Politics – Page 196 – a sibilant intake of breath

The Golden Compass under review

It’s a sad day when a Canadian school board pulls your favourite children’s book from the shelves in dozens of libraries because it is allegedly ‘anti-religious.’ To be fair, Philip Pullman‘s The Golden Compass does take a critical stance on dogma and on hierarchical organizations. Elements can be taken as specific criticisms of the Inquisition and other religious abuses. At the same time, the book is engaging, well-written, and excellent. In characterization, creativity, and content it puts the Harry Potter books to shame, while also tackling much more important themes. The book was recognized by with the Carnegie Medal in 1995, and was selected by the Carnegie judges as one of the ten most important children’s novels in the past 70 years in 2007.

While the Halton Catholic District School Board clearly does have some responsibility for the selection of books in its school libraries, this choice is a mistake. If their students are going to have any kind of meaningful religious life, they are going to need to engage with criticisms of faith. That doesn’t necessarily mean giving them each a copy of The God Delusion, but it does require maintaining an atmosphere where questioning and discussion are possible. Simply stripping out high quality books that raise awkward questions is educationally irresponsible and theologically dubious in a faith supposedly based on personal relationships between individuals and God.

[Update: 4 December 2007] Emily has written a post about this book and another about the process of reading it.

Four Economist articles on climate change

Sorry to post a bunch of links from one source, but this week’s Economist is unusually dense with worthwhile articles about climate change:

There is one on federal legislative efforts in the United States – focusing on the Lieberman Warner bill that has been dominating attention in the Senate. It isn’t as tough as a superior proposal from Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer, but it stands a better change of thrashing its way through committee and onto the Senate floor. Of course, even a bill that gets through the Senate would need to be made compatible with a bill passed by the House of Representatives and avoid being vetoed by the President. Even so, the kind of cap-and-trade bills that are appearing in the Senate may well be indicative of the kind of legislation to expect from the next American administration.

American states have traditionally been ‘policy laboratories’ and have often developed environmental policies that were later adopted federally. Examples include rules on automobile emissions and sulphur dioxide emissions which cause acid rain. A second article briefly discusses the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI): one of the two most important regional initiatives in the US, along with the Western Climate Initiative. Again, this is more a sign of what may be to come than a hugely influential thing unto itself.

A less encouraging trend is demonstrated by an article on the increasing popularity of coal. What is especially distressing is that coal plants are even being built in Europe, which has gone further than anyone else in regulating carbon emissions. Clearly, prices are not yet high enough and regulatory certainty is not yet firm enough to effectively discourage the use of coal for electricity generation. The new plants aren’t even being built in a way that can be easily modified to incorporate carbon capture and storage.

One last story is more tangentially related to climate change: tomorrow’s federal election in Australia will partly turn on voters responses to the positions adopted on climate change by the Labor and Conservative candidates, respectively.

In general, I don’t think The Economist takes the problem of climate change seriously enough. They write good-sounding articles in situations where it is the focus, but often miss it completely or mention it only trivially in articles on energy trends, business, or economic growth. That said, their ever-increasing coverage of the issue is probably representative of its ever higher profile in the planning of the world’s most influential people.

Problems with carbon markets

A recent article in Scientific American makes a lot of good points about carbon markets and emission trading. Perhaps most important among them is the recognition that the simple existence of a market cannot ensure good environmental outcomes: there must be strong and appropriately designed institutions backing it up. Otherwise, well-connected firms will be able to wriggle through loopholes, fraud will occur at an unacceptable level, and cheating will be endemic.

The article points out some of the big failures in carbon markets so far. Within the European Union Emission Trading Scheme, far too many permits to emit were distributed for free. As a result, their price collapsed in April 2006. Even worse, coal companies in Germany and elsewhere were given free permits to pollute, able to sell some of those permits for cash, and willing to charge their customers for carbon costs that never existed. Also problematic has been the prominence of HFC-23 (trifluoromethane) projects within the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. Getting rid of HFC-23 entirely should have only cost about $136 million. It has an absurdly high global warming potential (12,000 times worse than CO2), and is easy to destroy and replace with less problematic chemicals. So far, firms have been able to earn $12.7 billion for partial elimination. The authors of the article suggest that simply paying for the $136 million worth of equipment would be far more sensible than allowing firms to exploit the price difference between the value of emission reduction credits and the cost of eliminating HFC-23.

Other problems with markets include the difficulty of working out what emissions would have been in the absence of some change (the approach used for many carbon offsetting systems) and the way markets can encourage incremental approaches to emission reduction rather than the fundamental overhaul of industrial sectors and energy infrastructures.

None of this is to say that markets are not important. Indeed, carbon pricing is an essential component in the fight against climate change. What it shows is that participants in markets cannot be implicitly trusted, and neither can the governments operating them. There must be mechanisms for oversight and enforcing compliance and a constant awareness about possibilities for cheating or gaming the system. Insofar as it has helped people to develop a better sense of these things, the Emission Trading System of the EU has been a valuable front-runner.

