Politics – Page 205 – a sibilant intake of breath

The IPCC and the cost of mitigation

The second half of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report has now been released (PDF). Much like the earlier Stern Review, it was intended to assess possibilities for mitigating climate change and the costs associated with them. As with the Stern Review, the conclusion is that the problem can be dealt with at a fairly modest cost. Certainly, the sums in question are much smaller than the costs that would arise if the worst possible consequences of global warming were realized: from large-scale migration, to problems with C3 crops, to widespread agricultural failures (see this article on the ongoing Australian drought). The Economist is calling it “a bargain.”

That the Stern findings and those of the IPCC broadly agree is not at all surprising. After all, the Stern Review was based almost entirely upon the scientific conclusions of previous IPCC reports. Even so, such agreement can only help to foster increased political consensus, both within and between states, that climate change should be and can be dealt with. More than ever, it seems as though we are witnessing the start of a serious progression towards a low-carbon society.

Dealing the the problem of climate change will require unprecedented foresight and cooperation. As such, it is not unreasonable to think that the emergence of the kind of international regime that would be necessary to address it will foster cooperation in other areas. Something like global fisheries management does not have the same level of importance as addressing climate change, but the tools that will need to be developed to sort out the latter may advance our ability to behave more appropriately in relation to the former.

Alternative health care models

On their website, Scientific American has a story comparing the Canadian and American health-care systems. The story suggests that Canadians get better value for money, and may well have a better health system overall, despite spending about half as much per person as Americans do. The article explains that Canadians live longer in general, as well as being less likely to die during the course of treatment.

There is good reason to believe that there could be greater efficiency in a system like those of Canada and Britain, where the federal government is the main purchaser of health products. Unlike individuals – who have limited knowledge about health care and few opportunities to exploit economies of scale – governments can buy intelligently and in big batches. They can make deals with pharmaceutical producers and other suppliers of health products. The importance of scale in the purchase of health products is demonstrated by efforts by groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to acquire effective and affordable treatments for the major illnesses of the developing world through the use of large-scale acquisitions. More controversially, central-payer health care systems may be better placed to prioritize who should be treated and to what extent. Spending large amounts of money extending the lives of very sick people contributes less to overall societal health than spending the money on early treatment or preventative medicine, though the relative desirability of the two depends on your philosophical beliefs about how spending should be prioritized. Arguably, the Canadian system also produces fewer conflicts of interest than the American political system, in which health corporations are major campaign donors.

In comparing the two, there is one other major phenomenon that bears considering. Because Americans are the main market for new drugs, forms of surgery, and other types of medical care, it is possible that they are subsidizing research and development which can then be accessed at a lower cost by those outside the United States. One does ocassionally hear accusations that Canadians are ‘free-riding’ on the American system in this way. This is obviously connected to one of the hottest topics of political and legal debate at the moment: intellectual property law. In particular, the ethical questions about who bears the costs and benefits of innovating still only have partial and contingent answers.

It will be interesting to see what the Canadian and British systems look like in twenty-five or thirty years. Managing the ongoing demographic transition will be a challenge – just as it will be with pensions – but it seems as though it will ultimately be beneficial to have a lower birthrate and population. Only once that is true of the world as a whole can we really expect to create a society that is sustainable overall.

Nash equilibria and the environment

While A Beautiful Mind had a good deal to recommend it as a film, the explanation of the Nash Equilibrium that was included leaves a good bit to be desired. The film explained that in a situation with multiple players, a most desirable objective, and many less desirable objectives, it is rational for each player to pursue the less desirable goals. This is because everyone going after the same thing will probably lead to nobody getting it. The strategy of pursuing the less desirable but more plentiful option therefore maximizes the chances of getting some level of payoff, even though it may not be the highest payoff possible in the game.

The essential characteristic of the Nash Equilibrium is similar to that of Pareto Optimality. Basically, both describe situations in which players do not want to change their behaviours unilaterally. Pareto optimality can be most easily be explained by considering a large group of people with items to trade voluntarily. Eventually, they will trade to the point where no more voluntary exchanges will occur. The arrangement may not generate the maximum possible level of utility that could be achieved with the goods in question; for instance, a person with a large stock of insulin would not transfer any to a diabetic who had nothing to trade for it.¹ In a Nash Equilibrium, no player would want to change the strategy they are employing, given that no other players are going to change their own strategies. For the equilibrium to exist, this must be true independently from any information they might receive about the strategies of the other players. For instance, learning that other players have certain thresholds beyond which they will behave quite differently might provide an incentive for any one player to alter their strategy.

While Pareto Optimality is mostly a thought experiment, the Nash Equilibrium is directly applicable to many situations in which there are problems of coordination. For example, it can be applied to climate change policy. Assuming that the policy of each state is set independently, there is no incentive for a single state to unilaterally cap emissions. The effect of one country doing so would be small, while the cost in that country would be high. Hence, inaction is a Nash Equilibrium. It is only through the development of a system that changes the strategies of many actors that a low-carbon outcome can be achieved.

