Category: Politics

All posts on what Bismarck called “the art of the possible”

Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World

Canadian climatologist Andrew Weaver’s Keeping Our Cool provides an excellent and accessible introduction to climatic science. It also provides a great deal of useful information specific to Canada. As a result, if I had to recommend a single book to non-scientist Canadians seeking to understand the science of climate change, it would be this one. On the matter of what is to be done, the book is useful in a numerical sense but not particularly so in a policy sense. The discussion of economic instruments is superficial and the author basically assumes that a price of carbon plus new technology will address the problem.

The book covers climatic science on two levels: in terms of the contents themselves, such as you would find in textbooks and scientific papers, and in terms of the position of science within a broader societal debate. He accurately highlights the degree to which entrenched interests have seriously muddled the public debate, creating deep confusion about how certain we are about key aspects of how the climate works. Topics well covered by the book include electromagnetic radiation, time lags associated with climate change, the nature of radiative forcing, the nature and role of the IPCC, ocean acidification, the history of human emissions, the general history of the climate, climate modeling, aerosols, hurricanes, climate change impacts in general, permafrost, and the need for humanity to eventually become carbon neutral. One quibble has to do with the sequencing: while the narrative always flows well, the progression through climate science looks a bit convoluted in retrospect. That makes it a bit hard to find your way back to this or that piece of useful information. The book features some good numbers, graphs, and analysis that I have not seen elsewhere – such as a calculation of how much more carbon dioxide humanity can emit in total, given the desire to keep temperature change to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels and various plausible values for climatic sensitivity. A second quibble is that the graphics are all black and white and printed at a fairly low quality. Sometimes, that makes them hard to interpret.

On the matter of international and intergenerational equity, Weaver comes to appropriate conclusions (that we should be concerned about future generations and that the rich states that caused the problem need to act first in solving it), but he fails to examine the ethical and policy issues in great depth. That is a minor failing, given the major purpose of the book, but it would probably leave someone who read only this book with a somewhat mistaken impression about the scale of changes being advocated and the ease with which they might be achieved. The book exaggerates the difference between a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system with 100% auctioning, and doesn’t pay sufficient attention to areas in which regulation have the potential to be more effective than taxes (building codes, transport standards, etc).

In general, Weaver’s book is a strong and useful introduction to climatic science. When it comes to the big questions about climate ethics, and the policy and technological measures that will permit the emergence of a low-carbon society, other authors have done better.

Ethics embedded in economics

I recently attended a presentation on economic modeling, climate change, and the social cost of carbon. Initially, this was presented as a process where we took our best scientific information, fed it into our best economic models, and ended up with our best projections about how much harm climate change would do, and thus what the ‘social cost’ of carbon really is. The point I raised was that this approach is in no way divorced from ethical assumptions. Indeed, they are deeply ingrained in the economic models and have profound effects on how they turn out.

Here are a few of the most important aspects of that:

1) The discount rate: Nicholas Stern took a lot of flak for setting this value so low. Basically, it pertains to how much we value the welfare of future generations. The lower you set it, the more the welfare of future generations will affect your calculations. In financial planning, discount rates are often in the neighbourhood of 8%. That means we would be indifferent to having $X today or $X + 8% in one year. The trouble is, with a value that high the welfare of distant future generations becomes almost completely unimportant in your calculations. If we knew that climate change would instantly kill everyone alive in 100 years, using an 8% discount rate would make this fact largely unimportant in terms of working out what the ‘social cost’ of one tonne of carbon is today.

Of course, there are problems with using a very low discount rate as well. If we care as much about all future generations as about our own, we are compelled to put all of our wealth towards investments for them. After all, current spending only benefits us, whereas investment could increase the welfare of a potentially infinite chain of future generations.

In any case, the discount rate selected has a massive effect on what social price for carbon you end up with. Stern worked it out as about $85 per tonne. William Nordhaus, another economist, came up with a figure of $7, largely because he used a higher discount rate. This one choice has the power to massively affect any economic analysis of climate change.

