Politics – Page 167 – a sibilant intake of breath

Presentation on near-term American climate policy

Dr. Holmes Hummel has put together a useful Powerpoint deck and presentation about American climate change policy in the period before and immediately after the Copenhagen negotiations. The slides are available here, along with an mp3 of the spoken presentation. Hummel is a Congressional Science Fellow, currently developing climate and energy legislation through the office of Congressman Jay Inslee. I wholeheartedly hope that she is correct in anticipating the proposal of a 100% auction cap-and-trade system from the Obama administration in 2009.

Her website has a number of other presentations.

Misusing the verb ‘to ensure’

I think ‘ensure’ might be one of the most misused words in the English language. At least 90% of the time I see it used, it is being seriously misapplied. Cariboo altering their migration patterns in response to climate change are not ‘ensuring’ their survival. At best, the behaviour makes their survival more likely. Similarly, new laws cannot ensure that children will be protected from sexual predators. At best, they will make such occurrences less frequent. Military and police power can never ensure an end to terrorism.

In short, the verb ‘to ensure’ should only be used in situations where genuine certainty is being produced. Generally, this is only the case in matters that are strictly logical or those that are strictly empirical. For instance, the fact that all bats are mammals ensures that there are no non-mammal bats. Similarly, the fact that matter attracts other matter ensures that very massive bodies will be roughly spherical. In terms of actions, those where something is ‘ensured’ are those where an inescapable cause-and-effect relationship exists: the failure of the O-ring on the Space Shuttle Challenger ensured that the vehicle would fail catastrophically. Virtually nothing in politics is certain and, as such, political pledges to ‘ensure’ things are usually misleading or empty.

The budget and federal environmental policy

The Globe and Mail has a fairly lengthy article about the recent federal budget, oil sands policy, and environmental policy integration with the United States. It highlights the speculative nature and unknown costs of emissions reductions associated with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology:

However, this week’s federal budget provided little sense that Ottawa is preparing the country for a shift to a green economy, or even that it is concerned about the slump in the oil sands, which extends to the oil and gas industry generally.

Rather than any direct measures, the federal government provided $69-billion to ease access to credit in the economy generally — admittedly, an important problem for a capital-intensive oil industry — and vague promises of funding for carbon-capture-and-storage technology.

CCS is the fig leaf of the oil sands — an untested, hugely expensive technology that governments and industry claim will be critical if oil-sands emissions are to be reduced to acceptable levels. The idea is to divert CO2 emissions from smokestacks and store it permanently underground, but skeptics doubt it will ever be commercially viable.

A lot of talk these days surrounds a joint North American approach to climate change and energy security. Few people seem to have publicly considered the jurisdictional difficulties associated with such an approach. If I were Barack Obama, trying to get a cap-and-trade bill through Congress, I really doubt that I would want to have to deal with ten provincial governments, a second federal government, a separate legal and constitutional arrangement (including, for instance, aboriginal issues), and all the other complexities associated with jumping straight into a two-state system. That being said, having a North American strategy that is at least poised for integration could be important for securing the support of private firms worried about cross-border competition.

Without a doubt, these are interesting times for the emergence of climate policies.

Obama visiting Canada

President Barack Obama will be visiting Canada on February 19th. Presumably, that will include some sort of large public gathering, hopefully with an appearance from the man himself. In preparation, it seems fitting to contemplate what sort of message it would be most valuable to convey to the new president.

With that aim in mind, I propose that people submit their best ideas for a message that could be put on a placard for the media (and maybe even the President) to catch a glimpse of. Text versions and images would both be welcome. The former can be posted as simple comments. In the latter case, people can email images to me for possible posting. My immediate idea would be something along the lines of:

The oil sands are a trap!
Choose zero-carbon energy!

These days, it seems that the best hope for an aggressive shift towards decarbonizing the global economy comes from the possibility of new US leadership and the destruction of the reckless approach to energy the world is using at present. The challenge of expressing that general necessity in a compact statement is a considerable one.

Free book on environmental economics

Jason Scorse, of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, has written a book on what environmentalists need to know about economics. He has also made it available online, free of charge.

The first six chapters consider the general approach of economists to environmental issues. The next eight chapters look into specific environmental issues, including climate change (PDF). The relatively brief climate chapter concentrates on the possibility of an international cap-and-trade or carbon tax system, rather than focusing on some of the more conceptual issues in climate change economics, such as the appropriate discount rate or the degree to which we should hedge against catastrophic risks. Nonetheless, it is a potentially useful resource for those seeking to increase their knowledge of the general subject area.

Norway: green ambitions and oil exports

This Economist article on Norway should make interesting reading for Canadians interested in questions of energy, environment, and politics. It highlights how Norway is both progressive on climate change – with a carbon tax and a grid almost completely dominated by hydroelectric power – and a major indirect emitter on account of its large exports of oil and gas. Oil and gas sales produced 413 billion kroner ($75 billion Canadian) in revenues in 2008, and such exports have allowed Norway to build up an oil-revenue fund worth 2.1 trillion kroner ($382 billion Canadian).