The absence of a Nash Equilibrium can also be problematic, when addressing environmental problems. Imagine a conservation regime based around an international ban on the sale of tiger products. From the perspective of any one state, there is an incentive to violate the ban, provided everyone else will maintain their strategy of conservation. The lack of a Nash Equilibrium threatens to make the regime unstable.

While elements can be built directly into such games to encourage cooperation and discourage defection, they always seem likely to encounter these two kinds of problem. As such, it may be that the only way to establish stable environmental regimes that require sacrifice for the common good is to embed them in a larger super-game. Here, defection on one issue threatens the ability of the defecting state to achieve its aims in other areas. States that continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gas or who undermine conservation regimes might find themselves unable to enter preferential trade arrangements and the like. In a general way, the perception of a state as being a responsible or irresponsible member of the international community imposes some such pressure. To do so more formally requires the prioritization of environmental issues by all governments involved, as well as a certain strength of will in following up such threats. Despite that, it seems more plausible that such a combined approach could yield desirable outcomes, as opposed to one that focuses on narrow issue areas.

[1] This assumes that the participants derive utility only from the objects being traded, and not from higher order phenomena such as the perception that the distribution that exists is desirable or fair. Agents that place some value upon the happiness of the other agents might generate outcomes quite different from the kind envisioned in neoclassical economics.

Wadham climate change discussion

Today’s Wadham Research Forum on climate change was very interesting, despite how all the ideas expressed were fairly familiar. The extent to which the points highlighted are the same as those in my thesis is both encouraging and dispiriting. It suggests that I have not missed the mark completely, but also that I may not have contributed anything terrible novel. Of course, there is a good chance that the key issues to be considered are obvious enough, and that it is the approaches taken that generate the value of a particular assessment.

Earth Day

As I learned from Google’s altered logo, today is the 37th Earth Day. I suppose some kind of celebration is in order. Perhaps that is most true because of how notable today is not. Back in 1970, it might have been a politically important act to recognize the importance of the environment. Now, it seems daft to think otherwise. Of course, that doesn’t mean that heightened environmental awareness has always translated into good environmental policy. Our society is far from sustainable, but the business of changing that is probably not the spectacular fare of street demonstrations and activist announcements.

When it comes to fairly localized environmental problems – like particulate emissions – it does seem to be a matter of societies becoming rich enough that they can afford to prioritize that instead of more pressing matters like food or security. Japan’s re-development after the Second World War is probably the most clearcut example. The first Earth Day certainly had something to do with the progession towards investing more resources in conservation and environmental management in the United States: helping to spawn the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts. It seems reasonable to hope that a similar progression will occur in newly developed places in coming decades. Of course, that leaves the diffuse and difficult problems like climate change and fisheries management to be tackled multilaterally somehow. That may well require a progression in politics akin to what transpired 37 years ago.

This thesis is carbon neutral

Thanks to a gift from my mother, I have been able to add the following to the opening section of my thesis:

This thesis, which generated about six tonnes of carbon dioxide from flights, paper production, printing, heating, and electricity usage has been carbon-neutralized through NativeEnergy. This was done by capturing methane from an American farm.

Six tonnes should cover my personal energy usage, as well as flights to and from Vancouver and emissions associated with printing the thesis. I have also included an estimate for my share of the power used by the server hosting this site. Methane is twenty-one times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 and livestock agriculture produces about 18% of global emissions (discussed earlier).

The majority of NativeEnergy is owned by the The Intertribal Council On Utility Policy: a not-for-profit council of federally recognized Indian tribes in North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa, with affiliates throughout the northern Great Plains. The gift is much appreciated.

While I realize that carbon offsets are not a viable mechanism to deal with the whole problem of climate change, they are a good way to make a statement about the issue, as well as avoid charges of hypocrisy when expending energy on climate research or advocacy. They have been discussed here before.

The US Supreme Court on the EPA

On April 2nd, the United States Supreme Court passed down a decision on how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates greenhouse gases. The ruling was made on the basis of the Clean Air Act (a piece of 60s era legislation) and asserts that the EPA has the jurisdiction to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It goes on to chastise the organization for not doing so.

While the decision is certainly in keeping with the way the things are blowing, one has to wonder whether such an approach is sensible. The kind of problem posed by climate change has only become reasonably well understood in the period after the Clean Air Act was implemented. Also, while the EPA has a considerable amount of expertise, it does not have a huge amount of legitimacy. At least, it doesn’t have the level that would be necessary to push through the kind of societal changes society requires.

The smart money is that the next American administration – whether Democrat or Republican – will oversee a substantial change of tack when it comes to climate policy. The denialism of the present lot simply won’t be tenable in the post-2008 world. What form that new engagement takes – national, through bilateral or regional initiatives, or through a global system – will be the truly interesting thing to keep one’s eye upon.

