The environment – Page 173 – a sibilant intake of breath

Nash equilibria and the environment

While A Beautiful Mind had a good deal to recommend it as a film, the explanation of the Nash Equilibrium that was included leaves a good bit to be desired. The film explained that in a situation with multiple players, a most desirable objective, and many less desirable objectives, it is rational for each player to pursue the less desirable goals. This is because everyone going after the same thing will probably lead to nobody getting it. The strategy of pursuing the less desirable but more plentiful option therefore maximizes the chances of getting some level of payoff, even though it may not be the highest payoff possible in the game.

The essential characteristic of the Nash Equilibrium is similar to that of Pareto Optimality. Basically, both describe situations in which players do not want to change their behaviours unilaterally. Pareto optimality can be most easily be explained by considering a large group of people with items to trade voluntarily. Eventually, they will trade to the point where no more voluntary exchanges will occur. The arrangement may not generate the maximum possible level of utility that could be achieved with the goods in question; for instance, a person with a large stock of insulin would not transfer any to a diabetic who had nothing to trade for it.¹ In a Nash Equilibrium, no player would want to change the strategy they are employing, given that no other players are going to change their own strategies. For the equilibrium to exist, this must be true independently from any information they might receive about the strategies of the other players. For instance, learning that other players have certain thresholds beyond which they will behave quite differently might provide an incentive for any one player to alter their strategy.

While Pareto Optimality is mostly a thought experiment, the Nash Equilibrium is directly applicable to many situations in which there are problems of coordination. For example, it can be applied to climate change policy. Assuming that the policy of each state is set independently, there is no incentive for a single state to unilaterally cap emissions. The effect of one country doing so would be small, while the cost in that country would be high. Hence, inaction is a Nash Equilibrium. It is only through the development of a system that changes the strategies of many actors that a low-carbon outcome can be achieved.

The absence of a Nash Equilibrium can also be problematic, when addressing environmental problems. Imagine a conservation regime based around an international ban on the sale of tiger products. From the perspective of any one state, there is an incentive to violate the ban, provided everyone else will maintain their strategy of conservation. The lack of a Nash Equilibrium threatens to make the regime unstable.

While elements can be built directly into such games to encourage cooperation and discourage defection, they always seem likely to encounter these two kinds of problem. As such, it may be that the only way to establish stable environmental regimes that require sacrifice for the common good is to embed them in a larger super-game. Here, defection on one issue threatens the ability of the defecting state to achieve its aims in other areas. States that continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gas or who undermine conservation regimes might find themselves unable to enter preferential trade arrangements and the like. In a general way, the perception of a state as being a responsible or irresponsible member of the international community imposes some such pressure. To do so more formally requires the prioritization of environmental issues by all governments involved, as well as a certain strength of will in following up such threats. Despite that, it seems more plausible that such a combined approach could yield desirable outcomes, as opposed to one that focuses on narrow issue areas.

[1] This assumes that the participants derive utility only from the objects being traded, and not from higher order phenomena such as the perception that the distribution that exists is desirable or fair. Agents that place some value upon the happiness of the other agents might generate outcomes quite different from the kind envisioned in neoclassical economics.

Wadham climate change discussion

Today’s Wadham Research Forum on climate change was very interesting, despite how all the ideas expressed were fairly familiar. The extent to which the points highlighted are the same as those in my thesis is both encouraging and dispiriting. It suggests that I have not missed the mark completely, but also that I may not have contributed anything terrible novel. Of course, there is a good chance that the key issues to be considered are obvious enough, and that it is the approaches taken that generate the value of a particular assessment.

Earth Day

As I learned from Google’s altered logo, today is the 37th Earth Day. I suppose some kind of celebration is in order. Perhaps that is most true because of how notable today is not. Back in 1970, it might have been a politically important act to recognize the importance of the environment. Now, it seems daft to think otherwise. Of course, that doesn’t mean that heightened environmental awareness has always translated into good environmental policy. Our society is far from sustainable, but the business of changing that is probably not the spectacular fare of street demonstrations and activist announcements.

