Politics – Page 169 – a sibilant intake of breath

Alcoholic analogies to climate change

Two critical aspects of the problem of climate change can be well understood by means of alcohol-based analogy: the time lag between emissions and climatic consequences and the one-off nature of our decisions.

The last few decades have seen a surge in global greenhouse gas emissions. Due to lags in the climate system, the effects of those gasses are not yet felt, whether in terms of temperature or other climatic phenomena. It is as though we have started doing shots of vodka every thirty seconds. Even after the tenth shot, it is entirely possible that you are feeling lucid. You can talk, walk around, and drink more vodka. If you keep drinking at such a rapid pace until the point where you really feel the effects of the first shots, you have a whole mass of additional (and probably rather unpleasant) impacts still to come.

The reason this is so dangerous is that we only get one chance to decide when to stop drinking. Most people probably have a few experiences of youthful exuberance and realize they need to take into account the anticipated consequences of drinks, rather than just keep drinking until they cannot do so any longer. There is scope to learn from experience. As with global thermonuclear war, climate change offers no opportunities to learn by experience. We have one planet and, by extension, one timeline for greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations. If we are going to stop before we go too far, we are going to need the wisdom to anticipate consequences (as the IPCC and other scientific bodies have already done) as well as the will and good judgment to heed that advice.

The final issue to bear in mind is that of where the costs fall. The danger of drinking yourself to death is one that each individual engages with directly. By contrast, most of the dangers associated with climate change are inadvertently borne by those in future generations. Continuing to emit greenhouse gasses is thus somewhat equivalent to drinking while pregnant. While some of the health consequences might be borne by the drinker, most will be borne by the next generation and, in turn, by those who follow.

There are actually a couple of additional valid ways in which this analogy can be extended. One is to appreciating the difference between stocks and flows. Cutting annual emissions is like reducing how much vodka is in each shot. When emissions are rising, each shot is bigger. When emissions are falling, successive shots are smaller. Nonetheless, even small shots still increase your blood alcohol level. Right now, rising global emissions mean the planet is downing a bigger shot of greenhouse gasses every year. Stopping that growth is the first step, but it is no more of an adequate response in the long term than capping the size of the shots being taken at regular intervals.

A related extension has to do with carbon sinks. In this analogy, they are akin to your liver. They can absorb a certain quantity of greenhouse gasses before they fail. After that point, the further climatic effects of emissions are unmitigated. In the period when your liver is still functional, you can still drink small shots every thirty seconds. Eventually, however, you need to cut your intake/emissions to zero, before your liver/sinks fail.

Video on copyright in Canada

Why Copyright? Canadian Voices on Copyright Law is a 50 minute film about copyright in Canada, produced by Michael Geist and Daniel Albahary. It is largely a response to the Conservative government’s deeply problematic proposed copyright legislation.

Equitable copyright laws are an important issue. In the first instance, that is due to the overwhelming importance of information, who controls it, and who can do what with it. Secondly, it has to do with societal decisions about what kind of conduct is acceptable, who enforces the rules, and what the consequences for violating them can legitimately be. Rules on when technical means of copyright enforcement can be legitimately circumvented are especially important, since that is a new sort of right potentially being extended to content owners. As such, the balance between the societal interest of fair use and the content owner’s claim to protection needs to be evaluated in a more profound way than has occurred so far.

As with many of the new developments on this issue, I found out about it through BoingBoing.

Meeting in Poland, while the Amazon burns

Satellite images show that 11,968 square kilometres of the Amazon rainforest have been destroyed this year, 4% more than last year. The amount of carbon dioxide released when these forests are cut and burned is colossal. Indeed, reducing the destruction of tropical forest is probably the single cheapest way to reduce the rate at which greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the environment.

Hopefully, the delegates at the ongoing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Poznan, Poland will be able to make some progress on reducing deforestation. While higher cost mitigation will certainly need to take place, picking the low-hanging fruit could be a good way to make a difference relatively rapidly. That is especially important given the importance of the timing of emissions. The more steeply concentrations rise, the less time there is for any adaptation measures to be put in place. The risks of crossing critical climatic thresholds are also increased.

Talkin’ ’bout a coalition

The prospect of an NDP/Liberal coalition is certainly an intriguing one. For one thing, there is a lot of history to be made in parliamentary procedure. What can the Conservative government do to resist falling? How should, must, and will the Governor General act in different scenarios? If a coalition did come into being, how would it govern and how long-lasting could it be?

Given the NDP’s opposition to Stephane Dion’s ‘Green Shift’ carbon tax, it is especially unclear what sort of climate policies would emerge from a coalition government. They would be in a doubly weak position to create rules that would govern industry for years. Firstly, well-founded questions about the longevity of the coalition would make regulated industries wonder whether spending to meet new requirements makes commercial sense. In the absence of certainty about long-term climate policies, intelligent investments cannot be made. Secondly, there is uncertainty about what will happen to climate policy in the United States. How much of a priority will it be for the new Obama administration? Will Congress press forward or hold back on the issue? Will the US seek a national system, or will they try to come up with an integrated North American system as proposed by the Harper government? What will happen to the regional climate change organizations, such as the Western Climate Initiative?

These are certainly interesting times. Hopefully, the uncertainty will not serve to perpetuate inaction.

[Update: 28 January 2009] As of today’s Liberal response to yesterday’s Conservative budget, it seems the possibility of a coalition is dead, at least for now.

What Do You Care What Other People Think

This sequel to Richard Feynman’s Surely You’re Joking covers some of the same ground as the prior book, though it is focused on the inquiry conducted after the Challenger space shuttle disaster. The book includes an appendix to that report, written by Feynman exclusively. Apparently, he was going to remove his name from the findings on account of his section being censored. Eventually, they printed something largely identical to his final copy.

