Politics – Page 161 – a sibilant intake of breath

Threats from war and climate change

Some threats to society strike people as so severe they justify employing large numbers of people, at taxpayer expense, to mitigate them. Chief among these is probably the danger that foreigners will try to kill us. Largely to combat this, Canadians pay for 65,251 active military personnel and 24,300 reservists. We also contribute a bit more than 1% of our gross domestic product.

At best, the operation of these institutions will leave us as well off as we are now. The money spent on bombs and military vehicles is primarily expended so as to minimize the risks associated with being attacked (though domestic industry and humanitarian concern are also factors).

Now consider climate change: probably the greatest threat facing humanity in the foreseeable future. I can’t tell you exactly how many taxpayer-funded agents are working on the problem, but it is certainly a very small fraction of the armed forces total. Should that number not be increased, so as to bring the allocation of resources more closely in line with the suite of threats we face? The case becomes even stronger when you recognize that climate change workers (say, people performing free building retrofits) have all the advantages of soldiers, plus additional benefits. Climate change mitigation is a humanitarian activity – the faster we bring emissions down to a sustainable level, the less suffering will occur in future generations worldwide due to the effects of climate change. Climate change mitigation and adaptation can have domestic economic benefits: not only do efficient buildings have lower year-on-year costs for heating, cooling, and lighting but they may also make those who live and work in them happier and more productive.

The idea of employing, say, 10% as many people to fight climate change as to fight foreigners is not entirely unproblematic. Providing free retrofits might undercut the businesses that perform such operations for profit now. That being said, I am sure careful policy design could minimize such problems. The biggest hurdle to overcome is the psychological block between facing the threat of climate change and employing people to combat it. Actually, rather than a block it might be more accurately referred to as the absence of a connection, between where our likely societal problems lie and where our societal resources are being directed.

Admittedly, you could achieve many of the same outcomes through market liberal climate strategies, such as carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes. The potential advantage of doing it through government labour is that the market liberal policies are hard to implement: firms often oppose them tooth-and-nail and convince voters that they will cause economic harm to them personally. Given the strength of entrenched interests, it would take remarkable political will to deploy the kind of market mechanism that would produce the required change at an acceptable pace.

Some outstanding questions jump to mind. Would a public climate change service be sensible or useful? What would such a service do? How could unfair competition with the private sector be addressed? Is there a politically feasible way to achieve the same outcomes with fewer problems or lower costs? All of these seem worth debating.

Note also that if you extend the 10% logic to the United States and China, you are talking about huge numbers of mitigation workers. The American armed forces comprise about 1.5 million people, with that many again in reserves. The US spends more than 4% of GDP on them. China has 2.25 million active personnel and 800,000 reservists. They spend about 1.7% of their GDP on them.

The irony of laissez faire climate policy

There are those who have adopted what amounts to a business-as-usual climate change policy – hoping that free markets and technological development will stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a safe level and deal with the consequences of the climate change that is already on the way, due to past emissions. While a lot of people take this position for self-interested reasons, I think there are at least some who adopt it in good faith. They look back at previous challenges, and situations where some people said a massive societal effort was required, and they see that the problems were less severe than advertised and that a muddled government response was adequate.

The great irony of taking this approach is that it is virtually certain to produce the opposite outcome from what its proponents are seeking. Right now, we have the chance to establish powerful incentives for critical voluntary actions: things like energy efficiency, stopping the construction of coal plants, and developing renewable sources of energy. Mechanisms like a carbon tax, feed-in tariffs for renewables, incentive programs, and the like are ways to encourage both private actors and firms to take these steps. If we fail to put those policies in place and we allow emissions to keep on rising for another decade or more, avoiding catastrophic climate change will only be possible through rigid controls: rationing, strict mandates, and major interventions in business and the lives of individuals. If we fail to take advantage of the time available for a smoothed transition to a low carbon economy, the transition will necessarily be a more abrupt and painful one.

The heuristic that says “we dealt with past problems, therefore we need not sacrifice economic liberty to fight climate change” leads, in all probability, to a situation where curtailing those liberties is the only road forward.

Rebuild the Orbiting Carbon Observatory

A week ago, NASA’s carbon dioxide (CO2) tracking satellite was destroyed en route to space by a faulty booster. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was intended to produce large numbers of measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in different parts of the atmosphere. In so doing, it would have helped to identify major CO2 sources and sinks – deepening our understanding of the carbon cycle under human influence. Given the destruction of the original instrument, I think the only sensible course of action is to rebuild it as quickly as can be managed and place it into orbit.

