We're All Going to Die ! (Well, Maybe Not...)

The media widely reported a study issued by the Global Humanitarian Forum which suggested that some 315,000 or more would die each year as a result of global warming.

It is nonsense and an example of bad science being used to set the stage for the global climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. We can expect more of this shoddy work by scientists concerned about polemics rather than science in the next few months.

Here’s why it is bad. First, natural disasters such as hurricanes, flu, tsunami’s, earthquakes have been occurring since the beginning of time – plagues and pestilence, floods and swarms of locusts appear in the Bible. There is no established link between human induced climate change and such naturally occurring disasters. In particular, hurricanes and extreme weather events occur as a result of a range of phenomena, of which climate change is one, but have occurred with greater frequency (especially hurricanes) than currently experienced before human induced climate change was an issue.

Second, many of the assumptions in the report are based on some very odd claims. For example, the report looks at earthquakes in 1980 and compares them with those in 2005 (no explanation of why these two dates are chosen) and then suggests that all weather patterns connected to disasters follow the same trajectory as the difference in number of earthquakes between these two years. This is irrational. It is like looking at baseball scores in 1980 and 2005 and suggesting that all events in cricket can be explained by the differences observed in baseball scores between these two years.

Third, even though their premise is absurb, it gets worse. All deaths and unfortunate outcomes over and above those which occurred at the 1980 level in each subsequent year are attributed to a single cause – man made global warming. No evidence, no partitioning of the data into different categories of cause, just the assumption that it “must be global warming” and man made warming at that.

Fourth, the increase in disasters observed worldwide can be entirely attributed to socio-economic changes. This is what has been extensively documented in the peer reviewed literature, and yet — none of this literature is cited in this report. Not one serious review of this literature is included. Instead the report authors rely on this cooked up comparison between earthquakes and weather related disasters. To be fair, the paper does cite the Stern review of the impact of climate change, but several subsequent reviews of the Stern data and analysis show clearly that these estimates were off by an order of magnitude and relied on a similar sort of statistical gamesmanship to develop its results (which is why serious researchers dismiss Stern’s analysis).

These kind of reports – scaremongering fiction masquerading as “science” – will begin to appear more strongly in September and October as the pre-Copenhagen meetings start in earnest. They will reveal that science, rather than being a disciplined and systematic approach to the study of a given phenomena, is becoming more like a branch of politics with edited and made up data and poor methods being excused because the conclusions and claims “fit” the political rhetoric needed to steer world political leaders in the “right” direction in December. As a scientist concerned about methodological integrity, such polemical nonsense is offensive. As a journalist, I am concerned that my colleagues treat such reports as factual when in fact they are fiction.

Rethinking Schools

Schools shape our future as a society. They are the bedrock of a community – a place in which all of our futures are nourished and developed. A place where skills are taught, enabled and encouraged. We should all care about what happens in schools, even if we do not have children attending them. One of those kids stood at the bus stop with baggy jeans and a funny hat may well become your pension fund manager just a few years from now. Others will run businesses that will hire your granddaughter or work to ensure our planet survives the onslaught of climate change.

But there is something wrong with our schools. They are burdened with too much direction about what they should teach – too many curriculum objectives, too many politically correct imperatives and too many instructions for our instructors. They are held accountable but are not given the tools for the responsible tasks they are given. They are subject to high stakes testing where students, on a single day, determine the fate of the school and its teachers. They are vulnerable and stressful. They are permanently failing to deliver to all of our expectations.

We also do not treat our teachers as true professionals. They are given limited scope for independent action – as if we do not trust them, despite their years of training, to do the job entrusted to them. We disdain their professional development activities and scoff at their summer vacations. We do not show them respect when, as they must do, they tell us that our son or daughter is not the paragon of excellence we thought them to be and that they are struggling.