The challenge of being a hydrocarbon exporter at a time when future human prosperity depends on the fairly rapid abandonment of fossil fuels is an acute one. While carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies may eventually help square the circle a bit, that is by no means guaranteed. Indeed, placing excessive confidence on the rapid and economical deployment of that technology will leave states in the lurch if it doesn’t deliver as rapidly as promised.

In addition to discussing carbon pricing instruments and oil exports, the article examines the practice of ‘offsetting’ emissions by paying to have them reduced somewhere else, then taking the credit for doing so by counting those avoided emissions against your own. As discussed before, it is an idea not entirely without merit. That being said, it must be rigorously operated, or it will risk being abused.

Norway’s considerable efforts to respond appropriately to climate change deserve to be both applauded and, where appropriate, replicated in Canada. As for balancing the desire to do what’s right against the temptation of cash for dirty fuels, hopefully Norway will opt to show other oil producers that the temptation can be restrained without destroying prosperity, and that there are big opportunities to be found in alternative, renewable sources of energy. Depressingly, it may only be with strong examples of this type elsewhere that Canada will even begin to seriously contemplate such a shift.

Climate change and the perception of threat

This David Roberts post, over at Gristmill, discusses the relationships between public awareness of climatic science and the need to take action on climate change. In short, it concludes that the general public will not understand climatic science in the foreseeable future. The critical task is not to make them do so. Rather, what is critical is altering the answers they reach when they ask themselves the two questions through which they evaluate potential problems:

“Is this a problem that threatens me/my family/my tribe? Is there an imminent threat? Is it an emergency?”
“Do the proposed solutions to the problem threaten me/my family/my tribe? Am I going to get screwed?”

It goes on to argue that scientific reports and data will not change how people answer these questions. Rather, to get action on climate change, the following must be done:

“Greens, politicians, and other communicators need to get serious about calling climate change the impending catastrophe it is, with serious, dire consequences for people now living, certainly for their children. That means risking being called “hysterics” by conservatives and their dupes in the media.”
“The same folks need to get better at showing the public the opportunities and benefits of action. It’s about expanding the winner’s circle and making damn sure everybody in it, or potentially in it, knows about it.” (emphasis in original)

This is a strategy quite different from climate change mitigation by stealth, but it does seek to respond to the same fundamental problems of selfishness and misunderstanding.

The critical flaw in thinking we can achieve a technocratic solution to climate change is a failure to appreciate the influence of those who will be harmed by effective climate change mitigation efforts (such as coal and oil sands producers), as well as their willingness to manipulate the public into demanding inaction. In order to counter the influence of such status quo powers, there does need to be a political constituency for effective climate change action. I think Roberts is basically correct in asserting that it will be through changing the public perception of risk and opportunity that such a constituency might best be constructed.

Lofty ambitions for space travel

This is one of the best bits of satire The Onion has produced in a while: Kim Jong Il Announces Plan To Bring Moon To North Korea. It is especially amusing if you are familiar with some of the actual governmental propaganda about Kim Jong Il. I once saw a North Korean press document claiming that their leader is ‘the most energetic man in history.’ He has a fondness for doctoring photos of Napoleon to include his own face, and North Korean songs claim that he can “dispel raging storms.”

My favourite quotes from the video:

“A force of one million men will anchor [the moon] to a resplendent pedestal modeled on the Dear Leader’s perfect hand.”
“We will study the moon once it is here to learn the effects of moon possession on national glory.”
“The plan is perfect. We have already succeeded.”

The artwork is also an amusing impersonation of a classic propaganda style.

Fishing, weather, and uncontrolled experiments

New Scientist recently published an interesting article discussing the importance of weather for fisheries. Specifically, it examines some of the ways in which weather and climatic phenomena affect the stocks of individual species and the balance of species within an ecosystem. Important mechanisms through which effects are transmitted include changed ocean temperatures and the aggravated mixing of nutrient-rich deep waters and sunlight-rich surface waters. Where they are persistent, such upwellings produce some of the world’s most fertile marine habitats, such as those off the west coast of Africa.

When it comes to the ocean in general, humanity is in the midst of an overlapping series of massive experiments: bumping the temperature and acidity by emitting CO2, altering salinity by melting ice, aggressively fishing for creatures of all kinds, dumping plastics into the oceans, and so forth. Given the scale of these actions, the unknown linkages between them, and our poor level of overall knowledge about the chemistry and biology of the oceans, it would be surprising if all this did not produce major unexpected changes in the biological makeup of the seas within the next half-century or so.

Geothermal in Alberta

In Canada, at least, Alberta is synonymous with fossil fuel production. As such, it is nice to see that the Pembina Institute has produced a report (PDF) looking into possibilities for sustainable energy production in the province. The Clean Break blog has a summary.

In particular, the report discusses ways in which geothermal power could be an ideal match to the skills and research already present in the province. They already know how to drill deep holes into rock. Further, they are investigating new techniques in the context of carbon capture and storage. Given the province’s excessively high per-capita emissions, and ongoing dependence on coal for electricity, it would be especially appropriate to see some aggressive renewable deployment there. Doing so would also generate technologies and experience that Canadian firms could export to others: a good example of leveraging existing skills to move from a fossil-fuel backed economy towards a truly renewable one.