The original mission cost about US$280 million and took about nine years to reach a launch attempt. That being said, it stands to reason that building a second unit would cost less, given that the design and concept testing has already been done. We might also hope that a second unit could be assembled, tested, and launched more quickly. Even if a replacement would cost as much as the original, it would be less than $1 per American, far less per human being, and some tiny fraction of the cost of wars and bank bailouts.

As IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has said: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” Satellite images of the ozone hole helped to propel international action to restrict the emission of CFCs. There is reason to hope that similar data on greenhouse gasses might generate an equivalent political push. Even if it doesn’t, and the data from the OCO remains under the exclusive scrutiny of geeks, it should give us a deeper understanding of how the basic chemical, physical, and biological systems of the planet function – and how human beings are researching them. That is information worth $280 million.

One could do as some have and point to the US$$400 million that NASA was granted in the American stimulus package, specifically for climate change research. One could also point to the fundamental wastefulness and irrelevance of manned spaceflight, given our current problems. Either way, the United States should scrape together the cash for a new satellite, and put it on a more reliable rocket this time.

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.

Climate change on the Globe and Mail wiki

The Globe and Mail has an initiative called Policy Wiki, in which they are trying to foster web discussions on public policy issues of interest to Canadians. The third topic they have selected is climate change. The site includes a briefing note by Mark Jaccard, of the Pembina Institute, and an analysis and proposal by David Suzuki.

Some of the sub-questions to be discussed include:

How closely should Canada’s policies be linked to the US?
Should our focus be bilateral or multilateral?
What position should Canada adopt at the Copenhagen conference?
How does the economic crisis impact actions on climate change?
How will this impact Canadian industry?
How many green jobs can Canada create?
What added responsibility does Canada have as an energy superpower?

Most frequent commenters on this site are quite concerned with Canadian climate policy. As such, this might be an opportunity to discuss the issue with a broader audience. I personally plan to contribute, and would be pleased to see readers doing so as well.

National Geographic on the oil sands

National Geographic has released a feature article on Alberta’s oil sands. It highlights the immense scale of what is going on: geographically, economically, and in terms of water and energy usage:

Nowhere on Earth is more earth being moved these days than in the Athabasca Valley. To extract each barrel of oil from a surface mine, the industry must first cut down the forest, then remove an average of two tons of peat and dirt that lie above the oil sands layer, then two tons of the sand itself. It must heat several barrels of water to strip the bitumen from the sand and upgrade it, and afterward it discharges contaminated water into tailings ponds like the one near Mildred Lake.

In total, the oil sands extent through an area the size of North Carolina – half of which has already been leased by the Alberta Government. That includes all 3500 square kilometres that are currently minable. In exchange, leases and royalties provide 1/3 of government income: estimated at $12 billion this year, despite the fall in oil prices.

The article also discusses some of the toxins leached by the mining operations, their impacts of health, and the inadequate work that has been done to investigate and contain them.

In the end, it is hard to write anything about the oil sands that isn’t damning, unless all it includes is information on the size and economic value of the oil reserves. The article includes a good quote from Simon Dyer, of the Pembina Institute, highlighting how the extraction of the oil sands is a mark of desperation:

Oil sands represent a decision point for North America and the world. Are we going to get serious about alternative energy, or are we going to go down the unconventional-oil track? The fact that we’re willing to move four tons of earth for a single barrel really shows that the world is running out of easy oil.

The solution is not the ever-more-costly and destructive search for new hydrocarbon resources, but rather the eclipsing of the hydrocarbon economy with one based on sustainable energy.

In addition to the article, National Geographic has also produced a flash slideshow of oil sands photographs.

Good climate policy news: Ontario and the USA

I am happy to be able to report on some promising developments, both within my own province and in the giant to the south.

Firstly, the Government of Ontario has tabled a new Green Energy Act. There’s a lot to the 75 page document, but one of the most promising elements is the introduction of feed-in tariffs for renewable generation. Here’s the idea: the bill will make it mandatory for those who own the electrical grid to buy energy from renewable power sources, after connecting them. The price paid for the energy will be set by the province, and it will vary depending on technology, resource intensity, project scale, and location. Tariffs of this kind have been effective at driving renewable deployment in the United States and Germany. The whole bill is online (PDF), as is an executive summary. There is also a guide on what more is required for ratification (PDF). In addition to feed-in tariffs, the bill contains provisions for developing a smart grid, the involvement of First Nations groups, the creation of two funding bodies, and a mandate for conservation. It will also adjust energy pricing (though the issue of how is vague) and streamline the approval process for renewable energy projects.