We also see schools as a preparation for something else – for work, College or University – rather than places of learning in their own right. In fact, as one keen observer has noted, much of schooling is seen as a preparation for the work of a few – those who go to University - and is not, therefore, a great place for those for whom the trades, or creative arts or community service or retail is their chosen destination. We therefore teach, through our structures, large numbers of students to live with failure.

It is time for a radical change. Our schools need to do more to help our students be part of the solution to the problems our communities face – homelessness, poverty, isolation of the elderly, climate change, driver irresponsibility, the growing challenges of obesity and early onset diabetes, to name just some. Our schools also need to become less focused on being the pathway to post-secondary education and more focused on developing the skills which would enable all students to be life-long learners at any level and at anytime.

We need to counter the view that schools should narrow their focus to the basic science, mathematics, literacy and technology subjects and instead encourage a richness of personal learning which involves creativity, emotional intelligence, physical education, wellness and social skills as well as the more usual subjects. Creative diversity is a better bet for our future that a focused insistence on just a core. All need literacy and numeracy, but the development of these skills needs to be based on authentic and engaging learning activities.

We should reduce our division of knowledge into subjects and focus more on real world problem solving for authentic audiences where students are asked to contribute directly and in a meaningful way to the solution of problems facing their community. By focusing on project based work, the need to learn and develop skills normally associated with our “traditional” subject areas will arise naturally and be driven by student engagement rather than Provincial requirements.

We should empower and enable teachers to determine large “chunks” of the work their students do, rather than directing them with curriculum requirements – one Grade 9 science Provincial curriculum has over 260 objectives which teachers “must” complete during the year, 60% of which are likely to appear on a Provincial Achievement Test. This is pure nonsense, driven by the demands of post-secondary institutions rather than the learning needs of students. If we give schools back to the teachers, we should indicate the competencies at a broad level which students need on leaving school and let them, as professionals, determine the best route to these outcomes.

Finally, we should accept that teachers are best place to assess their students and reduce the focus on standardized, annualized, aggregated, average test results and focus instead on frequent, systematic and focused teacher assessments as the basis for pupil evaluation.

Our schools and the curriculum which informs their work were designed for nineteenth century education for an industrial world. It is the twenty first century and an age in which knowledge rather than industrial systems drive our economy. Our schools need a transformation – they need to be part of the twenty first century, not stand apart from our time.

Goodbye Gordon and Hello Opposition

Gordon Brown has been seen on television hugging babies. Accompanied by his wife, he was visiting day care facilities, possibly to get some idea on how to deal with recalcitrant and misbehaving children, some of whom grow up to be expense guzzling Members if Parliament. Later in the same day, his parliamentary colleagues began their Star Chamber examination of those who have committed the most heinous offences in the “expensegate” scandal that has gripped British politics and crippled parliament.

Earlier this month he had dinner with David Blunket, disgraced former Home Secretary, and his predecessor, Tony Blair, stimulating speculation about a cabinet shuffle and an October election. Indeed, several former cabinet colleagues appear to have been consulted on a repositioning of New Labour shortly after the expected debacle of the municipal and European elections due on June 4th.

It doesn’t matter. Shuffling the deck chairs as a ship is sinking and changing its final destination will not lead to a turnaround in Labour’s fortunes. The party is finished, at least for a while. There are three reasons.

The first is that it has become irrelevant to the future of Britain. It continues to use old Labour party tactics to deal with a post-modern, post-carbon set of economic and social challenges. The party has no vision, no strategy and, most important of all, no new language to talk in direct and clear terms about what it stands for and what it is seeking to achieve. Worse, it seeks to use deception and obfuscation as its primary method of sounding authoritative when all know that it is bankrupt of ideas and desperate to cling to power. The April budget showed this deception, obfuscation and bankruptcy in crystal clear terms.

Second, as the expense scandal demonstrates, all political parties have taken the British people for granted and for a ride - New Labour, more than others. While the conservative party are not immune to the fallout from the scandal, it is the governing party that will take the blame. And so it should. The party’s history is “of the people, for the people” – not mention of “for myself, ripping off the people” you will notice. There is a sense in which a scandal for a conservative is expected and one for a Labour party representative is reprehensible – they are more likely to be on “our” side, it used to be thought, than the Tories, who have always been in it for themselves.

