terms, what the latter possibility allows is an alternative route that might be taken, if efforts to produce one big treaty continue to prove unsuccessful.

The IEA on peak oil and climate policy

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has recently charged its public position on peak oil. It now claims that output of conventional oil will peak in 2020, if demand continues to grow in a business-as-usual way:

After analysing the historical production trends of 800 individual oilfields in 2008, the IEA came to the conclusion that the decline in annual output from fields that are past their prime could average 8.6% in 2030. “Even if oil demand were to remain flat, the world would need to find more than 40m barrels per day of gross new capacity—equal to four new Saudi Arabias—just to offset this decline,” says Mr Birol.

A daunting task. Peak-oil proponents point out that the average size of new discoveries has been declining since the mid-1960s. Between 1960 and 1989 the world discovered more than twice the oil it produced. But between 1990 and 2006 cumulative oil discoveries have been about half of production. Their opponents argue that long periods of relatively low oil prices blunted the incentives for exploration. A sustained period of higher prices, they argue, should increase discoveries. They point out that the first half of 2009 saw 10 billion barrels of new discoveries, an annual rate higher than any year since 2000. The pessimists retort that recent discoveries are still not enough.

Insofar as climate change mitigation policies could help control demand growth, they could thus extend the timeframe during which humanity will address fossil fuel depletion.

The IEA argues that coordinated action to prevent more than 2°C of climate change would reduce global demand for oil in 2030 from 105 million barrels per day to 89 million.