Science – Page 44 – a sibilant intake of breath

Krugman on climate economics

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has written an excellent introductory article on climate and environmental economics, for The New York Times: Building a Green Economy. The piece is a combination of a non-technical introduction and a kind of literature review. His basic thesis is:

In fact, once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change — one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them — can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost. There is, however, much less agreement on how fast we should move, whether major conservation efforts should start almost immediately or be gradually increased over the course of many decades.

I agree that the latter disagreements exist, and I agree with Krugman that what we know about the climate system justifies aggressive action to reduce and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the non-trivial danger of catastrophic outcomes is a strong justification for precautionary action.

The article includes a concise explanation of Pigovian taxes, of which carbon taxes are a sub-category:

What Pigou enunciated was a principle: economic activities that impose unrequited costs on other people should not always be banned, but they should be discouraged. And the right way to curb an activity, in most cases, is to put a price on it. So Pigou proposed that people who generate negative externalities should have to pay a fee reflecting the costs they impose on others — what has come to be known as a Pigovian tax. The simplest version of a Pigovian tax is an effluent fee: anyone who dumps pollutants into a river, or emits them into the air, must pay a sum proportional to the amount dumped.

Note that as discussed here before, such taxes may be technical mechanisms, but they do not eliminate the need to make ethical choices. Just because a company has been burning coal for decades doesn’t mean it has the right to continue doing so, particularly as new information on why its use is harmful comes to light. By the same token, it is not an ethically neutral choice to say that people who have enjoyed a clean river have the right for it to remain unpolluted. There are many bases on which claims can be made: historical precedent, need, prior agreements, overall welfare, etc. Economics alone cannot provide a solution.

The article also covers cap-and-trade systems, and the ways in which they are similar to and different from carbon taxes; the importance of whether permits are auctioned or not; how even strong mitigation policies would only cost 1-3% of the global domestic product; the importance of major emerging economies taking action; carbon tariffs as a way of encouraging that; the sustantial costs of inaction; the signicance of catatrophic risks (“it’s the nonnegligible probability of utter disaster that should dominate our policy analysis”); a non-mathematical discussion of discount rates; and the status and prospects of climate legislation in the United States.

In short, the article touches on a great many topics that have been discussed here previously, and generally reaches rather similar conclusions to mine and those of most of this site’s commentors. One slightly annoying thing about the piece is that is discusses temperatures using the idiotic Fahrenheit scale, but I suppose that is to be expected when writing for an American audience. Another strange thing about the article is how Krugman fails to mention any of the co-benefits that accompany moving beyond fossil fuels: from reduced air and water pollution to lessened geopolitical dependency.

One of the best things about the piece is how is openly recognizes the seriousness of the problem we are addressing:

We’re not talking about a few more hot days in the summer and a bit less snow in the winter; we’re talking about massively disruptive events, like the transformation of the Southwestern United States into a permanent dust bowl over the next few decades.

Too many recent journalistic accounts and government announcements have affirmed the strength of climate science, without elaborating on what that means, and the type and scale of actions that compels.

The piece is probably worth reading for anybody who doesn’t feel like they have a basic understanding of environmental economics, and their relation to climate policy.

Psychological dualism

There is a distinction drawn in theories about the human mind between ‘monist’ and ‘dualist’ understandings of how it works. Dualists, like Descartes, see the mind as essentially separate from the body. Monists believe that “the mind is what the brain does,” and that there is no distinction between the two.

The position of the two views in society is an odd one, as an excellent Paul Bloom lecture discusses. We can readily understand situations that presume dualism: the continued life of the soul after death, the idea that the mind of one person could be transferred into another person or animal, etc.

Hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, Homer described the fate of the companions of Odysseus who were transformed by a witch into pigs. Actually, that’s not quite right. She didn’t turn them into pigs. She did something worse. She stuck them in the bodies of pigs. They had the head and voice and bristles and body of swine but their minds remained unchanged as before, so they were penned there weeping. And we are invited to imagine the fate of again finding ourselves in the bodies of other creatures and, if you can imagine this, this is because you are imagining what you are as separate from the body that you reside in.

Clearly, we are able to imagine minds that would remain essentially unchanged, even when altered into a radically different physical form.

At the same time at dualism seems to make intuitive sense to people, all the physical evidence we have is on the side of a monist view, in which ‘mind’ arises from the physical properties of body:

Somebody who hold a–held a dualist view that said that what we do and what we decide and what we think and what we want are all have nothing to do with the physical world, would be embarrassed by the fact that the brain seems to correspond in intricate and elaborate ways to our mental life.