Finally, there is the Gordon problem. Anointed as leader – no one stood against him – and deteriorating in leadership, Gordon Brown is an all round dithering disappointment. He started badly, suggesting a quick snap election and then backing away once polling numbers suggested he may not win. He progressed haltingly and then he had a few successes. Just a few weeks ago he seemed to do well at the G20 summit, but its all gone now. And gone is what most of his colleagues wish of the Prime Minister. Alan Johnson, an amiable and affable foil, is touted by several as an interim replacement tiding the party through its inevitable defeat and managing the aftermath. But Gordon won’t go. He is too stubborn, too deluded and too myopic to think that his departure might actually do some good.

So now the question within the Party becomes one of solace. How can the party be relieved of its agony and politics in Britain move beyond its current preoccupations with scandal and back to the real business of British politics - reinventing Britain?

There are four things that need to happen for Labour. First, it needs a strategy for the New Britain. Forget New Labour, think about the country. Focus on what it will take to restore social and economic well being and the pride of the British people.
Second, it needs new leadership. A new leader and new faces throughout the key portfolios of government. A new generation. These new leaders, who need to be of a different generation from Brown, Mandelson, Johnson, Blair and have a new rhetoric of change, have much to do to rebuild the self confidence of the party. David Milliband comes to mind as a possible leader of this generational coup. It needs a very British coup.

Third, there needs to be an election and quickly. October is the earliest which makes sense, but only if the first two actions outlined here are in place. While no one likes February elections – especially those of us who have managed them – this is the better date. It gives a chance for new thinking, new people and new policies to develop and effervesce with the people.

Finally, Labour needs to plan for defeat and to use the time in opposition wisely. If it does not, it could be in the wilderness for as long as the Liberal Party – close to a hundred years. Smart opposition, planned policy development and a systematic approach to rebuilding the party from the ground up will all be needed to restore Labour to power within ten years.

But it needs to start now. Each day that passes without action on this agenda is another year of opposition. Get used to it.

No Home, No Job and No Hope - Time to Act

We have a strange attitude towards homelessness. We are all clearly against it and think that something must be done, but rarely do anything ourselves.

Municipal governments are against it, have no authority or mandate or funds dedicated to it, but build affordable housing anyway with taxpayers money, then ask regional and national governments to support them. Regional and national governments provide funds for affordable housing, both to municipalities and to charitable organizations, and some affordable housing gets built, but homelessness persists.

A true example of a vicious circle.

One cause of homelessness is our complete inability as a society to know what to do with those who are mentally ill. We used to have hospitals and centres where those troubled within themselves were kept and occasionally cared for. While sometimes the treatments provided were more experiments with drugs, power cords and music, sometimes they also made a difference. They were not pretty places – I used to work in one and, believe me, they were not arts centres or blissful heavens of tranquility – but at least they gave those not able to care for themselves shelter, warmth and food. When these places were deemed cruel and inhospitable and “care in the community” became the mantra of the do-gooders, the patients were turned loose onto communities without the “care” provision. They are one source of homeless people.

A second are those who, for whatever reason, have turned to drink and drugs as a way to cope with the travails of their lives. At some point, the drink or the drugs have taken over their lives and it has led to them not being able to afford or sustain shelter. The street becomes their home.

A third, smaller but nonetheless disconcerting group, is the runaway. Teenagers who can no longer tolerate the impertinence of their parents or the rivalry with siblings or the abuse from peers run away to find a new space in which they can find out who they are and secure solace in the anonymity of a new start. Rarely does this lead to the solution they sought; often it leads to abuse, prostitution, degradation and poverty. The street is both their prison and their lost hope.