2) The marginal utility of income Take $100 per year from Bill Gates and he will never notice. Take it from everyone living in Sub-Saharran Africa, and you would probably kill millions. Despite this, most economic models assume that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. If melting permafrost makes us abandon a northern community, at a cost of $20 million, but the cost to Canadian industry of avoiding the emissions that caused it would have been $21 million, the economically optimal outcome would be to allow the community to be destroyed.

To some extent, this can be built into economic models. We can create a mathematical function for how useful each extra dollar a person gets is. If we use that ‘utility’ measure in place of a dollars measure, the impact of different choices on the least well off becomes more important. Actually doing so on climate change would almost certainly hugely increase the social cost of carbon, since the welfare of those threatened by sea level rise in Bangladesh and drought in Sudan would be considered on more equal terms to wealthy Floridians with property threatened by hurricanes and oil company employees hoping to exploit new fields in the Arctic.

In addition to having economic importance, this has massive ethical importance. An approach based on potential Pareto optimality supports any move that improves overall welfare. It doesn’t matter if the people gaining are residents of suburban Toronto while those losing live in villages in Ghana. In everyday life, we recognize that we cannot go around harming people just because we gain more from doing so than they lose.

3) Valuing catastrophic risks If we manage to turn the world’s carbon sinks into net sources, we will have created self-sustaining climate change. If that occurs at an accelerating rate, we will be facing runaway climate change, which threatens to cause enormous physical changes and mass extinctions – possibly including humanity itself. Integrating such possibilities into economic models requires a number of ethical assumptions. Even a very small possibility of such an outcome can have a giant influence on certain kinds of models; likewise, choosing to ignore such outcomes has highly ethically relevant effects.

In short, we cannot combine scientific and economic models and produce a technocratic answer about how much climate change should be permitted. We need to acknowledge and consider the ethical implications built into and arising from those models, we need to choose what kind of world we want to hand over to future generations, we need to consider how important we think responsibility for the problem is when allocating costs, we need to consider the special circumstances of the very poor, and we need to consider how big a risk of catastrophe we should really tolerate.

I think an honest examination of those issues, alongside the best climatic science we have, creates a powerful and immediate ethical and economic argument for change. It is virtually certain that – if they could speak to us – people fifty or one hundred years in the future would be screaming at us to do dramatically more than we are doing now.

Am I a ‘conservative?’

The other day, a friend of mine somewhat surprised me by referring to me as a ‘conservative.’ Pressed to define myself, I would say that I am a pragmatic libertarian who is willing to recognize that our freedoms need to be constrained in many ways in order to live decently together.

The Political Compass test categorizes me as follows: moderately left wing on economics (-3.00) and strongly slanted towards libertarianism rather than authoritarianism (-6.67).

I do object to some of the questions they pose. For instance:

  1. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations – It is a bit silly to say that globalization serves one or the other, or that corporations are purely abstract entities whose welfare has nothing to do with individual people.
  2. The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders – This seems like an oversimplification of a complex question. Clearly, corporations have a general obligation to obey the law (though those in them may sometimes be morally obliged to break unjust laws). It certainly isn’t clear that the directors of corporations should undertake charity using shareholder wealth.
  3. First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country – This clearly depends on what constitutes integration. For instance, when there are societies that have multiculturalism and inclusiveness as important features, people can be integrated without being assimilated.

The test also features a number of confusingly worded multiple-negative items. “Is X not true? No.” There are also a few questions seemingly designed to establish whether you are a racist. It seems to me that there have probably been racists of all possible political affiliations.

Personally, I would say my political philosophy is a combination of some classically liberal ways of viewing the world coupled with a libertarian concern for the individual and a utilitarian concern for group welfare. I would say that I am also unusually aware of the extent to which seemingly private decisions (what to eat, how to travel, etc) have significant and morally relevant impacts on other people.

