Politics – Page 154 – a sibilant intake of breath

The AECL and new nuclear plants in Ontario

It seems that the province of Ontario is leaning towards having Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) build their new nuclear reactors, provided the federal government provides some additional support. The recent history of the company isn’t very impressive, given their failure to get two comparatively simple isotope reactors to work, and giving the contract to a Canadian company makes it even more likely that Canadian taxpayers and ratepayers will end up subsidizing them.

Perhaps it would be wiser to give the contract to a French, American, or Japanese firm, and let their citizens help pay for our gigawatts. It seems plausible that using a design that is being implemented elsewhere will have price benefits: both in terms of economies of scale and in terms of learning from the experience of those who began building them earlier. AECL’s Advanced CANDU reactor has not yet been fully designed, and probably never will be unless it wins the competition in Ontario, besting France’s AREVA and Westinghouse, from the US.

Changing Images of Man

First published in 1974, and available for free online, Changing Images of Man is a kind of philosophical reflection on science and how human beings understand themselves. While it does touch on some interesting ideas, the degree to which it is fundamentally lacking in rigour or discipline means that it is also choked with nonsense, impenetrable jargon, and pointless speculation. In short, it does not have the feel of a text whose ideas have been borne out by subsequent history. Rather, it is more like a monument to a kind of faddishness that has long since become dated, though elements endure in the more superstitious aspects of contemporary culture.

Much of the book concerns environmental issues: specifically, how human civilization can cease to be such a destructive force, and how ecology is affecting science in general. Neither discussion is very satisfying. The former discussion focuses on a kind of caricatured extension of the Beatles going to India to lean yoga and discover themselves. While significant transformations in human behaviours and self-understanding may well be necessary to generate a sustainable society, the perspective on those changes offered in this work doesn’t seem either plausible or compelling to me. The latter discussion exaggerates the degree to which the study of complex dynamic systems challenges the practice of science: while they are certainly more challenging to study scientifically than systems that are more easily broken down and understood in terms of constituents, science is nonetheless proving increasingly capable of dealing with complex systems like climate and ecosystems, and is doing so without the kind of radical extension and modification endorsed by this book.

Much of the book is no more comprehensible than a random string of pompous-sounding words strung together in a grammatical way. It seems telling that the chapter on ‘feasibility’ is the least accessible and comprehensible of the lot. The report perceives a crisis in science that I don’t think existed at the time it was written, and I do not think has emerged since. Complex phenomenon are being grappled with using enhanced versions of conventional techniques, while UFOs and psychic phenomena have been effectively rejected as quackery, due to the absence of any good evidence for their existence. Basically, Changing Images of Man is an exhortation to abandon rigorous thought in favour of a kind of wooly inclusiveness, exceedingly open to ideas that are too vague to really engage with. The book has a naive counterculture tone, overly willing to reject what is old and unthinkingly embrace novel concepts that register with a 1960s/1970s mindset. While the questions it considers are generally good and important ones, the answers provided are vague, preachy, and largely useless.

Climate deniers deciding science funding in Canada

In yet another demonstration of the ongoing tensions between conservative political parties and science, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appointed a couple of climate change deniers to federal science funding bodies. One has claimed that “the climate-change issue is somewhat sensational and definitely exaggerated.” The appointments seem likely to worsen the quality of scientific work being done in Canada, putting us further behind the rest of the developed world, when it comes to comprehending and appreciating the characteristics of the world in which we live, and in which important political choices must be made.

This is reminiscent of the appointment of a man seriously invested in the oil sands to the ‘Clean Energy Dialogue’ ongoing with the US. The Conservatives claim that they accept the science of climate change, but they cannot really take it to heart because of the degree to which it fundamentally conflicts with a laissez faire approach to economic regulation.

All we can hope for is for climate change denial to eventually become so patently ridiculous to the electorate that parties that continue to dabble in it seem to be arguing the equivalent of the Earth being flat and orbited by the sun. That may be the only time at which conservative parties have the impetus they need to reform their ideas to be compatible with what we now understand to be the state of the world.

The B.C. election and carbon pricing

From a climatic perspective, it seems that there are two reasons to be glad about the recent electoral victory of the Liberal Party in British Columbia:

Firstly, it shows that carbon pricing (and carbon taxes, specifically) need not mean death at the ballot box. While it is still far too weak, the B.C. carbon tax is at least a progressive example for North America. Some have concluded that it is actually the most effective climate policy in effect on the continent at this time.
Secondly, it shows that an unprincipled stand against carbon pricing can actually cost a party support. This is an essential development, if we are to deal with climate change. Succeeding will depend on carbon mitigation policies enduring and strengthening for many decades. As such, we need to reach the point where the electorate rejects those who would scrap them for non-environmental reasons.

While there are plenty of reasons to dislike both major political parties in B.C., at least this election didn’t prove to be yet another setback for effective climate policy in Canada.

Here’s hoping the US Congress is able to pass a cap-and-trade scheme before the Copenhagen meeting, and that Canada will finally roll out regulations on greenhouse gas emissions nationally.

Australia’s coal and China

All regular readers of this site are familiar with Canada’s energy dilemma, as far as the oil sands, the United States, and climate change are concerned. The US has a huge appetite for oil, and is increasingly anxious about getting it from the Middle East. From a short-term perspective, this positions Canada’s unconventional oil very nicely. Of course, when you think long-term and realize the importance of climate stability, you become a lot more likely to think we would be better off leaving the stuff in the ground.