A final group, now fast growing, is those who are victims of the recession. The disposed, the desperate, in indebted. Some seek shelter with family and friends, but eventually their network is exhausted and they sleep in their car or van, in parks or on the street. Some are working poor – holding down a part-time job, but unable to afford a home or have to trade food and clothes for shelter.

Some of the homeless try to get out of the cycle of poverty – but the number of working poor and homeless is growing. Some find homes, but cannot keep them and find themselves back on the streets weeks or months later, even more desperate than they were before – they tasted what the future could be like, but the taste soured and became an acid despair, sometimes in more ways than one. Others do make it out of street-sleeping and start to pull themselves together, but they need support and constant reinforcement to sustain their new life. It is not easy, however it turns out.

In any major city in North America, homelessness is a challenge in search of a solution. Each day, good people with strong commitments work to ease the pain of homelessness, to provide temporary shelter and solace and do what they can. But still they come. Each month, politicians at all levels renew their commitments and speak eloquently about solutions and support, provide some funds and make a difference to a few people. But still they come.

It is time we tackled this problem. A stimulus package aimed at solving homelessness in Canada – rebuilding and restoring our mental health system with sensible medium term care and treatment to tackle those on the street because the care in the community is not there; new counselling services and support centres for teenagers who cannot cope with their lives, their parents and their crumbling social world; new approaches to drink and drugs; new work opportunities in social programs and public services to provide some work opportunities; a concerted effort to make Canada a home-full country.

Now that would be something.

.

Economic Impact of Cap and Trade on US Economy

The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis used an econometric model of the U.S. economy to measure the projected impact of the cap and trade bill now before Congress and found that by 2035 it would:

• Reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion;
• Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by more than 1,900,000;
• Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
• Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent;
• Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
• Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500;
• And increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 more per person — again after adjusting for inflation.

Just imagine this analysis being half right - its very serious. Gains in emissions ? Almost none. As one Democrat has said the bill is "environmental socialism" - all pain for almost no environmental gain.

Mr Speaker

In 1695 Sir John Trevor, Speaker of the House of Commons in the English parliament, was forced to resign due to corruption. He had accepted a bribe. He did however retain his role as a senior judge – Master of the Rolls.

This will not be the fate of Michael Martin, current speaker of House, who has just announced his resignation. He is embroiled in a scandal in which the political parties have colluded to create an expense and favour regime which can only be described as imbued with largess. The scheme, overseen by a committee of the House Chaired by the Speaker and managed day to day by servants of the House, permits such things as: payments for mortgages in second homes for MP’s even though the mortgage no longer exists; payments for furniture, refurbishment; payments for some staff, including spouses and offspring; payments for decoration and repairs. So far, some seventy MP’s have been “outed” for what the public see as outrageous payments and for “fiddling” while the country burns its way through debt and recession.

Michael Martin’s offenses are threefold. The first is that he is the public face of the House of Commons. As Speaker his primary role is to protect the integrity and honour of the House. Both are in tatters. The second offense is that he sought, though legal means and others, to keep the expenses of MP’s from ever being made public. He used his authority to steer a legal challenge to the Freedom of Information Act aimed at exempting MP’s expenses from disclosure. His final offence is that he failed to read the mood of the country and of the Commons. Over twenty MP’s had signed a no confidence motion against him and there was a minor, if typically polite and very British, rebellion against him in the House yesterday when he read a statement which ignored the issue of his own culpability in these matters.

He will go before the summer recess in a few weeks and a new Speaker will be chosen, The odds are heavily in favour of a very different voice – that of Frank Field. A former Cabinet Minister who has made a career of being a Labour Party MP critical of his own party and whose standing has risen so that he is now thought more highly of than when he was in Cabinet. More significantly, through journalism, he has developed a firm commitment to the underdog and has integrity – something desperately needed in the House.

Changing the Speaker will not change the mood of the country – which is palpably viscous. The normally sedate BBC program Question Time was amongst the most raucous shows in BBC news history, rivaling Jerry Springer. The public are in the mood for a hanging.

