a sibilant intake of breath – Page 580 – climate change activist and science communicator; photographer; mapmaker — advocate for a stable global climate, reduced nuclear weapon risks, and safe human-AI interaction

Coal, mercury, and CFLs

Those concerned about the mercury in compact fluorescent light bulbs should consider what the primary source of mercury contamination in North America is: coal-fired power plants. A report prepared earlier this year expects mercury levels in the Pacific to double by 2050, as the result of emissions from new coal plants.

This is especially relevant in places where summers are hot, since we might be paying a double climate and mercury price for the heat being produced by incandescent bulbs. If air conditioning is being used to get rid of it, the bulbs may well have negative efficiency in addition to their role in poisoning water supplies through those coal plant emissions.

All this is yet another reason why coal is the enemy of the human race.

Right about obstacles, wrong about consequences

I was recently reminded of a common but worrisome mental phenomenon, when it comes to how people react psychologically to the challenge of climate change. They have a strong understanding of the basic political dynamics at work – short term versus long term, special interests versus the general interest, money talks, etc – but lack an appreciation for just how bad unmitigated climate change would be. They are cynical about the prospects for an appropriate political response, but not seized with the importance of producing one despite the difficulties.

As mentioned before, the business-as-usual case is 5.5°C to 7.1°C of temperature increase by 2100, with more to follow. Accompanying this would be ocean acidification, changes in precipitation patterns, and other impacts. This is a more significant difference than exists between our present climate and that of the last ice age, when much of North America was covered with kilometres of ice. In the somewhat understated language typical of scientists, the head of the Met Office has said that warming of this scale would “lead to significant risks of severe and irreversible impacts.” That isn’t a worst-case scenario, but rather their best guess about where we will end up unless we change course. It should also be noted that there are positive feedbacks not incorporated into models such as that of the Hadley Centre: notable among them methane from permafrost. With such feedbacks factored in, a significantly worse business-as-usual warming profile is possible.

In practical terms, it is challenging to converse with people who have this pair of outlooks. Their cynicism about politics is largely justified, and they are right to see climate change as a problem of unprecedented complexity and difficulty. Trying to make them aware of just how dangerous climate change could be is challenging, because it is easy to come off sounding like you are exaggerating things. People just aren’t psychologically prepared to accept what 5°C of warming could plausible do to human civilization, even within what are now rich states.

What communication strategies have the most promise for getting people to accept the dangerousness of climate change, and subsequently the need to push hard against the political status quo, so as to produce timely change? This isn’t an issue where we can roll over and let special interest politics win. The future of the human race is quite literally at stake.

Why not an election?

It annoys and perplexes me a little when newspapers report the apparent strong unwillingness of Canadians to have an election this fall. Really, having one isn’t such a big burden. For most people, voting takes about half an hour, total. Furthermore, having an election seems far from meaningless when the country is (a) closely balanced in support for the two main parties and (b) designed such that small advantages in voting outcomes can lead to larger disparities in representation, in Parliament. Minorities are unstable things, so it’s not surprising that they might tilt from one side to the other, and it doesn’t seem inappropriate to ask voters if they want that.

Of course, a coalition would be more desirable, in many ways. If Canada’s political system can no longer produce majorities, it is going to need to learn an alternative way of governing.

Photo show opening party

Last night’s photo show launch was well attended and great fun. My thanks again to the ever-talented Andrea Simms-Karp as well as the highly comic and deservedly infamous Astronaut Love Triangle (with introductory note above). Their repertoire included songs about cyberstalking, the side effects of the modern pharmacological rainbow, and the tenacity of the large American automobile, in the face of environmental concerns. At least one audience member seemed to be merrily recording video, so the performance has the potential to end up online somewhere.

Thanks again to everyone who attended and participated.

My photos will be on the walls at Raw Sugar (692 Somerset) for the duration of the month, with the 12×16″ prints going for $60 and the 12×18″ prints going for $70.

As of last night, we also have a winner for the print-for-comments contest. He will be receiving a copy of this image of the ceiling of Exeter College Chapel, should he so desire.

[Update: 6 September 2009] Zoom has also written about the vernissage. The Astronaut Love Triangle blog also gives it a mention.

[Update: 7 September 2009] The Elgin Street Muse also wrote about the opening.

[Update: 11 September 2009] The opening was also covered on tales from a grouch.

[Update: 23 September 2009] Until the end of the show, all the prints are on sale for $50.

[Update: 1 October 2009] Some videos of the Astronaut Love Triangle performance are now online: Avatar Love and Side Effects. They can also be seen directly on Vimeo: AL, SE.

Cloud computing and consumers

Writing in The Guardian, Cory Doctorow provides a good explanation of why cloud computing might not be so great for individual users. Basically, companies are hoping to use it to wring more money from people, for services that were previously free. As he explains:

[T]he main attraction of the cloud to investors and entrepreneurs is the idea of making money from you, on a recurring, perpetual basis, for something you currently get for a flat rate or for free without having to give up the money or privacy that cloud companies hope to leverage into fortunes.

