Category: Canada

Anything related to Canada or Canadians

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.

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.

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.

2008 Arctic sea ice minimum

It seems that the Arctic sea ice has reached its minimum area for the year. The record for reduction from last year has not been broken, but the situation is nonetheless disturbing. Whereas last year provided optimal conditions for melting, the unusually cold winter last year – arising from La Nina conditions – meant that this year’s melt should have been quite a bit less significant. As it happened, it was within 10% of last year’s record.

Walt Meier, a scientist at the American National Snow and Ice Data Center explained the situation:

I think this summer has been more remarkable than last year, in fact, because last year we had really optimal conditions to melt a lot of ice. We had clear skies with the Sun blazing down, we had warm temperatures, and winds that pushed the ice edge northwards. We didn’t have any of this this year, and yet we still came within 10% of the record; so people might be tempted to call it a recovery, but I don’t think that’s a good term, we’re still on a downwards trend towards ice-free Arctic summers.

In short, the Arctic ice is probably already locked into a death spiral. Here’s hoping that doesn’t lead to widespread melting of the permafrost, since the results of that would be catastrophic for humanity.

UBC to join NCAA?

It seems the University of British Columbia is considering joining Division II of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and is at least nominally soliciting advice from students and alumni about the decision. Personally, I have never seen varsity sports as an important part of what the universities do. For the most part, students who don’t care and don’t watch them are subsidizing athletes who contribute little to the overall university community. Sports programs also divert funding away from more valuable uses such as research, student scholarships and bursaries, and university infrastructure.

Ideally, UBC should make the ‘Varsity Sports Fee’ that gets imposed on every student an opt-in system. Then students who feel that the program is worth the approximately $200 per year cost of the program can choose to support it. By all means, attendance of athletic events can be restricted to those who pay the fee. Even so, I expect they would see a sharp contraction in their level of funding: relatively clear evidence that these programs are valued more by university administrators than by students. If the sports programs wanted to preserve their present level of funding, they would need to find willing donors, rather than exact a semi-hidden tax on those who often have far more pressing financial needs.

In any case, three consultations on the move are planned:

  • September 29, 4:00-7:00 p.m. – Liu Centre, Multi-purpose Room, 6476 North West Marine Drive
  • October 14, 6:00-9:00 p.m. – Ponderosa Centre, Arbutus Room, 2071 West Mall
  • October 15, 4:00-7:00 p.m. – Ponderosa Centre, Arbutus Room, 2071 West Mall

Those in Vancouver may wish to consider attending.

May being excluded from leaders’ debates

I think it’s a shame that Green Party leader Elizabeth May is being excluded from the leaders’ debates for this election. The longstanding isolation of the Green Party is largely the product of Canada’s first-past-the-post system and, given that they are so severely hampered by the technicalities of Canada’s electoral system, it seems fair that meeting the technicality of having a sitting Member of Parliament is sufficient procedural justification for their inclusion.

More substantively, there is major focus on the environment in this campaign. As such, having a candidate present whose party is focused explicitly on environmental issues would probably add to the caliber and intelligence of the discussions that result.

True North American free trade

Amazon.com is superior to Amazon.ca in several ways. Firstly, it has a much broader selection. Secondly, it has some special features, like the Amazon Prime subscription that gives you unlimited shipping for $79 a year. The process of ordering things from Amazon.com, having them sent to places in the US, and then having them relayed to me has left me wondering what the effect of a true North American Free Trade Agreement would be.

In the simplest form, it would work like this:

  • Anyone in Canada, the United States, and Mexico can purchase anything sold by any company in any of the three countries.
  • The item can be shipped directly to them, and they will not be charged any customs fees, duties, or other border-related charges.
  • Some simple system is sorted out for sales taxes. It could be (a) you pay the tax of your local jurisdiction, which may send part of the revenue to the sending jurisdiction (b) you pay the tax of the sending jurisdiction or (c) you don’t pay sales tax.

Such an arrangement would obviously be beneficial for consumers. They would be able to buy from whatever physical or web-based store offered them the best arrangement. It’s less clear what the effect on businesses would be. Those that benefit from having consumers who are more likely to buy from a firm in their own country would get hurt, at least temporarily. Those that would be more attractive to outside consumers in the absence of duty fees would likewise benefit in the near-term. In the near term, this alternative approach should produce net economic benefits. While some actors would lose the benefits of a captive market (like drink sellers at concerts), the larger market would be more efficient overall.

In the longer term, there would be effects on firm consolidation, tax revenues, currency values, and macroeconomic conditions. Both from the perspective of what would benefit readers personally and from the perspective of what would be best for society overall, would readers prefer (a) for the current system to continue (b) having the current system replaced with one akin to the one above or (c) getting rid of North American free trade entirely?

Conservatism and science

One of the most regrettable things about contemporary conservatism – aside from forgetting Edmund Burke’s notion of humanity as stewards of the natural world – is the unwillingness to acknowledge basic scientific realities. Sometimes, this is because of ideological conflicts; acknowledging the immense danger posed by climate change basically means admitting that government regulation is required. Sometimes, it is because of religious beliefs at odds with the basic knowledge we now have about the universe. It is simply embarrassing that there are still people in developed countries who do not understand evolution, or who believe the Earth to be a few thousand years old.

Also regrettably, it seems that the recent surprise Republican vice presidential choice Sarah Palin is among those who profess doubt about the existence of biological evolution. She is of the ‘teach the controversy’ school of thought, in which schoolchildren should supposedly be presented with multiple theories and charged with choosing for themselves. Thankfully, this approach provides rich opportunities for satire. One site sells ‘Teach the Controversy’ shirts showing Atlantis, the devil burying dinosaur bones, aliens building the Egyptian pyramids, and so forth. Most famously, the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster phenomenon began as a mocking response to this approach:

I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

Being tolerant of people with religious beliefs does not mean treating those beliefs with special deference, or refraining from mocking the more absurd ones among them. Indeed, it is only through the vigorous consideration of the relative merits and explanatory capabilities of different viewpoints that we can further refine our understanding of the world. The sad thing is that there are some people who never get a fair shot at it because those in power choose to give them a deeply inadequate initiation into the teaching of science.

Climate action withdrawn

The Government of British Columbia has suddenly decided to retract my Climate Action Dividend (discussed here before). Previously, they had decided to issue them to anyone who filed a provincial tax return in 2006 or 2007. Now, they are being retracted from everyone who was not a resident of BC as of December 31st, 2007. This strikes me as rather poor planning on their part. The administrative costs of re-collecting the money will form a deadweight loss, and the government will henceforth have less credibility when issuing credits of this kind.

I suppose I will need to pack up and return my compact fluorescent bulbs, returning the inefficient incandescent ones to the sockets, remove the weather stripping from my doors and windows, switch back to my old and inefficient hot water system, swap out my low-flow showerhead, partially deflate the tires on my vehicle, and rip out my new crawl space insulation… Actually, I probably directed the money towards paying down student loans.

This can be dubbed the “Oh, wait. You are probably not going to vote in the next BC election, are you?” retraction.