…

Somebody with a severe and profound loss of mental faculties–the deficit will be shown correspondingly in her brain. Studies using imaging techniques like CAT scans, PET, and fMRI, illustrate that different parts of the brain are active during different parts of mental life. For instance, the difference between seeing words, hearing words, reading words and generating words can correspond to different aspects of what part of your brain is active. To some extent, if we put you in an fMRI scanner and observed what you’re doing in real time, by looking at the activity patterns in your brain we can tell whether you are thinking about music or thinking about sex. To some extent we can tell whether you’re solving a moral dilemma versus something else. And this is no surprise if what we are is the workings of our physical brains, but it is extremely difficult to explain if one is a dualist.

The lecture includes many other examples showing why monism and the world as we observe it seem to mesh.

To me, the importance of this seems to go beyond settling scientific and/or metaphysical questions. It certainly seems plausible that beings that intuitively perceive themselves as essentially independent from physical reality will develop high-level theories about the world that take that into account, in areas as diverse as their religious, political, and moral views. By the same token, if one view really is far more defensible than the other, on the basis of observations and experiments we perform, that quite possibly has moral and political implications. It is all quite interesting, in any case, and I recommend that people consider watching the lecture series. The videos, transcripts, and slides are all available for free online.

Flash grenades for photographic lighting

I have frequently pointed out the pointlessness of people using the built-in flashes on their cameras to try to light cathedrals, scenic vistas, stadiums, and the like. It should be self-evidently obvious that these small, AA-powered flashes are incapable of such a task. That said, it does seem plausible that many (even most) photographers simply use their cameras in a fully automatic mode, substituting its limited judgment for their own.

Despite all that, I had a curious thought the other night when looking across at Parliament from Champlain Hill. I know that the military and law enforcement agencies use flash grenades to surprise and disorient people inside buildings. I wonder whether it could be possible to use one or more such devices to produce photographic illumination of giant or distant objects. As long as you used a shutter speed longer than the time it takes them to flash, it should be possible to make use of their light, and triggering them could be as simple as using the radio triggers commonly employed with conventional flashes.

I wonder whether anyone has ever tried such a thing…

Singh appeal successful

In a very welcome development, science writer Simon Singh (discussed twice before in relation to alternative medicine) has won his appeal against the libel suit brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association. It was brave of him to launch the appeal, with all the further financial harm that would have accompanied another loss. Getting to this stage involved legal costs of £200,000. The whole kerfuffle was spawned when Singh wrote in an article that chiropractors promoted ‘bogus’ treatments, for which there was no scientific evidence of effectiveness. This statement was interpreted very strangely by a judge at an earlier stage in these legal proceedings, leading to much of the subsequent trouble.

This is a victory for free speech, sanity, and open inquiry. Hopefully, it will also free up some of Mr. Singh’s time to write more excellent books.

British Chiropractic Association President Richard Brown has said that they may appeal to the Supreme Court.

[Update: 11:20am] The ruling is online and worth a look. It contains some strong wording, along the lines of: “to compel its author to prove in court what he has asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an Orwellian ministry of truth.”

The British House of Commons on the East Anglia climate emails

Following up on claims of scientific impropriety at the University of East Anglia, the Science and Technology Committee of Britain’s House of Commons produced a report on the leaked emails. The report includes consideration of datasets, freedom of information issues, and independent inquiries. The report’s three conclusions clearly express how the content of these emails does not undermine climate science, or does it suggest that action should not be taken on climate change. I will quote them verbatim and in full, to avoid any appearance of selective editing:

“The focus on Professor Jones and [Climate Research Unit] CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.
In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.
A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.”

As they say, their purpose was not primarily to study the science produced by the CRU. Other examinations of that are ongoing. Still, it seems clear from this that claims made by climate change delayers that these emails revealed a massive conspiracy seem to be clearly contradicted by these findings.

Evan Harris, one member of the committee, successfully moved an amendment to the report expressing that: “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact.”

There are many uncertainties that remain about the nature and future of the climate system, and it is essential to both scientific and political processes that the scientific investigation of those things continue to take place in a rigorous, robust, and transparent way. At the same time, we mustn’t allow climate deniers to use any little ambiguity or issue that arises to suggest that the whole edifice of climate science has been undermined. We are rather too far along in the research now for such claims to be credible.

Food, energy, and fossil fuels

Yesterday night, I had an interesting conversation about energy, fossil fuels, agriculture, and human population. The key fact is that global agriculture is now deeply dependent on fossil fuels. They are needed for everything from running industrial farming equipment to producing fertilizer to operating the vast logistical networks through which food is processed and distributed. The key question is, what will the ramifications be when we inevitably transition from a global energy system based on fossil fuels to one based on renewable sources?

The transition is indeed inevitable, though it could happen in either of two ways. Either we can voluntarily cut back on using fossil fuels due to well-founded concerns about climate change – and awareness of the opportunities that exist in renewable energy – or we will draw down reserves to the point where it takes more energy to extract one calorie worth of fossil fuel than the fuel contains.