May on the train

Kudos to Green Party leader Elizabeth May for using her campaign to draw attention to the unsustainable character of air travel. Rather than fly all over the country to court voters, she has opted for a far less carbon-intensive train based approach. One round-trip journey from Toronto to Vancouver emits about 1,700 kilos of carbon dioxide equivalent. A train journey emits about 730kg: about 60% less. That is not enough of a reduction for trail travel as presently undertaken to be genuinely sustainable, but it is a significant step in the right direction. People would also probably think more about long-distance transport if it took a few days rather than six or seven hours.

The linked CBC article does get one thing wrong, however. It says: “Other observers have pointed out it is probably cheaper than flying, too.” As discussed here before, taking the train seems to be more expensive. At present, a return ticket between Toronto and Vancouver is running for $1,390.20 plus taxes. WestJet provide the round-trip transport for $439.25 after taxes.

Forget targets

The big picture on climate change is one of the composition of the atmosphere and the thermodynamic balance of the planet. It is a very complex and long-term story, some of which requires considerable scientific knowledge to grasp. The basics of it come out to this:

  • Humans are changing the climate.
  • Further change is profoundly threatening for humanity.
  • We need to stabilize how much greenhouse gas is in the atmosphere, and do so at a safe level.
  • This requires fast, deep cuts.

A lot of attention has rightly focused on emission targets and timelines: where we need to be by when to achieve the kind of outcomes we want. The trouble with this debate is that it is largely artificial. Candidate X might say: “Cut to 50% below 2000 levels by 2050” and Candidate Y might say: “Cut to 65% below 2000 levels by 2050.” The difference between the two outcomes would be important for the climate. At the same time, the difference between the candidates is actually much less about the targets and much more about the means of implementing them. Candidate Y might say: “Voluntary measures, technological progress, and magical future technologies will do the job” while Candidate X might say: “We will limit total emissions from our economy to 3% below this year’s level next year. We will charge firms for the right to emit this much. We will use that money to foster a transition towards a low-carbon economy.” Needless to say, the results of each plan will differ significantly by the time you get to 2050.

The critical thing right now is to bend the path of global emissions. Rather than moving ever-upward, it needs to turn downward and start the long decline towards a low-carbon economy. Achieving that is all about immediate measures, not about emission projections that delay most of the reductions for decades. While it is certainly cheaper to cut a notional tonne of emissions ten years out, it is also the case that starting the transition will be more difficult than maintaining it. As such, it would be good to see states and political parties competing over who will cut emissions more in the immediate future, rather than across timespans during which today’s leaders will be enjoying their retirements.

Of course, the political risks of cutting emissions now are comparatively large. When it becomes evident what that will involve, it might prove expensive and politically unpopular. Protecting the welfare of present and future generations might evoke the wrath of voters during the next election. Unfortunately but honestly, no politician can be expected to show such bravery. Even so, there is an opportunity to recast the narrative. Firstly, we need to stress that this transition simply needs to occur. The alternative to acting now is simply delaying to the point where the transition will cost more and the impacts of climate change will be more severe. Secondly, this is an epic opportunity for humanity and for individual states. We can finally move beyond a post-Industrial Revolution economy based on constantly borrowing from the welfare of future generations. We can create states and a global society than run on sustainably produced climate-neutral energy.

The action required to start doing so is needed immediately. Choose someone who promises to change something by next year, and turf them out if they don’t.

Comments? Counter-arguments?

$700 billion ‘debt rescue plan’

In response to the subprime mortgage crisis, President Bush has called for an $700 billion bailout: buying toxic debt from the firms that now hold it. That’s about $2000 for every American citizen, being used to buy assets that may end up being worth far less than the price the government is paying.

The whole thing is disturbing for a number of reasons. There is the constant moral hazard problem that emerges when government bails out people who behave in risky ways and lose. Then there is the degree to which this will further worsen the overall economic position of the American government: already badly strained by costs associated with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as tax cuts that were never matched with reductions in spending.