I Am America (And So Can You!)

Stephen Colbert is famously critical of books. He should probably have retained his skepticism rather than publishing I Am America (And So Can You!). Without the benefit of his live delivery, his style of humour is not particularly effective and most of what the book covers is well worn ground for avid watchers of The Colbert Report. Colbert is at his best when he is dynamic; he does not sit well on motionless pages.

The book is not entirely without entertaining elements, but does not do enough overall to justify the price or the time.

Discarded cod in Europe

Once again, there is a big stink in the media about cod. This time, it is prompted by a report that between 40 and 60% of the cod caught in the North Sea are caught inadvertently and must be discarded, dead, in order to comply with EU quotas. Apparently, 117 million of the 186 million fish caught in UK waters last year were thus discarded. Some people are calling for the quotas to be raised, so that fishers can keep the fish rather than discarding them. Of course, that would encourage more ‘accidental’ catches.

The real solution is to create and enforce a tax on by-catch. If killing a bunch of cod neither makes money for fishers nor costs them anything, they will essentially be indifferent to doing it. If they needed to pay for what they killed, they would be more careful about choosing where to fish and what sort of gear to use. Even fish that do not have commercial value in the way that cod do have ecological value as part of marine ecosystems. Killing them in unlimited numbers is not compatible with sustainability.

Producing sustainable fisheries requires limiting by-catch, which in turn requires effective measures. A by-catch tax could play such a role. Of course, the fishers would protest any such move, citing threats to their economic livelihood. In the end, however, natural resources, including fish, do not belong to whoever grabs them; they belong to everyone in trust. As a consequence, nobody has the right to loot or destroy a resource, even if the economics of their present way of life require it.

Climate sensitivity and stabilization concentrations

The European Union has a widely quoted objective of avoiding anthropogenic temperature rise of more than 2°C. That is to say, all the greenhouse gasses we have pumped into the atmosphere should, at no point, produce enough radiative forcing to increase mean global temperatures more than 2°C above their levels in 1750.

What is less commonly recognized is how ambitious a goal this is. The difficulty of the goal is closely connected to climate sensitivity: the “equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration.” According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this is: “likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.”

Taking their most likely value, 3°C, the implication is that we cannot allow the doubling of global greenhouse gas concentrations. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide concentrations were about 280ppm. Today, they are about 380ppm.

Based on the IPCC’s conclusions, stabilizing greenhouse gas levels at 450ppm only produces a 50% chance of staying below 2°C of warming. In order to have a relative high chance of success, levels need to be stabilized below 400ppm. The Stern Review’s economic projections are based around stabilization between 450 and 500ppm. Stabilizing lower could be quite a lot more expensive.

Finally, there is considerable uncertainty about climate sensitivity itself. Largely, this is the consequence of feedback loops within the climate. If feedbacks are so strong that climate sensitivity is greater than 3°C, it is possible that current GHG concentrations are sufficient to breach the 2°C target for total warming. Some people argue that climatic sensitivity is so uncertain that temperature-based targets are useless.

The 2°C target is by no means sufficient to avoid major harmful effects from climate change. Effects listed for that level of warming in the Stern Review include:

Failing crop yields in many developing regions
Rising number of people at risk from hunger, with half the increase in Africa and West Asia
Severe impacts in marginal Sahel region
Significant changes in water availability
Large fraction of ecosystems unable to maintain current form
Rising intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding, and heat waves
Risk of weakening of natural carbon absorption and possible increasing natural methane releases and weakening of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation
Onset of irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet

Just above 2°C, there is “possible onset of collapse of part or all of Amazonian rainforest” – the kind of feedback-inducing effect that could produce runaway climate change.

George Monbiot has also commented on this. The head of the International Energy Agency has said that it is too late for the target to be met (PDF).

Trade and greenhouse gas emissions

Countries that are short on land and water import wheat from countries that have lots of both. In a way, you can see this as the small dry country ‘importing’ land and water in the conveniently transportable form of edible grains. The conveyance is an indirect one (you do not pay a ‘water surcharge’ on a bag of flour), but differences in relative factor prices can lead to opportunities for universal gains from trade.

Something similar happens with greenhouse gas emissions, though it takes the form of an externality rather than a priced component of a transaction. When manufacturing or primary commodities takes place in one state and the products of those industries are consumed in another, the total emissions in the exporting countries include some component for which the importing country arguably bears moral responsibility. When a Canadian buys an iPod made from Chinese energy and Sudanese oil, it seems fairest to say that the Canadian is responsible for the associated emissions.