Changing the Speaker will also make little difference to the underlying issue, which is now the complete loss of confidence in the House and the honesty of MP’s. Only an election will affect this and Gordon Brown, the beleaguered Prime Minister, knows that calling an election now would seal the fate of his Government and his party for at least a generation. While David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, will win, he will do so with a smaller majority than would have been the case before the scandal broke – some of his own colleagues are amongst the worst offenders in the expense scandal.

These are momentous days in British political history, but they are unpleasant. We can expect more turbulence and an emergency landing before the House can take flight again.

Politics, Compromise and the Cap and Trade Scheme in the US

When laws are passed in the United States they are usually subject to so many compromises that it is not uncommon for the original intention of the legislation to be lost.

This appears to be the case with the new version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, issued on 15th May 2009. This bill sets emissions reduction targets for 2020 at 4-7% below 1990 levels by 2020 – considerably less than the 15-20% targets set by other jurisdictions, including the EU. While the 2050 target is substantial – an 83% reduction on 1990 levels – setting long-term targets which are demanding is easier than setting short term targets that will require immediate sacrifice and significant change.

The Bill also creates a cap and trade regime in which some 85% of the emissions permits are given away and only 15% of these permits are auctioned. Companies that secure permits through either allocation or purchase may then trade them for profit. Obama had seen 100% of these permits being auctioned and had planned to use the resultant $650 billion over ten years to pay for a tax credit aimed to offset the higher energy costs that will result from cap and trade and reduce the number of people moving into energy poverty. These tax credits – an essential part of the low carbon economy – will have to be funded by other means, probably through deficit funding.

The problem with giving away so many permits, as has been found in the European Trading Scheme, is that the price for carbon traded in the market is set unrealistically low. By auctioning the permits, the scheme begins with a realistic market value for a tonne of Carbon – thought to be $50 or more. By giving so many permits away, the price fluctuates in a price range below that which requires firm to change their carbon emitting behaviour.

Also included in the Bill is permission for firms to buy offsets - project based reductions – but these are limited to 2,000 million metric tons CO2 equivalent per year or 30% per cent of U.S emission reduction, split evenly between domestic and international offsets. Domestic offsets do not include Green Buildings offsets. There are provisions for emissions reductions from reduced deforestation through what are known as “allowance set-asides”.

The Bill will likely achieve several things. Congress could finally pass a bill focused on climate change and head into the December world summit on climate change in Copenhagen with something to work from. Second, it will significantly increase energy and supply chain costs, only partly offset by tax credits and other social security payments. Third, it will create a new bureaucracy – regulating carbon emissions – and a new financial services business – carbon credit trading. Finally, it will do little to cut emissions.

Europe has had a cap and trade system for sometime – since 2006 in fact. Despite this, emissions from industries required to cap and trade have continued to rise. They rose 0.4 percent in 2006 over the previous year, and 0.7 percent in 2007. A major reason for this, the analysts suggests, was governments alloating too many trading permits to polluters when the market was created – a mistake that the Obama administration is about to repeat. In Europe, over allocation of “free” permits led to a near-market failure after the value of the permits fell by half. This also called into question the validity of the cap and trade system.

Offsets were also allowed by the European system, as will be permitted under the Bill now before the US congress. Many were attracted by the UN sanctioned offsets, but serious doubts have been cast on their effectiveness. Most of the funds are allocated to third world countries for forestry and other projects intended to capture carbon, but some of the funds have been siphoned off into other activities and the impact of the projects in terms of carbon storage is minimal. The chief concern is that this “buying of carbon penances” does nothing to change emissions behaviour in the company buying these offsets.

Cap and trade is a way of avoiding the real issue: the need to tax carbon if the intention is to change human and organizational behaviour. This is why many “green” organizations and researchers oppose cap and trade – they don’t see it as leading to the substantial emissions reductions they see as needed to “save the planet”. A flat tax on carbon - $50 a tonne or more - would force industries to change their behaviour and spur the development of new technologies for transport, buildings and energy production. If each individual person, as well as the companies or organizations they worked for, had to pay for the carbon they emitted, then a low carbon economy would emerge, these campaigners suggest. What is more, emissions would go down quickly as the costs of emitting would be quickly obvious to all.