A similar dynamic seems to exist when it comes to coal, Australia, and China. In March 2009, China imported 1,716,802 tons of Australian coal. All told, it imported 211% more coal between January and March as in the previous year. Like Canada, Australia has extremely high per-capita emissions, a poor record on greenhouse gas mitigation, and a lot of export-oriented resource extraction industry. Also like Canada, it may well be the case that long-term climatic stability requires leaving most of that coal underground.

As such, it is disappointing that Australia has delayed plans to institute carbon pricing. When it comes to the negotiations at Copenhagen in December, dealing with the complexities of energy imports and exports will certainly be among the trickier issues that need to be sorted out in negotiations. While the climatic requirements are clear (sharply reduce global emissions), the economic and moral ones are trickier. After all, a fair bit of the coal China is burning is being used to make products for people in other states. Who, then, bears the moral responsibility for the emissions associated with extracting, shipping, and burning the coal? What sort of legal regime can be established to effectively incentivize decarbonization throughout such complex international production chains?

Ignatieff and climate change

In sharp contrast to Stephane Dion, who put environmental issues front and centre, the new federal Liberal leader is much more restrained when describing his position on climate change policy. In addition, Michael Ignatieff seems to be going out of his way to show support for ‘the west’ and, by extension, the Athabasca oil sands.

It is possible that this is an electoral ploy, designed to isolate him from the perceived failure of Dion. It is also possible that Ignatieff has the intention of taking significant action on climate change, but has deemed it tactically appropriate to keep it quiet. Finally, it is possible that he thinks such action is either not necessary or not worth the political price he thinks it would involve. For those concerned about climate change, the last is a troubling possibility. If Canada is going to hit the targets established by the current government – much less, stronger targets as advocated by many scientists and NGOs – much bolder governmental action will be necessary, and higher costs will necessarily fall upon carbon-intensive industries.

With the eternal bubble of speculation about elections that accompanies a minority government, what do people think the real Ignatieff agenda on climate change would be, if he is able to bring the Liberals back into government? Would it likely be more or less aggressive if they did so with a majority, as opposed to simply replacing the Conservatives in the perilous minority spot?

Questions for the IPCC AR5

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is asking governments what sort of policy-related questions they would like to have examined in the Fifth Assessment Report (5AR), due out in 2014. Here are a few ideas that come to mind:

How will fossil fuel production likely change over the next century? What effect will that have on climate change?
Which strong positive feedback effects are likely to emerge at the lowest levels of warming? At what levels will they take place?
Would any of the current proposed geoengineering strategies effectively combat climate change? What side-effects would they have?
How will the regional impacts of climate change vary across time?
What will the effects of ocean acidification be?

Do readers have other suggestions?

Incidentally, the fact that we need to wait five years for another IPCC report demonstrates one disadvantage of its complex and process-heavy approach to evaluation. It’s a real shame that, despite all these efforts, so many people continue to reject out of hand the fact that there is a robust scientific consensus on the issue.

Biofuels versus electric vehicles

A study published by Science Expressed and discussed on Grist concludes that growing biomass for electricity production, and then using it to run electric vehicles, is more effective per acre than growing crops to produce liquid biofuels for internal combustion engines. This is true even if the liquid fuels are so-called ‘second generation’ or cellulosic biofuels, which it is hoped will provide an improvement over the poor climate change and energy security benefits of fuels like corn ethanol. The study estimates that the miles of travel enabled per acre are 81% greater when growing biomass for electricity, compared with cellulosic ethanol.

It seems like the most probable path to de-carbonized transport is the conversion of all short and medium-range vehicles to electric power, with liquid fuels reserved for vehicles that must travel long distances, aircraft, and vehicles operated in remote areas. Producing energy from biomass has another potential advantage, if carbon capture and storage (CCS) proves viable. By adding CCS to biomass-fueled power plants, net reductions in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could be achieved.

In time, it seems likely that the many government policies promoting the widespread use of biofuels were an ineffective response to both concerns about climate change and about energy security. In particular, ‘mandates’ that a certain fraction of vehicle fuels be biofuels do not necessarily do a good job of aligning outcomes with climate change objectives, since they are insensitive to both the lifecycle emissions associated with the fuels and to the economics of producing them.

How climate change is like fisheries depletion

Fisheries and climate change are both areas where severe common property failures exist: that is, individuals have an incentive to exploit the system, to the detriment of all. A recent RealClimate post ties the two together in a neat analogy, which also covers the evolving practice of climate change denial (or delay). Specifically, it is alluding to the North-South issues in the ongoing UNFCCC negotiations, and the tensions between developing world states who want the rich world to cut first and most deeply and developed states concerned about seeing any emissions reductions they produce overwhelmed by growth in developing states. Beyond the state-to-state negotiations, the tension also provides cover for those who want to avoid taking any action, no matter how severe the long-term consequences of doing so will be.

Both positions have validity, and the mechanisms for resolving the views remain under debate. That being said, the outlines are clear. Every significant emitter will have to take action. Rich states need to start doing so first and more sharply. They also need to provide assistance to developing states, in the form of technology and funding. Through coordinated global action, dangerous climate change can be avoided, and the world economy can be set on a path where it maintains climatic stability in the long term.

Crises and change

I came across a quote from Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning Chicago School economist, that seems well suited to the practice of trying to combat climate change:

Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

It certainly seems to apply well to all those who kept researching and debating climate policies in the U.S. through the long darkness of the Bush years. Now, some of the most compelling of those ideas are being voiced as serious possibilities.

The lesson for those hoping to change things, perhaps, is not to despair during times when necessary actions seem politically impossible, but rather to use those times for further preparation, as well as to try to provoke the kind of political crises that permit real change to occur.