As he explains it, the solid rocket booster failure that destroyed Challenger was largely the result of disjointed and poor communication between layers of administration at NASA and its supplier companies. The statistical modeling of the behaviour of the O-rings in the boosters was very poorly done. Information on the vulnerabilities of the shuttle either did not reach the most senior levels or was paid insufficient heed there. In any case, it seems likely that even if cold weather and design problems hadn’t caused this specific failure, something would have eventually gone wrong anyhow. For example, Feynman describes in detail some technical and procedural issues associated with the main engines. Such problems are not really surprising, given the overall complexity of the vehicle, the ‘top-down’ manner in which it was constructed (designing whole systems before testing individual components), and its fundamentally experimental nature. That being said, Feynman’s assessment probably has continuing relevance for other projects with similar associated risks and management structures. In particular, the contrast he draws between the strong protocols used in programming the shuttle’s computer – as compared with the protocols for sensors and engines – demonstrates that it is possible to do things well, provided sufficient attention and resources are devoted to the task.

Overall, the previous book is more entertaining and shows more of Feynman’s character. Aside from a section on Feynman’s first marriage, as well as the illness and death of his first wife, this book focuses on the details of Feynman’s investigation, including his famous demonstration with the O-ring and glass of ice water. All told, I found the earlier book more diverse and interesting. This book may be more useful for those whose professional work involves dangerous machines.

Income tax revenues in California

Surprising statistic of the day: according to The Economist, half of the state income taxes in California are paid by just 144,000 wealthy individuals. They represent about 0.39% of the state’s population of 36.5 million.

That can be interpreted in two rather different ways. On the one hand, you could highlight the degree to which that represents a heavy tax burden on a small number of people. On the other, you could say that the fact that so few people pay so much of the tax demonstrates just how concentrated wealth has become. Either way, it is an interesting figure.

Junk medicine and Canada’s cabinet

Given the evidence that acupuncture doesn’t work (except possibly for some kinds of pain and nausea) and chiropractic is downright dangerous, it is a bit saddening that Gary Goodyear – Canada’s Minister of State for Science and Technology – has fellowships in both.

Is it too much to ask that the cabinet minister in charge of science actually have scientific training or, at the very least, not be personally invested in demonstrated forms of pseudo-science? The chiropractic connection is especially worrisome, given the kooky beliefs espoused by practitioners (such as that all illness is caused by ‘subluxations’ of the spine) and the evidence that chiropractic treatments cause vascular damage, especially when necks are manipulated or it is practiced on adolescents or children.

Drug tests and false penises

In another drug war skirmish, the owners of a company selling fake penises and urine for beating drug tests have pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy in an American federal court. The situation demonstrates how any security situation generates countermeasures. Banning outside alcohol from football games led to the Beerbelly, just as submarine warfare led to aerial sub-hunting patrols and new convoy techniques. Of course, some threats and responses are higher-risk than others.

Surely, none are worthy of concerted government attention than ferreting out the recreational marijuana users (as opposed to the users of legal alcohol) from within the workforce.

Climate change mitigation cost-benefit analysis on different timescales

Peter Lilley, a British Member of Parliament, seems to have rather missed the point of climate change legislation. He is kicking up a fuss about how the UK’s Climate Change Bill might have costs larger than benefits in the period between now and 2050. Of course, the whole point of climate change mitigation is to avoid the worst effects of climate change and not leave future generations with a severely damaged planet. Almost by definition, the majority of the benefits associated with such an approach will accrue in the distant future.

Even if mitigating climate change has serious net costs between now and 2050, we still need to do it, at least if we care at all about the welfare of future generations and the integrity of the planet. That being said, we can certainly hope to mitigate effectively at a relatively low cost (taking advantage of mechanisms like carbon pricing to secure the lowest cost emission reductions first). We can also work to maximize the co-benefits of climate change mitigation, such an enhancing energy security and reducing other types of air pollution.

It is also entirely possible that we will end up spending more money on climate change than we should have, or than would have been possible if we had taken the best possible approach from the outset. To use an analogy, it is possible for a speeding car to brake too sharply to avoid hitting a pedestrian. Doing so jostles the driver and may damage the car, but it is a less undesirable outcome than braking too hesitantly and ploughing right into the person. When you are making a decision with important consequences and lots of uncertainty, erring on the side of caution and expense is the prudent and ethical approach.

Two scenarios for Canada’s 2020 electricity situation

This previous post on Canada’s new commitment to generate 90% of its electricity from sources that do not emit greenhouse gasses by 2020 was a bit too wide-ranging, since it sought to consider all possible mixes that satisfied the 90% criterion. A more reasonable approach is to consider two plausible scenarios.

In the first scenario, electricity demand rises by 10%. Assuming that means 10% more generating capacity is required, that means increasing Canada’s electrical capacity to 132 gigawatts. Doing so while achieving the 90% target would mean scrapping 20.4 gigawatts of emitting capacity (about three times the capacity of all of Ontario’s coal plants) and building 32.4 gigawatts of non-emitting capacity (six giant dams or about thirty five nuclear reactors).

In the second scenario, energetic conservation efforts cause demand to fall by 10%. As such, we would be able to cut our total generating capacity to 99 gigawatts. Producing that while reaching the 90% target would mean scrapping 23.1 gigawatts of emitting capacity (3.5 times Ontario’s coal plants) and building 23.1 gigawatts of non-emitting capacity (under five giant dams, or about twenty five nuclear reactors).

The numbers might work out a bit differently if you did the calculations based on terawatt-hours of electricity use, rather than gigawatts of installed capacity.