Politics – Page 148 – a sibilant intake of breath

Climate change and the Colorado River

A study conducted by the University of Colorado at Boulder has concluded that there is a 50% chance of the Colorado River system “fully depleting all of its reservoir storage by mid-century assuming current management practices continue on course.” The authors of the study have determined that could reduce average stream flow by 20%, which translates into a 50% chance of fully depleting reservoir storage. That storage capacity amounts to more than 60 million acre feet, nearly four times the ordinary annual flow of the river.

To appreciate the potential significance of such a development, one need only consider that the river powers more than a dozen dams, and serves the water needs of 30 million people. Replacing the electrical output provided by the dams would be a very difficult matter, and the water restrictions that would accompany declined availability would challenge agriculture, industry, and residential development. The study illustrates some key points about climate change:

People in rich developed states are also vulnerable
Serious impacts could arise in the medium term
Significant aspects of our current economic system could be disrupted in the coming decades, if we fail to reduce our emissions

Hopefully, these messages will get through to voters and policy-makers, and the kind of mobilization required to cut emissions will begin.

Carbon-neutral Tuvalu

Tuvalu, one of the small island states that faces a literal threat of obliteration due to climate change, has vowed to generate all of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. The estimated cost of doing so for the nation of 12,000 people is US$20 million.

The approach is a sensible one, given that the only hope for such states is swaying the world’s major emitters into being more aggressive about emissions reductions than they would otherwise be. Nevertheless, the prognosis for states like Tuvalu and the Maldives is pretty bleak. When rich states talk about ‘dangerous’ climate change, they seem to be defining it largely in terms of their own national interest. Furthermore, most states still haven’t adopted targets consistent with stabilizing greenhouse gasses at a level likely to avoid more than 2°C of temperature increase, and none have taken serious steps towards implementing a plan capable of reaching those targets.

Singer on rationing health care

Peter Singer, a prominent utilitarian philospher, has set out a very strong case that ‘rationing’ health care is both inevitable and ethically sound, if done intelligently. The inevitability of rationing arises inescapably from the fact that our resources to do all things are limited, that we don’t want to devote all of our resources to health care, and that no amount of resources can prevent death indefinitely or in all cases. As such, we need to make sure that the rationing is driven by intelligent considerations, rather than morally dubious ones such as the wealth of the person receiving treatment.

If the U.S. system spent less on expensive treatments for those who, with or without the drugs, have at most a few months to live, it would be better able to save the lives of more people who, if they get the treatment they need, might live for several decades.

Pragmatically, it isn’t possible to prevent the wealthy from spending whatever they can on their own health care. Even if you outlaw it domestically, there are plenty of other states that will welcome their cash. What is possible is improving outcomes in situations where risk and resources are being pooled, whether by private ensurers or by government-run insurance schemes. It is in those cases that we need to do a good job of evaluating what expenditures produce benefits sufficiently large to justify them, and which we must decline to undertake.

Ranking the quality of carbon offsets

Carbon offsets have been a contentious subject on this and other environmental blogs. On one side, people argue that their sale produces better outcomes than would otherwise arise, since people voluntarily help to eliminate emissions where it is cheapest to do so. On the other, people argue that many offsets are of dubious quality, and that the very idea of offsetting perpetuates harmful behaviours and the false sense that climate change can be addressed without lifestyle changes. Not everyone can offset, after all.

In response to the former concern, about the quality of offsets, the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation has produced a survey of 20 Canadian vendors of offsets. According to Pembina, offsets from renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects are the most credible sort available. Others have pointed out that forestry-based offsets and those based on Kyoto Protocol CDM credits are among the most dubious.

In the end, I think buying offsets is a much less worthwhile exercise than reducing your own emissions or lobbying for political action on climate change. That being said, if there is going to be a market in offsets, it is good that the various firms providing them are being subjected to outside scrutiny.

Exporting pollution

The government of Brazil is demanding that the UK take back 1,400 tonnes of hazardous waste that have been shipped to three Brazilian ports. The incident illustrates the broader phenomenon of rich states exporting pollution, both in the form of directly shipping hazardous materials abroad and by eliminating highly polluting industries domestically and importing their products from developing countries. All this helps to sustain the illusion that lifestyles in developed states are sustainable, since both resource and waste problems are shifted to places where they are less immediately visible.

Whether the issue is ozone depleting substances, persistent organic pollutants, or greenhouse gasses, distance alone is no real protection for the population of developed states. Fundamentally global problems like these require coordinated solutions involving states at very different levels of wealth, and with different internal political arrangements. The negotiators at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen this December have quite a challenge ahead of them.

Driving action on climate change in Cambridge

A friend of mine sent me a link to a Guardian article about making people take action on climate change. The article argues that emotional engagement is necessary to translate concern into action:

The psychotherapist Rosemary Randall observed that even among those individuals who fully understand the risks of climate change, very few have taken steps to meaningfully reduce their carbon footprint.

I think focusing on the carbon footprint of participants may be a faulty approach. What we need now is active citizens pushing for government action, not a few isolated individuals making small contributions. Still, it is good to see people working on the issue of turning knowledge into real engagement.

