Rants – Page 30 – a sibilant intake of breath

Climate change and winter

During the last few days, I have had a depressing number of people approach me quasi-triumphantly, pointing to either the CRU emails or the first winter snowfall as evidence that climate change is nothing to worry about.

Both comments are worrisome, given that we are in the midst of negotiations at Copenhagen that will play a significant role in determining whether we keep temperature rise under 2°C or not. The CRU emails already have a post of their own, but I thought I would say a couple of things about winter.

The latter argument – about the snow – is especially absurd. Climate change is about a shifting distribution of temperatures. There will always be extremes of hot and cold, it’s just that the former are becoming more frequent relative to the latter. That said, I recall reading about a study that found that most Canadians cannot explain why there are seasons at all, with a plurality offering the theory that is has to do with the distance between the Earth and the sun. Of course, our winter is summer in the southern hemisphere, which shows that this hypothesis cannot be valid. Winters are the consequence of the fact that the Earth rotates on an axis that is presently tilted 23.44° off from the direction of our orbit. That makes the length of days variable, and changes how the distribution of temperatures across the globe plays out. That level of tilt varies across geological time due to tidal forces. When the tilt is greater, the variation between the seasons is alo larger; when the tilt is lesser, the weather towards the poles remains more consistent year-round. The level of tilt has an affect on processes like glaciation.

This will continue to happen essentially forever, regardless of how much warming we experience. The distant polar regions will always experience months of darkness, and will thus always be colder than the equator during those spans. Indeed, this is a nice demonstration of what a massive amount of energy the sun adds to the Earth system. None of this disproves the fact that greenhouse gasses being added to the atmosphere warm the planetary system overall.

The two queries also highlight some potentially important psychological issues. People on both sides of the argument are sometimes overly quick to grab at any piece of evidence that seems to support what they already believe. In his book, Greg Craven goes on at some length about the importance of this ‘confirmation bias.’ Such sloppy reasoning is one reason why the climate change debate is so flawed. Hard as it can be to do so, we need to question data and sources of information even when they seem to confirm our existing beliefs – just as we must take into consideration sources and data that seem to contradict what we hold to be true. That doesn’t mean, however, that we should remain paralyzed forever, unable to take action due to uncertainty. We take precautionary action on the basis of uncertain threats all the time. A risk management approach to climate change is one where the preponderance of evidence is sufficient to drive preventative action.

Above and beyond that, I think the fact that people cheerily point to a snowfall to argue that the planet isn’t in danger shows that they don’t yet seriously appreciate how dangerous climate change could be. The fact that it is still often treated as a half-joking matter bodes ill for our ability to put our society on a course where the largest risks of catastrophic or runaway climate change can be avoided.

Asymmetric behaviours in climate debates

James Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming neatly expresses a key assymmetry that arises in debates between those supporting and those questioning the consensus view that climate change is primarily being cause by human greenhouse gas emissions:

When it comes to staking out positions and shifting the middle ground, industry-funded strategists seem to have seized and kept the strategic initiative. Any time anyone on the science side makes even the smallest overstatement, they immediately face the full resources of a think tank echo chamber attack. And because conscientious scientists are so quick to recognize and acknowledge when something is not exactly correct, the attackers have won many apologies, corrections, or reinterpretations, which they have used to argue that all of climate science is frail and uncertain.

At the same time, the more exuberant deniers have often said things that were flat-out wrong, and then have refused to acknowledge or apologize for their misrepresentations. In response the environmental community – lacking both the resources and sense of common purpose more typical of the antiscience crowd – has been ineffective in launching countercriticism. (p. 130 paperback)

This is certainly something we have seen in discussions here. Deniers like Dan Pangburn trot out arguments that have been factually or logically rebutted over and over, while hammering at minor components of arguments being made by others. When people dutifully rebut them again, it may provide the false sense that a meaningful debate is still ongoing.

Of course, there are plenty of other circumstances in which we legitimately hold one side of a conflict to higher standards. Scientists should not stoop to the level of denying their mistakes. That said, it does seem appropriate to draw attention to this asymmetry as evidence of how one side of this debate is fighting dirty.

Climate denial and conservative think tanks

In 2008, three academics published the paper “The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism” in the journal Environmental Politics. The researchers analyzed 141 books published between 1972 and 2005, all of which expressed skepticism about the seriousness of environmental problems, including climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, resource shortages, air pollution, and others. Of these, the researchers found that over 92% were published by conservative think tanks, written by authors affiliated with those think tanks, or both.

Contrast that with Naomi Oreskes’ 2004 Science article: “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” in which she examined the positions taken on climate change within peer-reviewed scientific articles. Of the 928 articles examined, none expressed disagreement with the consensus view that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change.