If there is any justice in the world, the bonuses paid to the current and former executives who ran the financial firms at the centre of all this will be clawed back in one way or another. This whole thing started because of financial instruments that let the top tranches of the riskiest loans be sold as low-risk assets; of course, the inevitable downside of bundling the safest portions of those loans was causing the riskiest portions to accumulate elsewhere. It remains to be seen what the full and final effects of all that uber-toxic debt will be.

Confused about climate

I have a Google Alert set up that forwards news stories including the terms “Canada” and “Climate Change.” Every day, it provides a few very misleading items, usually published on personal blogs or the canada.com network: a group of publications including the Vancouver Sun, Province, and Chilliwack Times. A piece in the latter caught my attention the other day, written by Jack Carradice. It seems worth examining in some detail. It reads like a grab-bag version of grist.org’s collection of invalid ‘sceptical’ arguments.

Complexity and uncertainty:

One aspect becoming very clear is that the science of climate change is much more complex than many seem to believe and much of the science involved is not well understood. In fact, it is beginning to appear that we know little if anything about some of the factors related to climate change.”

This is true but misleading. As discussed here before, the core facts about climate change are now beyond dispute. The biggest uncertainties have to do with feedback loops, the timing of impacts, and specific higher-order outcomes arising from human-induced temperature change.

Carbon dioxide not the cause:

The notion that man-caused carbon dioxide emissions are the sole cause of “global warming” and that man can control climate change in any meaningful way has pretty much been proven as nonsense.

While it is true that CO2 emissions are not the sole cause of climate change, this statement is simply false. The Fourth Assessment of the IPCC – the most authoritative scientific assessment of climate science – concludes that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” It states further that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Non-CO2 factors that influence climate change include emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, as well as deforestation. The fact that there are non-CO2 contributions in no way diminishes our certainty that human carbon dioxide emissions cause the planet to warm.

The role of water vapour:

Some of the basic facts the public have not been made aware of are that water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas accounting for up to 90 per cent of the greenhouse effect.

Nobody denies that water vapour is the greenhouse gas with the largest effect. What one needs to remember is that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature (just like how you can stir more sugar into hot water than cold). As such, water vapour magnifies the effect of CO2 emissions.

Natural emissions are larger:

Also that 90 per cent of annual carbon dioxide emissions come from natural sources and have nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

Gross natural emissions are larger than human emissions, but they are balanced by natural absorption. Human beings add about 29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year through the burning of fossil fuels. Some gets absorbed into the deep oceans, but much endures in the atmosphere to cause warming.

Necessity of CO2:

It is not generally publicized that carbon dioxide is essential for plant life and without it we would all die of starvation.

Nobody denies this either, and you would need to be thick-headed to believe that climate scientists advocate the elimination of all CO2. As Carradice correctly points out, the natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining an appropriate temperature for life on earth. Of course, it is incorrect to say “Some CO2 is necessary, therefore the more of it around the better.” The lesson from one hundred years of ever-more-detailed climatic science is that there is good reason to fear the consequences of anthropogenic climate change.

Solar radiation changes:

The effects of changes in solar radiation also seem to be overlooked by many observers.

Not by the IPCC. The Fourth Assessment Report concludes that changes in solar irradiance produce 0.12 watts per cubic metre of radiative forcing. CO2 produces 1.66 watts per cubic metre, while methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons produce 0.48, 0.16, and 0.34 respectively.

Methane from Indian cows:

Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide… By some calculations if India reduced their population of sacred cows by 25 per cent it would reduce the amount of greenhouse gas going into the atmosphere by the same amount as taking every car and truck in Canada off the road.

These assertions oddly contradict others above. They acknowledge that both methane and CO2 are greenhouse gasses and that emitting them warms the planet. I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head whether livestock emissions in India are bigger than automotive emissions in Canada, but making the comparison requires accepting the basics of climate physics.