PS. Apologies, but the profoundly disrupted state of the St. Antony’s College network at the moment prevents me from posting an image. Just getting this post to appear required more than ten hours of frustration. An image will appear once I am on a solid connection again. How cruel to come home to such shoddiness.

Scientists and remedies: brainstorming

Tonight, I am brainstorming connections between scientists and remedy design. Addressing environmental problem basically seems to revolve around changing the intensity with which an activity is being carried out (ie. fish or cut down trees at the rate of regeneration) or finding substitutes (using solar power instead of natural gas power). Both kinds of solutions involve some critical imputs from scientists. Not surprisingly, my focus here is on types of actions that pertain specifically to my case studies.

I have come up with the following. Does anything else spring to mind?

Technological development

Development of:

Alternative chemicals to replace ones that have been problematic (for instance, CFCs and POPs)
Alternative mechanisms for energy generation, storage, and transmission
Energy-using technologies that are more efficient
Plant varieties that require fewer pesticides
Mechanisms for the disposal or long-term storage of unwanted by-products
Less polluting mechanisms for waste disposal

Predictions

Anticipating the consequences of:

Continuing to behave as we have been
Adopting one or another alternative approach
The combination of our impact upon the world with possible natural changes, such as major volcanic eruptions

Providing information about uncertainty:

How good are our predictions?
If they do fail, in what ways might it occur (what is not included in the models?)
What kinds of uncertainty are out there (ie. magnitude of effects, distribution of effects, etc)

Predictions about technological development:

What will the state of environmentally relevant technologies be in X years?
Is it better to invest in the best technology we have now, or continue research and wait (partly an economic question)

Big ideas about the world

Establish and describe the limits of nature:

Is this a factual or ideological exercise?
The same facts could justify differing views
Some ideologies have elements that can be pretty effectively undermined by science (ie. eugenics)

How should we treat uncertainty?:

Are there categories of risk that it is more ‘rational’ to worry about?
When does it make sense to ‘wait and see’ and when does it make sense to act in a precautionary way?

Naturally, those last few items extend into territory that is not obviously scientific. One big question about the social role of scientists is the extent to which they do or should contribute to such hybrid debates, with both empirical and ethical dimensions. Also, there is the question of whether they do or should do so ‘with their scientist hats on’ or whether they are no different from any other actor, once they have strayed from their area of core competence.

Law and science

Another intersection between science and policy is embodied in a recent report (PDF) from the Science Select Committee of the British Parliament on the relative harmfulness of different legal and illegal drugs. Notably, the survey ranks alcohol and tobacco as being more harmful than illegal drugs including cannabis, LSD, and ecstasy.

Setting aside methodological issues, the survey does reveal some ways in which our response to scientific information is conditioned by pre-existing understandings and practices. Why society feels that it should permit an adult to drink or smoke as much as they choose to (though not in public or before driving) but that it must actively forbid the use of some other substances has no clear logical basis. Any argument that can be used to justify legal tobacco (free individual choice, etc) could be just as easily applied to other substances on the select committee’s list. While scientific and ethical arguments can be made to bolster various positions, it seems that sheer momentum is the main determinant of policy.

I would be willing to guess that some prescription drugs – especially the anti-depressants given ever-more-readily to children and teenagers – would rank quite unfavourably, if subjected to the same type of analysis.

Coal and climate change

Few government policies have longer lead-times than those dealing with infrastructure development. This is demonstrated through the 17-year time-frame from design to deployment for Britain’s replacement Trident subs and it pertains directly to climate change issues. Despite Nicholas Stern’s espousal of a fossil fuel free society by mid-century, fossil fuel based plants are still in construction around the world. Right now, coal power plants account for about 1/4 of all human caused greenhouse gas emissions. About 150 new plants are slated for construction in the United States alone: 56% of them coal fired. By the time they have been completed, operate, and reach the end of their operational lives, we will be getting pretty close to 2050. All told, the International Energy Agency predicts that global coal use will rise by 71% by 2030, raising greenhouse gas emissions with it.

Even if we cannot go straight to infrastructure based entirely around renewables, we can make some modest investments now that could save us a lot of trouble in the long term. One example is building coal plants that can be easily converted to “Oxy-fuel” systems. In these, coal gets burned in nearly pure oxygen. The products of that reaction are mostly pure carbon dioxide, which can then (theoretically) be sequestered underground. By eliminating the need to separate CO2 from other gases, before sequestration, such plants could save a lot of money. Of course, they do require a system to extract oxygen from air to feed the reaction, though this is apparently easier to pull off.

Such transition technologies might be the trickiest part of the entire move away from fossil fuels. Renewables seem as though they will eventually mature, allowing some mix of solar, hydro, and related systems to power the grid. Transition technologies are critical for two other reasons, as well: both China and the United States are concerned about energy security and have masses of native coal, and fast-growing developing countries are unlikely to be able to make the kind of costly commitments to low-carbon energy that developed countries will. Managing interim emissions, and trying to stay below the 550ppm level that the Stern report has highlighted as highly dangerous, will be a considerable challenge.