When it comes to fairly localized environmental problems – like particulate emissions – it does seem to be a matter of societies becoming rich enough that they can afford to prioritize that instead of more pressing matters like food or security. Japan’s re-development after the Second World War is probably the most clearcut example. The first Earth Day certainly had something to do with the progession towards investing more resources in conservation and environmental management in the United States: helping to spawn the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts. It seems reasonable to hope that a similar progression will occur in newly developed places in coming decades. Of course, that leaves the diffuse and difficult problems like climate change and fisheries management to be tackled multilaterally somehow. That may well require a progression in politics akin to what transpired 37 years ago.

This thesis is carbon neutral

Thanks to a gift from my mother, I have been able to add the following to the opening section of my thesis:

This thesis, which generated about six tonnes of carbon dioxide from flights, paper production, printing, heating, and electricity usage has been carbon-neutralized through NativeEnergy. This was done by capturing methane from an American farm.

Six tonnes should cover my personal energy usage, as well as flights to and from Vancouver and emissions associated with printing the thesis. I have also included an estimate for my share of the power used by the server hosting this site. Methane is twenty-one times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 and livestock agriculture produces about 18% of global emissions (discussed earlier).

The majority of NativeEnergy is owned by the The Intertribal Council On Utility Policy: a not-for-profit council of federally recognized Indian tribes in North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa, with affiliates throughout the northern Great Plains. The gift is much appreciated.

While I realize that carbon offsets are not a viable mechanism to deal with the whole problem of climate change, they are a good way to make a statement about the issue, as well as avoid charges of hypocrisy when expending energy on climate research or advocacy. They have been discussed here before.

Connections

One thing about studying climate change is that you never know where you will find new information. Have a look at this segment from James Burke’s Connections. He is talking about the Little Ice Age, which began in the 16th century. Much of what he says about adaptation is relevant, in an indirect way, to the kind of climate change being experienced now. I remember being terribly disappointed when his column vanished from the back of Scientific American – my staple reading before shifting to The Economist. Here is another short clip from Burke, also relevant to my thesis project. Here is yet another.

Note that Wikipedia has an entry on the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and the IPCC. It is badly in need of being improved.

Minimum temperatures

Most of the climate change discussion has centred on global mean temperatures, but it is also important to consider minimum temperatures. The degree to which winters are properly cold has important effects: notably, on the distributions of pests and disease. The temperature a species can tolerate serves as a limit to its expansion, so warm winters can help undesirable creatures to spread into new areas. This is akin to how it is important for a course of antibiotics to kill 100% of the target bacteria. If it does not, a fullblown new infection is likely, once the drugs are discontinued.

The ranges of ants and bees have been extending northward in Europe and North America. Likewise, the populations of ticks carrying Lyme Disease and malarial mosquitoes have been shifting northward, along with those carrying Dengue Fever and Japanese encephalitis. This is part of a general trend in which species being displaced by climatic changes (See: Thomas Lovejoy notes). The fact that whole ecosystems do not move northwards and to higher altitudes at the same rate causes further problems, as predation relationships are disrupted.

These kinds of higher level effects are likely to become better understood as further research is carried out. The depth of information has already increased a great deal: the fourth IPCC report, which is in the process of being released, is based upon a review of more than 1,000 academic studies. The Third Assessment Report, in 2001, was based on about 100.

PS. The trio of WordPress sites have been upgraded to version 2.1.3. If you spot any problems, please let me know.

The US Supreme Court on the EPA

On April 2nd, the United States Supreme Court passed down a decision on how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates greenhouse gases. The ruling was made on the basis of the Clean Air Act (a piece of 60s era legislation) and asserts that the EPA has the jurisdiction to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It goes on to chastise the organization for not doing so.

While the decision is certainly in keeping with the way the things are blowing, one has to wonder whether such an approach is sensible. The kind of problem posed by climate change has only become reasonably well understood in the period after the Clean Air Act was implemented. Also, while the EPA has a considerable amount of expertise, it does not have a huge amount of legitimacy. At least, it doesn’t have the level that would be necessary to push through the kind of societal changes society requires.

The smart money is that the next American administration – whether Democrat or Republican – will oversee a substantial change of tack when it comes to climate policy. The denialism of the present lot simply won’t be tenable in the post-2008 world. What form that new engagement takes – national, through bilateral or regional initiatives, or through a global system – will be the truly interesting thing to keep one’s eye upon.

