Rants – Page 39 – a sibilant intake of breath

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.

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.

Curt and distant medical personnel

When I compare my experiences as the curious voluntary subject of medical experiments to the recent experiences of my family interacting with medical personnel due to issues with their own health, I am left with the clear sense that the researchers were a lot more courteous, and seemed more genuinely concerned about the welfare of those they were interacting with. All this in spite of the fact that the research subjects were generally healthy.

I realize people in the health system are stressed and over-worked, but I think their work would proceed very nearly as quickly and rather more pleasantly for all involved if they had a more developed bedside manner, or at least made the effort to treat people attentively and politely.

Oil tanker captured off Somalia

Yesterday, Somali pirates seized a Saudi Arabian oil supertanker, carrying about two million barrels of oil. It is a tangible demonstration of just how insecure marine traffic in some parts of the world has become. According to the Associated Press, “piracy is considered the most lucrative work in Somalia.” It is estimated that pirates have taken in $30 million in ransoms this year.

As discussed here before, piracy is a growing challenge for private shipping firms and the world’s navies. In the end, maritime insecurity derives from the lack of security on land. Pirates need means to acquire arms and recruits, as well as means to collect and launder ransoms and sell stolen goods. In the end, it is just another reason for which failed and failing states are of global concern.

The coming auto bailout

North America’s auto manufacturers seem to be next on the list for a big government bailout. As with other bailouts of private sector firms, there are legitimate worries about the public at large bearing the cost of losses, while gains had accrued to private individuals. In the case of the auto industry, there is the further risk that a bailout will permit North American firms to continue with their existing mode of operations, which had clearly failed before the credit crunch made the situation acute.

That being said, a case can be made that a bailout is the least problematic option. It can also be pragmatically recognized that governments are likely to provide the cash, rather than allow one of more of the firms to fall into bankruptcy.

Perhaps the best way this situation can be turned somewhat positive is to mandate tougher efficiency standards for vehicles, as partial public recompense for the funds. The biggest gains can be made in improving the least fuel efficient vehicles. According to calculations posted on Gristmill, improving the fuel efficiency of dire vehicles like the Hummer H3 (15 mpg), Yukon Denali (14 mpg), and Chevy Trailblazer (13 mpg) is a more promising initial strategy than trying to push the efficiency of cars like Honda Civics (29 mpg) upward.

This strategy is likely to be politically problematic. For one thing, it impinges on the flawed notion that people have a right to drive whatever they want and can afford. For another, the production of highly inefficient, high-margin vehicles is concentrated in North America. Nonetheless, if this is to be a one-off rehabilitation, rather than a temporary reprieve from systemic problems, the North American auto industry needs to shed much of its past philosophy and approach. It is remarkable that no automobile assembled in North America meets China’s fuel-efficiency standard. Along with the structural financial problems in the industry, that is a situation that will need to change.

Massive anti-terror database contemplated in the UK

British Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon has been saying some worrisome things about terrorism, security, and civil liberties. He is backing a plan to create a massive database of mobile and internet communications, for purposes of fighting terrorism. One worrisome aspect is the suggestion that it would be used to deal with “terrorists or criminals.” Technologies initially justified as an extreme measure necessary to fight terrorism will always spread to more banal uses, with a greater scope for abuses.

Indeed, that is the biggest issue that needs to be weighed against the possible terror-fighting capacity of such databases. They will inevitably be abused. Furthermore, governments are far more dangerous than terrorists, both when they are acting in malicious ways and when they are trying to be benign. Modern history certainly demonstrates that, while the power of terrorists to inflict harm is considerable, the ability of states to do so is extreme.

Previously:

California’s Proposition 8

One sad element in the upcoming American election is California’s Proposition 8: an attempt to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Restricting the rights of homosexuals is every bit as repugnant as doing so on the basis of sex or race. Hopefully, people in a few decades will view homophobia with the same near-universal hostility we nor direct towards racism and sexism.

Those unwilling to support gay marriage really ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is especially despicable to try to prevent it through constitutional amendment, given how a key role of constitutions in democratic political systems is to protect the rights of minorities that often face discrimination.

[Update: 22 December 2008] As everybody knows, Proposition 8 passed. Now, some people are seeking to have existing gay marriages voided. Hopefully, the court cases arising from this will eventually overturn the referendum, given that it is never appropriate to decide on minority rights by such means.