Peter Jacques uses their survey to argue that “scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism.” That is to say, groups with an economic or ideological commitment to the present arrangement – where most energy comes from fossil fuels and the atmosphere is a free dumping ground for greenhouse gasses – are continuing to press for policy inaction by self-serving means, using information and arguments at odds with that in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. None of that is surprising, though it does demonstrate the irony of climate change deniers claiming to be an embattled and persecuted minority, concerned only with getting the truth out despite the efforts of nefarious scientists and environmentalists to silence them.

More camera and travel issues

Earlier today, I got my Rebel XS back from Canon. Apparently, they had to replace one of the circuit boards to deal with the infinite loop the camera got itself into at the Fill the Hill event. Unfortunately, whoever did the repair managed to disable my on-camera flash in the process. I had little choice but to send it back to Canon immediately, since my one-year warranty will be up in a few days.

Henry’s says they will definitely lend me a body for the family reunion in Vermont, since I bought their three-year extended service plan. I just have to hope I get the camera back before December 19th, when I will be leaving for Vancouver. I really doubt Henry’s would lend me a body for a whole month, but it would be really intolerable to be sans-dSLR during my first trip to Vancouver in two years. I am told that ‘re-repairs’ are generally faster than ordinary repairs. That’s a bit comforting, though it is unnerving to know that cameras are broken often enough during the repair process for the Henry’s staff to be familiar with the statistics. What ever happened to quality control?

As for the mode of travel, I am leaning warily towards the bus. It’s a lot faster and cheaper than the train, and 1/5 of the emissions of flying. On the ‘sociology of travel‘ side, nothing shows commitment to climate change mitigation more than extending the length of your journey twelve-fold, in order to decrease the associated emissions by 80%. Well, I suppose the only thing that would would be avoiding the journey entirely, and passing the time blockading nearby coal power plants instead.

Debates within society at large, and within the scientific community

Elaborating on work discussed here before, Gavin Schmidt provides some information on what distinguishes the most recently developed sorts of climate models for their predecessors, such as General Circulation Models. The newer Earth System Models:

now include interactive atmospheric chemistry, aerosols (natural and anthropogenic) and sometimes full carbon cycles in the ocean and land surface. This extra machinery allows for new kinds of experiments to be done. Traditionally, in a GCM, one would impose atmospheric composition forcings by changing the concentrations of the species in the atmosphere e.g. the CO2 level could be increased, you could add more sulphate, or adjust the ozone in the stratosphere etc. However, with an ESM you can directly input the emissions (of all of the relevant precursors) and then see what ozone levels or aerosol concentrations you end up with. This allows you to ask more policy-relevant questions regarding the net effects of a particular sector’s emissions or the impact of a specific policy on climate forcing and air pollution.

Atmospheric chemistry is clearly a highly complex field. This makes it all the more strange and troubling that such a vast divide exists between debate between experts in the scientific community and debate within society at large.

That said, I suppose these situations aren’t really all that rare. Serious geologists and biologists continue to work out the minutiae of the history of present status of the Earth, at the same time as laypeople and self-styled ‘experts’ maintain debates about whether the world is 6,000 years old and whether all the creatures on it have existed since the beginning of time. By the same token, no matter how sophisticated scientific modeling of the climate becomes – and how much data accumulates demonstrating human-induced warming – there will still be people willing to baldly assert that climate change isn’t happening / is natural / isn’t a problem / is beneficial / is caused by sunspots, etc.

Why conservatives should love carbon taxes

The National Post – Canada’s right-leaning daily newspaper – has publicly stated that it believes climate change is real, and also that the current government has the right approach to dealing with it. In particular, it praises Environment Minister Jim Prentice for avoiding the “creation of state-managed “green economies” — socialism with a Gaian face.”

Whether such a creation is possible (and whether it would be desirable or not) are questions that can be set aside for a moment. The irony that seems to be paramount when it comes to the relationship between conservatives and climate change is how they stress a desire to interfere in markets and individual choices as little as possible, while rejecting the mechanism that would do that best: a carbon tax. A carbon tax doesn’t force anyone to drive a small car or, terrifying thought, forgo automobiles all together. It doesn’t force people to choose small pets, give up flying, or make other specific sacrifices. It also doesn’t rely upon the government deciding which energy technologies should succeed, whether that means renewables, nuclear, carbon capture and storage, or something else. It encourages low-carbon technological development in the most hands-off and market-friendly way possible.

All a carbon tax does is take the price imposed on strangers by greenhouse gas emissions and makes it ‘internal’ to the decision-making of individuals and other economic actors throughout society. It comes the closest to retaining the libertarian ideal in a world where interconnectedness forces us to take into consideration the consequences our actions will have on others. I have talked before about the irony of how laissez faire climate policies will inevitably fail and force governments to take employ more coercive measures. That outcome can only be avoided by sending a clear price signal on greenhouse gas emissions, and doing so early and at a meaningful level. Indeed, a carbon tax can be said to be a way of protecting property rights, given that it reduces the degree to which emitters will harm the property and prosperity of other people around the world.