A 2003 OECD study attempted to quantify such transfers using data from 1993 to 1998. For that span of time, the United States effectively imported an average of 263 megatonnes of carbon emissions per year: about 5% of their domestic total. China, by contrast, exported about 360 megatonnes: a figure equivalent to 12% of their GHG production. Canada, with all its forest and hydrocarbon industries, apparently exported about 54 megatonnes: about 11% of our emissions during that period.

Trying to calculate these on an ongoing basis and transfer responsibility from makers to buyers is simply impractical. Thankfully, the establishment of a global price for carbon would achieve the same effect without all the paperwork. It doesn’t matter if the tax is imposed at the point of production or the point of consumption. In the former case, producers would pass the cost to consumers anyhow.

Source: Ahmad, Nadim. “A Framework for Estimating Carbon Dioxide Emissions Embodied in International Trade of Goods.”

The 2008 Beijing Olympics

The Chinese government intends for the 2008 Beijing Olympics to be a kind of coming out party for China’s “peaceful rise.” Certainly, the last few decades have been remarkable: growth has persisted around 10% and hundreds of millions of people have risen out of extreme poverty. At the same time, the Chinese government has much to answer for. Democracy and human rights are both black marks on the Chinese record – both domestically and in terms of their international relations. Because of the unacceptable character of a number of Chinese policies, Canada should boycott the games.

The first set of unacceptable policies are domestic. These include suppression of free speech and the media, as well as the repression of political and apolitical organizations (such as Falun Gong). China also executes more people than any other state, with some allegations going as far as to say that people are being killed so that their organs can be harvested. Ethnic minorities are likewise suppressed in China, with Tibet being a special case. Well corroborated accounts exist of torture by various governmental entities.

Chinese foreign policy is also not in keeping with minimum standards of acceptable conduct. China continually threatens to attack against Taiwan, with hundreds of missiles pointed across the strait. As Paul Collier details, they are also known for adopting ‘no questions’ policies in relation to truly awful regimes, such as the genocidal government of Sudan. China has actively undermined efforts by the international community to put pressure on such governments to cease their human rights violations. International law now clearly recognizes that state sovereignty provides no protection for a government that is committing atrocities. The continuing Chinese insistence on strict non-intervention undermines the degree to which international norms can be manifested, and helps to keep large numbers of people in unacceptable conditions.

The Beijing party is one that deserves to be spoiled, lest China gain international legitimacy on the basis of economic growth rather than acceptable moral and legal conduct. Concerns about things like labour and environmental standards are certainly relevant, as well, but it is the status of the Chinese government as a violator of human rights – and facilitator of their violation by others – that makes them unfit to host the Olympics. Canada coming out and acknowledging this publicly could encourage other states concerned with human rights and international law to carry out boycotts of their own. Through international peer pressure, there is hope that a government as concerned with prestige as the one in Beijing will reconsider some of its least popular policies.

Forestry and fossil fuels

One of the most startling distinctions when you look at emissions data from developed and developing states is the relative share of CO2 from fossil fuels and CO2 from land use change and forestry.

In developed countries, 81% of total emissions consist of CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels. 19% of emissions are non-CO2 greenhouse gasses, with 11% of that coming from methane and 6% from nitrous oxide. The amount from land use change and forestry barely even registers.

In developing states, by contrast, CO2 from land use change and forestry comprises 33% of total emissions. CO2 from fossil fuels is a more moderate 41%, though it is growing quickly in many countries.

Within the least developed states, land use change and forestry accounts for 62% of total emissions. Largely, this is on account of deforestation. CO2 from fossil fuels produce just 5% of the total.

Part of what this shows is the importance of producing international agreements that take into account the differing emissions profiles of states in different stages of development. Toughening automobile emission standards might make a big difference in Germany, but very little in Chad. By contrast, providing funds to forest rangers in Malaysia or Indonesia might produce big emission reductions.

Source: World Resources Institute. “Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy.” 2005.

IPCC 4AR SPM

Yesterday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the Summary for Policymakers (PDF) for the Synthesis Report of the Fourth Assessment Review. That’s what the impenetrable ‘IPCC 4AR SPM’ signifies.

To clarify what that really means, it must be understood that there are a number of levels to the work of the IPCC. Every few years, there is an assessment review meant to evaluate the state of published scientific literature on climate change. The first was in 1990. Subsequent reports have been released in 1995, 2001, and 2007. Each report consists of contributions from three working groups. Each working group writes a report, and each of those reports includes a Summary for Policymakers (SPM). The three working group reports are also combined into a synthesis report, which gets an SPM of its own. That’s what came out yesterday for the Fourth Assessment Review. Each of these reports is negotiated by scientists and approved by the IPCC member states. The SPMs are hashed out by government representatives line by line. That’s what the meeting that just ended in Valencia was about.

The Fourth Assessment Review has examined far more studies than the Third Assessment Review did: 577 compared to 95. Partly on account of that, it marks a big step forward in scientific certainty about the issue. As piles of media coverage stresses, the news isn’t good.