ICCAAT derided, tuna stocks denuded

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has generally shown itself to be ineffective in its mandate. Indeed, some have suggested with a fait bit of validity that the acronym more accurately expands to “International Conspiracy to Catch All Tuna.” A panel including experts from Canada, Japan, and Australia has now published a report with similar conclusions, saying that the organization is “”widely regarded as an international disgrace” and that there have been widespread failures in reducing illegal fishing, providing accurate catch data, and maintaining proper monitoring arrangements. When it appears that even Japan might be willing to back a moratorium on bluefin tuna fishing, you can be sure the situation is dire.

Unfortunately, the global record on fisheries management overall is dismal. Even the Alaskan pollock fishery – considered by many to be one of the most sustainable in the world – has seen a population drop of 50% since last year. The problem is simple to explain and very challenging to solve. There are too many people fishing with gear that is too good. Not enough parts of the sea are set off as safe havens for marine life. Pollution and climate change are also having an impact. Politicians are too spineless to stand up to the fishing lobby, not even in order to defend the public good, but to stop that very industry from destroying itself in our lifetimes. The industry needs to be much smaller and much more tightly regulated; the most destructive gear needs to be banned; monitoring needs to be improved; and states must prove themselves willing to enforce the law.

The chances of all that happening are fairly slim. All told, global fisheries provide one of the most acute examples of where human beings are weighing so heavily on the planet’s physical and biological systems that collapse is rapidly approaching.

Prior related posts:

The Shifting Baselines blog is also an excellent source of fishery-related news.

NDP opportunism and Conservative concealment

Perhaps the biggest disappointment in this federal election campaign is the opportunistic and irresponsible opposition of the NDP to carbon pricing. It is now extremely clear that global emissions need to fall – both in times of economic strength and weakness. Those in economies with excessive per-capita emissions need to fall soonest and fastest, and Canada has an appalling record in that regard. Cutting emissions in an economically efficient way means establishing a national price for carbon: either through a cap-and-trade scheme or a carbon tax. As such, parties that support a Canadian climate policy that is effective and internationally responsible would do well to either make such a proposal or support one already advanced by another federal party. Jack Layton may be more concerned with social welfare than with the environment, but he really needs to realize that failing to deal with climate change will produce enormous amounts of suffering and that those who will be hardest hit will be the poorest and most vulnerable in Canada, and around the world.

The other big disappointment is the failure of the Conservative Party to publish a platform. It is truly bizarre for a sitting government that is seeking an eventual majority to not publish the details of what they plan to do with the country. It leaves the opposition without the opportunity to comment, and Canadians in general without the opportunity to make an informed choice.

[Update: 9 October 2008]: The platform is out (PDF).

North/South historical versus future emissions

It is common to hear officials from developed states say things akin to this: “Yes, we are the ones who have historically done the most to create climate change – but we will be eclipsed by developing nations in the future.” While probably valid to some extent, there are many possible responses to this. There are arguments about who got rich how, as well as whose current per-capita emissions are high or low. What I am objecting to here is the curious methodology sometimes used to describe the developed/developing past/future dynamic.

Sometimes, states say both (a) developed states will continue to increase their emissions, in line with how they have been rising recently and (b) we will cut our emissions, according to our existing plan. If you step beyond that to compare your target future numbers with your business-as-usual projections for developing states, you make them look like a huge problem by comparison. One problem with this is that it is akin to saying the following: “I know I have been a problem gambler, but I have a plan to cut it down. I am going to halve my annual gambling losses in three years, and eliminate 80% of them in five. My buddy here, however, is a really compulsive gambler. He keeps losing more and more at an increasing rate. As such, his projected future losses are huge. Indeed, the amount I have lost so far is tiny compared to the amount he is going to lose in the future.” It is paradoxical because you are using the assertion that you will do better in the future to avoid present demands that you do more to reduce future emissions.

You are basically assuming that you can and will change, while others will not. No rich country government that has adopted targets for cutting emissions claims that cutting emissions requires cutting GDP. Nobody in power is touting a “stop climate change through recession” approach. As such, they must believe it possible to maintain economic growth while cutting emissions. While that may or may not be a valid assumption over various spans of time, it is an assumption that must be applied to developing states as well as developed ones.

In short, both developed and developing states need to cut emissions. The large probable future emissions from states like India and China are relevant to climate planning, partly insofar as concern about them could prompt useful transfers of wealth and low-carbon technology towards those states. At the same time, the wealth of the developed world – and the historical emissions that helped generate it – are also highly relevant. So too are the much larger non-climatic challenges being faced in the developing world. The developed world needs to start taking the kinds of steps necessary for actually hitting their 2020 and 2050 targets, in the process demonstrating to developing states how the transition can be accomplished in a politically acceptable way.