It should be noted that the important policy change here is to put a price on carbon emissions, to represent the harm they cause to other people. The establishment of such a price is more important than the precise mechanism through which it is done, whether that is a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system in which 100% of the permits are sold at auction. The choice of instrument is less important than moving quickly to put a price on carbon in one way or another.

It is an open question whether conservatives will realize the extent to which they are undermining their own aims and ideals through opposition to carbon pricing. Part of that is the paleoconservative stance that climate change isn’t happening, that it is benign, that it is inevitable, etc. Among conservatives with enough basic awareness about the world to know that those arguments have been discredited, we should hope that support begins to grow for the idea of dealing with the climate problem in the way that involves the least expansion of the state and the least infringement on liberty: a carbon tax.

While there may well be cause for accompanying such a tax with other regulations – such as a ban on coal power – at least gaining conservative support for some kind of carbon action would change the tone of the debate. We would finally stop pretending that we can ignore climate change indefinitely while the economy keeps ticking on just fine, and begin to appreciate and implement the steps required to build a low-carbon future.

Milk

Watching Milk was a reminder of the unusual sort of luxury supporting the gay rights movement actually provides. It is the kind of utterly unambiguous moral movement that emerges only rarely: where one side is unassailably aligned with human welfare and human rights, and the other is straightforwardly mistaken from top to bottom.

While it is tragic that significant numbers of educated people – people who think of themselves as ethical – continue to oppose equal rights for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people, it does seem worth hoping that the movement opposing these basic liberties will falter and die within our lifetimes, at least within the kind of developed states that have largely abandoned bigotry motivated by ill-founded personal revulsion or oppressive religious notions of morality. While it will take longer for the world as a whole to reach such a state, there does also seem to be reason to hope that it will eventually happen.

In the mean time, the movement for gay rights will continue to have a special motivating character, for all those who aspire to a more equitable and less benighted world. It represents one of the purest contests of sense and tolerance against bigotry and violence ongoing in the world today.

British, EU, and US negotiators expect little from Copenhagen

Apparently, the United States has now made clear that they do not expect a climate deal to emerge at Copenhagen this year, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) gathering is to take place. This isn’t really news, but it is certainly disappointing. In a few years, I think people will look back regretfully at how much time, money and political energy were directed at the credit crunch, while the much more important problem of climate change mitigation was neglected.

A big part of the reason for the delay is certainly the difficulty the Obama administration has had getting a climate change bill through Congress. The Republicans deserve a lot of criticism for their caveman mentality on this issue. Their united opposition to meaningful action on climate change is irresponsible and a dereliction of duty, insofar as they are charged with defending the long-term welfare of the United States. While pricing carbon will cause short-term harm to certain industries now, it is the only way to kick off the sustained transition to a low-carbon economy that long-term prosperity ultimately depends upon.

Cruise ship size record reset

At the end of October, the MS Oasis of the Seas was launched in Finland. It is the world’s largest cruise ship, 360 metres long, with capacity for 6,296 passengers. In November of next year, a second ship of the same class is expected to be launched: the MS Allure of the Seas. The ship is powered by three 13.9 megawatt (MW) engines and three 18.5 MW engines, with propulsion from three 20 MW Azipods.

I cannot help but think that if the advocates of the peak oil hypothesis are correct, these vessels will end up being viewed as the height of fossil-driven folly. The ship is also a reminder of how international waters remain the part of the planet with the most lax environmental standards, whether the pollutant in question is sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, or anything else. Indeed, large oceangoing vessels generally need to carry two types of fuel: one that is legal for use in the domestic waters of states with air pollution laws, and another that can only be used on the open ocean.

Growing climate skepticism in the US

In an awfully pathetic development, a recent poll conducted of 1,500 American adults by the Pew Research Center found that the proportion agreeing that “there is strong scientific evidence that the earth has gotten warmer over the past few decades” has fallen from 71% to 57%. Now, only 36% of people agree that human activities are the drivers of temperature increase.

This is an astonishing result, a year after the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report argued that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.” It is especially sad given the fact that the supposed scientific debate about the causes of climate change is largely mythical. Despite that, status quo supporting groups have apparently done an excellent job of misleading the public, perhaps aided by the increased concern that now exists about the state of the global economy.

The basics of the situation are quite simple. No competent chemist would disagree that burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Similarly, it is simple to observe that air with more CO2 blocks more outgoing infrared radiation, warming the planet. Both of these things are explained by chemical and physical theory, and observed in practice. Admittedly, it takes more work to understand why this warming could be dangerous; still, the scientific backing for that claim is incredibly robust and based on peer-reviewed scientific work done around the world over the course of many decades.

Obviously, a lot more work needs to be done debunking climate change deniers, both by directly responding to misleading arguments and through other means. The terrifying thing here is that our actions now will have irrevocable consequences, largely beginning a few decades out, but continuing at least for thousands of years. The fact that so many people remain confused about climate – and very few support effort on the scale required to deal with it – is really bad news for future generations.