Climate has always been changing:

Forget the climate change hysteria. Climate has always been changing.

True. Indeed, if humans were suddenly dropped into many of the states the world has experienced, we would have a tough time surviving. There is every reason to think that long-term natural climate change might eventually produce conditions adverse for human beings. What anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are doing is accelerating those dangers enormously. Whereas the natural carbon cycle is largely a matter of geology, subduction, and volcanoes, we are liberating the carbon in fossil fuels at a break-neck pace.

In short, Jack Carradice’s piece is an orrery of errors: rife with every form of misunderstanding and misinformation. It is hard to imagine a ‘news’ story that would do a worse job of informing readers about the realities of climate and climate science. Some of the points are entirely valid, but they are woven into an incoherent tapestry alongside errors and distortions. The article says simultaneously that climate change isn’t caused by human activities and that it is, that more CO2 would be bad and that it would be good, that concern about climate change is misplaced and that it is valid.

Hopefully, readers of the Chilliwack Times will be discerning enough to reject Carradice’s muddled position and read something both accessible and accurate on climatic science, such as Andrew Weaver’s “Keeping Our Cool,” Richard Alley’s “The Two Mile Time Machine,” or Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Three debunkings of climate change ‘scepticism’

Reading Andrew Weaver’s new book on climate change, I came across three recommendations for journalistic sources that do a good job of examining the so-called ‘climate sceptic’ movement. Each is worth a look:

As discussed previously, there is nothing ‘sceptical’ about refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence that human beings are dangerously warming the planet. There is a universe of difference between the kind of vigorous and intellectually honest debate that refines theories and deepens understanding and the cynical and strategic efforts of those who oppose action on climate change to discredit real science and create the artificial impression that a debate about the fundamentals of climatic science continues to exist.

The book also cites two websites I frequent as good sources of information: RealClimate.org, written by five climate scientists, and DeSmogBlog.com, written by a a Canadian public relations professional.

Price stability and energy investments

It is frequently argued that ever-rising oil prices will encourage good climatic outcomes. They make people cut back on flying and buying SUVs, and thus reduce emissions through destroyed demand. One counter-argument highlights how consistently high prices encourage the use of fuels even filthier than oil: such as coal and hydrocarbons produced from the oil sands. Arguably, uncertainty and instability actually produce the best climatic outcomes, since they leave the profitability of huge hydrocarbon investments uncertain.

This piece in The Globe and Mail argues that the recent fall in oil prices, combined with constrained access to credit due to the financial turmoil in the United States, is threatening the development of the oil sands.

Of course, uncertainty about future energy prices and restricted access to capital are also likely to hurt the development of renewable sources of power, such as concentrating solar plants in the American southwest that retain enough thermal energy overnight to produce electricity continuously. The ideal option is a predictable, ever-increasing price for carbon emissions. That would give clean sources of energy the confidence to invest, while simultaneously discouraging the development of amply available yet climatically disastrous sources of energy – at least until such a time (if ever) when effective carbon sequestration emerges.

Carbon emissions worse than criminal damage

In a fairly surprising precedent, a jury in the United Kingdom aquitted six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage to a coal plant. In their defence, they argued that their scaling of the smokestack and attempt to paint “Gordon [Brown], bin it” on the side was justified because of the greenhouse gas emissions being produced by the plant:

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a “lawful excuse” to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of “lawful excuse” under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain’s green agenda and could encourage further direct action.

NASA climatic scientist James Hansen testified in defence of the activists.

It is virtually certain that the Crown will appeal the decision, and highly likely that the appeal will succeed. That being said, the situation may be indicative of the British public gaining an appreciation for the gravity of the threat posed by climate change, and the intolerability of coal power in a forward-looking, carbon-reducing economy. The fact that the UK is mulling the approval of new coal plants is definitely a major blot on its record as a fairly progressive state, where climate change is concerned.