PS. Apologies, but the profoundly disrupted state of the St. Antony’s College network at the moment prevents me from posting an image. Just getting this post to appear required more than ten hours of frustration. An image will appear once I am on a solid connection again. How cruel to come home to such shoddiness.

The Golden Spruce

John Vaillant’s The Golden Spruce is a superb book: the best I have read in many months. It tells the intertwined stories of British Columbia, the economic development of Canada, old growth logging, the Haida (and the Haida Gwaii), and, of course, a unique Sitka Spruce and the man who destroyed it. Particularly for somebody interested in both Western Canada and the environment, it was the ideal type of non-fiction reading.

The story told is a compelling one, full of informative detail and light on preaching and speculation. I read it in one long session, sitting in my hermitage in Devon while temporarily avoiding thesis work. What the book did remind me of, in part, is why the whole study of the environment is important.

I already have two people waiting to borrow my copy (one of the books my mother kindly sent to England for me), but there are surely other examples of it out there.

Scientists and remedies: brainstorming

Tonight, I am brainstorming connections between scientists and remedy design. Addressing environmental problem basically seems to revolve around changing the intensity with which an activity is being carried out (ie. fish or cut down trees at the rate of regeneration) or finding substitutes (using solar power instead of natural gas power). Both kinds of solutions involve some critical imputs from scientists. Not surprisingly, my focus here is on types of actions that pertain specifically to my case studies.

I have come up with the following. Does anything else spring to mind?

Technological development

Development of:

Alternative chemicals to replace ones that have been problematic (for instance, CFCs and POPs)
Alternative mechanisms for energy generation, storage, and transmission
Energy-using technologies that are more efficient
Plant varieties that require fewer pesticides
Mechanisms for the disposal or long-term storage of unwanted by-products
Less polluting mechanisms for waste disposal

Predictions

Anticipating the consequences of:

Continuing to behave as we have been
Adopting one or another alternative approach
The combination of our impact upon the world with possible natural changes, such as major volcanic eruptions

Providing information about uncertainty:

How good are our predictions?
If they do fail, in what ways might it occur (what is not included in the models?)
What kinds of uncertainty are out there (ie. magnitude of effects, distribution of effects, etc)

Predictions about technological development:

What will the state of environmentally relevant technologies be in X years?
Is it better to invest in the best technology we have now, or continue research and wait (partly an economic question)

Big ideas about the world

Establish and describe the limits of nature:

Is this a factual or ideological exercise?
The same facts could justify differing views
Some ideologies have elements that can be pretty effectively undermined by science (ie. eugenics)

How should we treat uncertainty?:

Are there categories of risk that it is more ‘rational’ to worry about?
When does it make sense to ‘wait and see’ and when does it make sense to act in a precautionary way?

Naturally, those last few items extend into territory that is not obviously scientific. One big question about the social role of scientists is the extent to which they do or should contribute to such hybrid debates, with both empirical and ethical dimensions. Also, there is the question of whether they do or should do so ‘with their scientist hats on’ or whether they are no different from any other actor, once they have strayed from their area of core competence.

Climate change feedback effects

Starting with an index card full of items to include, I tried to make a map of basic feedbacks relating to climate change. I got this far, then decided that it probably cannot be done in two dimensions, except perhaps on a really massive sheet of paper:

Note: a chemical formula in [square brackets] indicates the concentration of that substance.

Consider, for instance, a single pathway of effects. Agriculture uses fossil fuels, which produce CO2. The CO2 raises global temperature, affecting global cloud cover in an uncertain way. The cloud cover affects temperature, by reflecting more or less solar radiation back into space. It also affects the rate of forest and plankton growth (as does the original increase in CO2).

All told, you need to account for phenomena in the following domains: atmosphere (gas concentrations, cloud effects), hydrosphere (ocean density, temperature, currents), cryosphere (ice and glacier levels, permafrost), and biosphere (plant growth, forest fires). Add to that feedbacks within human behaviours (agriculture and forest burning, for instance) and feedbacks between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources of climate change, such as volcanic eruptions (lithosphere) and changes in orbits and solar output. Doubtless, I have overlooked and forgotten many relevant effects, also.

My hat goes off to the producers of general climate models (GCMs) that have started to incorporate the most important of the linkages shown above. These complex dynamic systems are tricky things, not easily dealt with through the general tendency in science to break questiond down and understand them bit-by-bit.