Category: Politics

All posts on what Bismarck called “the art of the possible”

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.

Price stability and energy investments

It is frequently argued that ever-rising oil prices will encourage good climatic outcomes. They make people cut back on flying and buying SUVs, and thus reduce emissions through destroyed demand. One counter-argument highlights how consistently high prices encourage the use of fuels even filthier than oil: such as coal and hydrocarbons produced from the oil sands. Arguably, uncertainty and instability actually produce the best climatic outcomes, since they leave the profitability of huge hydrocarbon investments uncertain.

This piece in The Globe and Mail argues that the recent fall in oil prices, combined with constrained access to credit due to the financial turmoil in the United States, is threatening the development of the oil sands.

Of course, uncertainty about future energy prices and restricted access to capital are also likely to hurt the development of renewable sources of power, such as concentrating solar plants in the American southwest that retain enough thermal energy overnight to produce electricity continuously. The ideal option is a predictable, ever-increasing price for carbon emissions. That would give clean sources of energy the confidence to invest, while simultaneously discouraging the development of amply available yet climatically disastrous sources of energy – at least until such a time (if ever) when effective carbon sequestration emerges.

Carbon emissions worse than criminal damage

In a fairly surprising precedent, a jury in the United Kingdom aquitted six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage to a coal plant. In their defence, they argued that their scaling of the smokestack and attempt to paint “Gordon [Brown], bin it” on the side was justified because of the greenhouse gas emissions being produced by the plant:

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a “lawful excuse” to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of “lawful excuse” under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain’s green agenda and could encourage further direct action.

NASA climatic scientist James Hansen testified in defence of the activists.

It is virtually certain that the Crown will appeal the decision, and highly likely that the appeal will succeed. That being said, the situation may be indicative of the British public gaining an appreciation for the gravity of the threat posed by climate change, and the intolerability of coal power in a forward-looking, carbon-reducing economy. The fact that the UK is mulling the approval of new coal plants is definitely a major blot on its record as a fairly progressive state, where climate change is concerned.

No-hope candidates

Elections bring up the interesting question of the psychology of no-hope parties and candidates. When they choose to run in areas where there is a real contest between two other candidates with differing views, they generally risk harming whichever candidate has views most similar to their own.

Perhaps the most dramatic example ongoing is Ralph Nader’s campaign in Pennsylvania. It is difficult to understand why he would choose to run there, and perhaps even more difficult to understand why people would choose to vote for him. Doing so can only increase the probability of an outcome these people would probably find less preferable (it is difficult to imagine someone who prefers Nader to Obama finding McCain more attractive than Obama). It definitely challenges the notion that the aim of voting is to rationally advance whatever program of government you would most like to see implemented.

I suppose saying “don’t run serious candidates until you are popular enough to win” is a strategy that would forever prevent the emergence of new parties. In a sense, it is a bit like the strategy of not negotiating with kidnappers: it may contribute to a bad outcome in a specific instance, but establishes a more desirable long-term pattern.

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.

Two American cap-and-trade plans

While both John McCain and Barack Obama have endorsed a national cap-and-trade system as the centerpiece of their climate policies, the two proposals differ on several highly important grounds. The most important by far is the mechanism of permit allocation. Under the McCain system, permits to emit carbon would be granted for free to those with existing records of emissions; under the Obama system, all those wishing to emit will be required to buy permits at auction. The practical differences between the approaches are massive. Under the auction system, those who wish to pollute are made to pay. Under the free allocation system, those who have polluted in the past are granted valuable credits that they can either use to pollute or sell for cash.

As described before, consumers experience price rises in either scenario. What differs is where the windfall accrues. Under an auctioning system, it ends up in the hands of government, which can use it to fund low-carbon investments or refund it to the population as a hole (as in a cap-and-dividend system). Under a free allocation system, it simply goes into the coffers of the biggest polluters.

Even with a Democratically-controlled Congress and Senate, getting a plan based on 100% auctioning approved would be very challenging. Democrats from areas where extractive industries and automobile manufacture are economically important and politically powerful will resist policies that will be costly to dirty industries. That being said, it is arguably wiser to start with a policy position that is stronger than can probably be enacted and then compromise, rather than starting with a position that is weaker than necessary to get the job done.

India and the Nuclear Suppliers Group

Today, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group decided to approve a nuclear deal between the United States and India (which is not part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and which tested bombs between 1974 and 1998). The decision is one about which I feel ambivalent. One the one hand, it might promote the relatively responsible use of nuclear technologies in India. Despite how we could probably do better by spending our money in other ways, more nuclear power is a likely consequence of concerns about both energy security and climate change. On the other hand, the deal demonstrates that it is possible states can test bombs, remain outside the NPT, and still get access to internationally-provided nuclear fuels and technologies. The lesson to other states may be that the best long-term course of action is to ignore international efforts aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Thinking about how many states are likely to have reactors and bombs by the end of the next century is pretty worrisome.

More comprehensive reporting on the decision:

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?

Polls and the electoral college in US elections

When it comes to the US election, national polls can be very misleading. This is because of how the contest is Balkanized into states and electoral college votes. It doesn’t matter if you barely manage to win a state, or if you win by a huge majority. As explained on this post on The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, the winner will be whoever gets more than 270 electoral college votes:

Barack Obama already has 260 votes either “strong” or “leaning”. John McCain has just 112 strong and 64 leaning. He must not lose a single “lean” state to keep himself 86 votes behind.

Now those swing states… Mr McCain has tiny leads in Nevada and North Dakota, and slightly bigger ones in North Carolina and Florida. Mr Obama has clear leads in Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, New Hampshire, Alaska (you can probably write that one off now, though) and Montana.

This may be a partial explanation for the surprise selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate. While national polls show McCain and Obama neck-in-neck, the electoral college projections look much worse for the Republicans. That may have encouraged them to employ a riskier strategy, in hopes of changing the dynamics of the race.

Buying, but not using, carbon credits

One attractive element of a cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is that it would permit entities other than firms to buy credits, which they could then choose not to actually use. For example, a cap-and-trade system might mandate that emissions in 2020 return to 1990 levels and require that all credits be auctioned, rather than issued for free to past polluters. In Canada, that would mean selling 596 million tonnes worth of emission permits.

Firms wishing to emit greenhouse gasses would then need to buy permits for whatever quantity they choose to emit. Given the cap on the total number of permits to be sold, the price of permits will rise to the point where a sufficient number of emissions are cut. Because of the economic incentive produced to cut out whichever emissions within the economy would be cheapest to eliminate, the overall cost of compliance is minimized.

If, however, groups exist that feel that cuts deeper than 1990 levels by 2020 are required, they could buy permits on the same market. In so doing, they would reduce the supply available and increase the price of those remaining. This would induce firms to eliminate emissions where the cost per tonne is between what the price of permits would be without this independent action and what the price has become along with it.