So, what might the post-fossil-fuel world look like? To get one idea, we can consider the world as it existed before the Industrial Revolution brought about large-scale fossil fuel use. Back in 1500, there were about half a billion people alive on Earth. The energy they relied upon was overwhelmingly from renewable sources, such as the embedded solar energy in plants. It seems plausible that returning to that kind of an energy system would return the planet’s capability of sustaining human beings to about the level that existed then: a bit higher, perhaps, because people now live in more places, and a bit lower, perhaps, because of the damage we have caused to the planet in various ways.

For an alternative, we need to consider an enhanced renewable-backed future that includes clever approaches to harnessing renewable sources of energy: solar, wind, wave, geothermal, etc. It seems to me that if we are going to have a world that does not use fossil fuels and which sustains something like as many billions as are alive now (to say nothing of in 2050 or later), such technologies are going to need to be deployed on massive scale and the world’s agricultural systems will need to be adapted to rely on them.

Fossil fuels have been an enormous energy boon for humanity. Quite possibly, they have allowed us to far overshoot where we would otherwise have been, in terms of energy use and population. Quite possibly, both of those will need to fall substantially in a post-fossil-fuel world. If there is any chance of that not taking place, it will depend on the massive deployment of the kind of advanced renewables that are already technologically feasible. That deployment will take dedication, foresight, financing, and energy. Indeed, there is surely no better use for whatever proportion of the world’s remaining fossil fuels we choose to burn than in making the solar and wind farms that will need to form most of the future energy basis for all human civilization.

Tracking what is in the atmosphere

The Economist recently published an article lamenting how little funding is devoted to tracking the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. States do produce bottom-up records of emissions, based on what various facilities and vehicles emit. But it is also possible to track the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere directly, and to infer things about emissions from regional variations in concentrations and from isotopic ratios which can help to identify the sources of gases like CO2 and methane. As explained in the article, little of this is being done, largely because of a lack of funding. The unfortunate destruction of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory is also a contributing factor.

It is both saddening and surprising that so little funding is devoted to collecting this basic information, especially given that it could provide the earliest signs of significant changes in the functioning of the carbon cycle. For instance, it could identify things like the rate of methane release in the Arctic, or changes in the world’s carbon sinks. Greenhouse gases affect the climate system, regardless of whether they are released directly by human beings or whether humans merely induce their release indirectly. As such, top-down tracking is vital for developing and maintaining a comprehensive sense of what is going on.

In Canada, at least, the state of climate science funding seems to be worsening. While promises of a ‘High Arctic Research Station’ continue to be made periodically, the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) is being shut down for lack of funding, and Canada’s climate scientists remain muzzled.

Pitfalls in statistics

Statistics are a powerful thing, but they are easily to use sloppily and incorrectly. This article identifies a few important pitfalls related to statistical significance, problems with testing multiple hypotheses simultaneously, issues with clinical trials and meta-analyses, and the usefulness of Bayes’ Theorem.

While statistics are a far sounder way of knowing about the world than anecdotes and intuition, it is definitely worrisome that they are so poorly understood. My graduate statistics course at Oxford is evidence enough of just how poorly the subject can be taught.

Ice roads and climate change

As climate change continues, the Arctic is warming more than any other part of the world. This year’s mild winter is having an effect on northern communities, by making ice roads they depend upon impassable. Now, a state of emergency has been declared:

Mild weather shut the roads down after just under a month, which cut off more than 30,000 people from the south. Normally, the 2,200 kilometres of temporary routes over frozen swamps, muskeg and lakes are open for up to eight weeks.

About 2,500 shipments of fuel, groceries, construction materials and general freight are brought in at a reasonable cost using winter roads. Otherwise, goods have to be flown in at great expense.

Of course, there has always been variation in the severity of winters, arising from the complexities of the climate system. What climate change does is shifts the distribution: making the mean winter warmer, and increasing the number of very unusually warm winters relative to very unusually cold ones.

The specific case of ice roads and Arctic communities also demonstrates a broader situation. Every community in the world has evolved into its current form based at least partly on the climate in which it exists. This includes everything from transportation and housing infrastructure to energy generation facilities and emergency response capacity. The more climate change takes place worldwide, the greater the mismatch will be between the climate communities were built for and the climate they actually experience.

CITES and bluefin tuna

Bluefin tuna, mentioned here before, are in worse trouble than ever before. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has voted against a moratorium on fishing them, despite collapsing stocks. As a consequence: “The outlook for the bluefin tuna is not good. Scientists already agree that the population is crashing, and that quotas allocated to fishermen remain too generous to give any reasonable degree of certainty of a recovery.”

It is remarkable and disheartening that human beings are basically choosing to wipe them out, with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions. It shows how little regard we have for nature, future generations, and even ourselves in decades hence. It suggests that human intelligence and rationality operate only within strict and rather disturbing limits.