The project being discussed – Carbon Conversations – conducts seminars in Cambridge every two weeks.

The costly nuclear option

Writing in The Toronto Star, Tyler Hamilton reveals that the AECL bid to add two new Advanced CANDU reactors to Ontario’s Darlington nuclear station was approximately $26 billion. That works out to a shocking $10,800 per kilowatt of electricity, compared with the $2,900 per kilowatt reference figure the Ontario Power Authority was using for planning back in 2007. The French firm Areva apparently put in a lower bid – $7,375 per kilowatt – but was unwilling to take on as much risk as AECL. The article also notes the untested nature of the Advanced CANDU design, which is especially worrisome given the failure of AECL to deploy two planned isotope reactors, due to design failures.

If this is the true contemporary cost of nuclear power, it seems plausible that we shouldn’t be bothering with it, given all the other associated risks. For $10,800 per kilowatt, it is quite possible we could get more value by funding energy efficiency, conservation, and renewables. Taking some cost figures from MacKay, we can compare $26 billion for 2,000MW (2GW) of nuclear with other options:

Onshore wind: $2.8 billion for 2GW
Offshore wind: $3.0 billion for 2GW
Concentrating solar in deserts : $31 billion for 2GW
Solar photovoltaic: $14.5 billion for 2GW

We also wouldn’t be taking on the additional risks associated with proliferation, accidents, wastes, and so forth. Admittedly, MacKay’s figures are approximate and there are other considerations to be made. Even so, the staggering cost of the AECL bid has to give pause to anyone who hopes nuclear could be a cheap and relatively easy solution to climate change. It may be that The Economist will be proved correct in saying: “Since the 1970s, far from being ‘too cheap to meter’—as it proponents once blithely claimed—nuclear power has proved too expensive to matter.”

Palin’s content-free opposition to carbon pricing

Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska, has produced an op-ed for The Washington Post attacking the Waxman-Markey bill, and the idea of using cap and trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She argues:

It will prevent economic recovery.
It will make energy too expensive.
Job losses will result.
Costs of agriculture, transport, and manufacturing will rise.
Drilling in Alaska and building pipelines is a better option.
The US has lots of coal, and could build a lot more nukes.

Notably, she doesn’t even pretend to offer a solution to climate change, the primary problem the Waxman-Markey bill aims to address. This is remarkably myopic. Even if we accept that all of her assertions are true, this op-ed brings us no closer to making an intelligent decision on climate change and energy policies, since it doesn’t really contemplate alternative mechanisms through which climate can be stabilized and dependence on non-renewable fuels can be overcome. To imply that the US can get by with a bit more drilling is deeply fallacious. Similarly, it is misleading and dangerous to suggest that the American economy would keep ticking happily along indefinitely, even if climate change was totally unrestrained and allowed to follow its most destructive course.

We can only hope that the US Senate will be a bit more far-seeing in its analysis and deliberations, more willing to consider the key motivations for energy policy, and ultimately seized of the importance of sending a strong and growing price signal, so as to progressively and deeply curb the release of harmful and threatening greenhouse gasses.

Privatizing the sea to prevent overfishing

One standard solution to overfishing offered by economists is to essentially privatize the sea by creating individualized transferable quotas (ITQs) that give individuals and firms an incentive to fish at a sustainable level. Where intellectually coherent, the approach can be criticized on a number of grounds.

This Grist post does a good job of doing so. It points out the importance and difficulty of setting an appropriate Total Allowable Catch (TAC), the enormous problem of subsidized overcapacity, as well as bycatch and social justice issues.

ITQs may well be part of a sustainable global fisheries regime, especially where it comes to well-studied coastal fisheries off the shore of a single state with a strong regulatory capacity. When it comes to dealing with the pillage of the open ocean, however, they don’t really stand a chance.

G8 insufficiently wary of climate change

Writing in The Toronto Star Christopher Hume has produced a short but trenchant criticism of this government’s position on climate change: Political expediency trumps fate of planet.

As Hume explains:

In the face of overwhelming evidence that global warming is happening, and faster than the most pessimistic climatologists had expected, how can such extraordinary stupidity be justified?

Inaction of this sort goes well beyond ordinary human idiocy; it represents a collective rush to self-destruction on an unprecedented scale. And through it all, our leaders smile and assure us they won’t let our standard of living be threatened.

The G8 leaders would do well to read Jared Diamond’s work on civilizational collapse, so as to better understand the extent to which civilizational success depends absolutely on maintaining agricultural productivity, which in turn depends on avoiding massive environmental degradation and responding intelligently to the problems that arise.

As I have pointed out before, it is a false to suggest that we can continue to enjoy economic and social prosperity without dealing with the problem of climate change. Runaway climate change could literally kill everyone, and even increases of as little as 2°C “stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society” according to the scientists at RealClimate.

This government needs to realize that climate change isn’t some minor political issue to be managed, but rather a major civilizational challenge for humanity. So far, Canada has influenced this process primarily be serving as an anchor, holding back those with greater vision and determination.