That’s not to say there aren’t potential advantages. It may well be worth a montly fee for well implemented and highly secure backup, especially for those who aren’t too computer savvy or don’t have access to Apple’s excellent Time Machine product. (Doctorow talks about using Amazon’s S3 service and the Jungle Disk tool.)

Really, backup seems like the cloud computing application with the most value for users, since encrypted backups elsewhere will probably be safe if you are robbed or have your house burn down. Another application with more limited utility might be buying access to huge amounts of computing power, which could be useful for some researchers.

Incidentally, Time Machine isn’t quite good enough for protecting irreplaceable physical data, since your external hard drive could be destroyed in an accident at the same time as your computer, or stolen. While I use Time Machine for daily backups, I also back up critical files (such as my photos) to a hard drive I keep at work and update every few months. A fairly easy way to do this is to keep all your irreplaceable documents in one place – such as username/documents/original/ – and then copying it over to the third drive every few months. rsync is an ideal way to do this, but it isn’t very user friendly.

“Write for yourself, edit for your readers”

This great bit of advice comes from Copyblogger. When it comes to the proper use of language in online communication, I think the key issue is one of respect. Being respectful of your readers means taking care to express yourself well, as well as avoid spelling and grammatical mistakes. Taking a slapdash approach to editing suggests that you value a few seconds of your own time more than the time of everyone who will subsequently read whatever you are producing. From my perspective, that is rather rude.

Other good resources include George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language.” This includes concise and excellent advice on how to improve prose (apologies for the inappropriately gendered language):

A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:

What am I trying to say?

What words will express it?

What image or idiom will make it clearer?

Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?

And he will probably ask himself two more:

Could I put it more shortly?

Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

These basic ideas can also be reformulated as six ‘rules:’

Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

Never use a long word where a short one will do.

If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

Never use the passive where you can use the active.

Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

These apply just as much to corporate, government, and academic documents as they do to blog posts or personal letters.

Open thread: torture prosecutions

As many articles have described, the appropriate response to allegations of torture by Americans is controversial. Some argue that prosecutions are the only moral course, that they will restore US standing and draw a sharp line under the past. Others argue that, while justified, prosecutions would be a major distraction for the Obama administration, and will undermine progress on other fronts. Of course, domestic political necessities cannot provide excuses for ignoring war crimes.

That said, there is certainly a practical case to be made on both sides. While the general public hasn’t realized it yet, today’s leaders will be judged retrospectively on whether they set us on a path to avoid dangerous climate change. Prosecutions could kick off a new phase of partisan warfare that makes such progress impossible, given the need for support in the senate.

What do readers think? Are prosecutions warranted? Are they absolutely necessary? What costs would be associated with carrying them out, and with ignoring them?

An apology for Alan Turing

In addition to being one of the most notable mathematicians and computer scientists in British history, Alan Turing played a key role in cracking German codes during the Second World War. Despite the importance of his contribution, and the role intelligence from the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) played in helping the allies in the Battle of the Atlantic, Turing was subsequently persecuted by the British authorities for being homosexual.

Turing was stripped of security clearance, criminally prosecuted for consensual sex with another man, chemically castrated with estrogen injections, and eventually driven to depression and suicide.

Recently, a petition was launched insisting that the “British Government should apologize to Alan Turing for his treatment and recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany. And an apology would recognize the tragic consequences of prejudice that ended this man’s life and career.” An apology for both his specific treatment and the general persecution of homosexuals seems entirely in order. Hopefully, the government will bow to the petitioner’s request, despite Turing not having any surviving family to apologize to.

While writing a historical wrong is a valid reason for issuing an apology, the incident is also not without contemporary relevance. Just look at the continued policy within the US armed forces to dismiss gay linguists from the military. Once again, people making a significant contribution to national security are being discriminated against on the basis of characteristics that are none of their government’s business.

[Update: 10 September 2009] Admirably, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued an apology to Alan Turing: “While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can’t put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.” The full statement is on the Prime Ministerial website.

FOGBANK and American fusion bombs

The United States may have forgotten how to make FOGBANK: a critical component in at least some thermonuclear weapons. FOGBANK is an ‘interstage material’ that gets turned into a superheated plasma by the detonation of the ‘primary’ fission bomb, helping to ignite the ‘secondary’ fusion reaction.

Some speculate that FOGBANK resembles aerogel. Others describe efforts to re-learn how to make it.

The Oil Drum on the oil sands

Over at The Oil Drum, there is a two part series on Canada’s oil sands.

The second part includes data on production trends, as well as projections on the share of Canadian oil production expected to come from the Athabasca oil sands. By 2019, they project it will be the dominant source of output. On climate change, the article makes the point that most of the emissions still come from burning the final fuel, which means adding carbon capture capabilities to upgraders isn’t a sufficient response, even if it does prove safe and economically viable. We really need to just leave that carbon in the ground.

On a side note, there is apparently an ‘The Oil Sands Discovery Centre’ museum in Fort McMurray.