Secondly, it is worth noting that Obama’s new budget includes projected revenue from a national cap-and-trade system. Grist is discussing it in a three part series: I, II, III. While the projected revenues are low ($83 billion per year by 2020), this is further evidence of the Obama administration’s willingness to move forward on this file.

Carbon pricing and the promotion of renewables are both critical elements of a strong overall climate policy. There is reason to hope that after decades of inaction, things will really start to take off in North America within the next couple of years.

[Update: 2 March 2009] Over at Clean Break, Tyler Hamilton has written a good piece on the Green Energy Act. It includes more analysis than the other coverage I have seen.

American bipartisanship

Over at Salon, Glenn Greenwald has written a piece about the myth that Americans want bipartisanship. While the tone is a bit strident, it does make some good points. Partly, it comes back to the issue of how political systems fundamentally (and necessarily) constrain the expression of voter preferences. The zones of intersection between what voters want and how they are able to express those desires are always of interest, when considering the politics of democratic societies.

Another tricky aspect of this is the need democracies have for a credible opposition. Even if you feel strongly that one party or another should be in power in the US or Canada, you generally don’t want the other leading party to be a complete shambles. If they are, they don’t have the ability to hold the government to account – a role that is often more important than the generation of a competing ideological stance.

When it comes to the United States, it is actually a great shame that the excesses of the Republican party have become so extreme: for instance, their rejection of science, growing xenophobia, obsession with tax cuts at the expense of fiscal responsibility, etc, etc, etc. If they were a party with a platform worth respectfully disagreeing with, the political situation in the United States would be a much more honest and admirable one.

Dealing with space junk

Junk in space is an increasingly severe problem, as both the quantity of useless debris and the number of useful satellites increases. Aside from international censure, there isn’t especially much that can be done at present to punish those who make the problem worse, as China did when they blew up one of their satellites in 2007.

A good international approach to mitigating the problem might resemble the following: an international agreement among space-faring states to avoid the production of such debris, coupled with a penalty system for situations in which it occurs. The money from the fines could be put into an insurance fund. Then, when collisions take place between unmanned satellites or manned space vehicles, some level of compensation could be paid out of that fund.

Setting up such a system would require the support and goodwill of quite a number of states. Nonetheless, it might help make the regions of space closest to our planet somewhat more orderly and well-governed.

Monbiot now conditionally supporting nuclear

In his book Heat, George Monbiot rejects nuclear fission as a low-carbon source of electricity: arguing that it is unacceptably dangerous, and that we could make do without it. In a recent column on his website, he makes it clear that he has joined the ranks of those willing to reluctantly consider nuclear, on the simple grounds that he is so deeply concerned about climate change.

He does, however, have some conditions:

Its total emissions – from mine to dump – are taken into account
We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried
We know how much this will cost and who will pay
There is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be diverted for military purposes.

The first of these is important, but a fairly low hurdle. If there wasn’t good evidence that the life cycle emissions of nuclear are low (though they are not zero), it wouldn’t be getting the kind of attention it has been. The second matter is mostly a matter of not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) syndrome. Nobody wants a nuclear waste dump in their area, though everyone knows that a safe dump will basically resemble: a deep and well-sealed hole in some very geologically stable rock. The fourth requirement may be a reasonable bar for states with pre-existing nuclear weapons capability, but it is a bit much to expect from states that lack that capacity and face threatening neighbours. In all likelihood, more civilian nuclear power will mean more states with nuclear weapons, a few decades out.

The third issue is the most uncertain: the cost of nuclear power. Regrettably, no government out there actually has the spine to make polluters pay the true cost of their carbon dioxide emissions. Likewise, no government seems to be willing to forego the political opportunities involved in subsidizing technologies like nuclear fission and carbon capture and storage. In all probability, more nuclear will result in taxpayers and electricity consumers subsidizing the mistakes of governments and energy utilities. It may also produce a clunky, dangerous, and expensive infrastructure that was slower to come online and less effective than focusing on conservation, efficiency, and renewables would have been. All that being said, the inevitable costs may be justified as a precaution. If it does become brilliantly clear to the public that climate change requires urgent action – to the extent that people are willing to accept the rapid decommissioning of coal plants – having nuclear as an option might be an important way to facilitate the route forward. Given the risks of climate change, its low-carbon status may also be worth the inevitable accidents and contamination.

I admit that this is an issue where my thoughts remain divided. That being said, barring some big unforeseen change, I think we can definitely expect to see Canada’s nuclear reactors replaced with new ones, during the next few decades, at the very least. The post later today will provide some further thinking on the issue.