Take an example. A business executive living with a husband and two children in California who has to travel as part of their employment is likely to account for at least 7 – 9 tones of carbon each year. At $50/tonne they would pay a tax of $350 to $450 year plus additional costs for heating, natural gas, gasoline and other energy sources. They would also pay more for all goods, since transportation costs for goods would also increase. We can estimate the impact at around $1,500 a year on an individual. On a small transport company with twenty trucks, they may also have to pass on to consumers around $35,000 a year in carbon taxes. Such sums would get people’s attention. Cap and trade, however, is like derivatives, I doubt whether anyone can really explain what these are as they walk around Safeway or Next – its hidden and away from view.

As the US sees no short term emissions reductions from its cap and trade, it will start to want to sell more permits and create a real market. It will face fierce opposition from industry, especially the transportation and energy sectors. It will also face a backlash from tax payers who will have seen higher costs without any social or environmental benefit. What the American Clean Energy and Security Act will do is delay the real debate about emissions and the environment until the next Obama administration, when the environment will likely be a more urgent issue for some.

The Decline and Fall of Politics in Britain

The three major political parties in Britain are reeling from a public backlash against them. The symptom is a scandal over expense claims by elected members of parliament. These include claims for digging out a moat, refurbishing chandeliers and reimbursing mortgage payments that had never been made. It’s a mess, and will likely lead to a major upset in the June 4th local and European elections. It has already led to a cabinet resignation and its increasingly likely that the Speaker of the House will suffer a no confidence vote this coming week in Westminster. He will then have to resign. There will also be more cabinet resignations and a cabinet shuffle.

All of this is a symptom of a deeper issue – the growing inability of politicians to show leadership through integrity and their own ethical behaviour. All expenses claimed were “within the rules”. The problem is, the over generous rules were not the basis to guide behaviour. The disease here is the absence of integrity and ethical behaviour, whatever the rules, amongst politicians.

The people are angry. They have a chance to show this in just a few weeks when Britain elects its local councilors and members of the European Parliament. It is very likely that the beneficiaries of this anger will be three non mainstream parties - the British National Party (BNP), the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the Green Party.

The BNP is a right wing organization. They dislike Jews. They dislike of international capitalism, the USA, gender equality, homosexuals and liberal democracy. They are in favour of massive reduction in immigration into the UK and of returning many who have settled in Britain back to their “own” countries. The leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, has been very cunning in repositioning his party as a all-purpose anti-Establishment national front, rather than as a slightly less intellectual version of the Sturmabteilung. But don’t mistake the reality: this is the Oswald Mosley fascist party in a twenty first century guise. Griffin recently suggested that British born citizens with Asian parentage were not really British. Despite its racialist and protectionists views, the party has a core support amongst white working class voters and may benefit significantly from the backlash against the mainstream parties.

The UKIP, in contrast, has won political favour with some and has nine elected members in the European parliament, one elected members of the House of Commons and has secured, through defection, two members of the House of Lords. They are focused on getting Britain out of the EU – believing that the growing amount of regulation and law that emanates from Brussels which Britain has to follow is an affront to democracy. They experienced some problems in their troubled history. Their leader, Robert Kilroy-Silk, defected to form his own party - “ego the size of a planet”, as one observer said of Kilroy-Silk at the time. Some initial members were seen to have ties to former right wing organizations – they were removed. They will likely secure a significant number of new votes – enough to secure additional seats in the European parliament.

The Green Party stands for the things you would expect it to stand for – emissions reductions, no nuclear power, no new runways at Heathrow and so on. It is growing in popularity – it has 116 local councilors and two members of the European parliament. It has been gradually growing its vote and gives the impression of being ethical, imbued with integrity and focused on doing the “correct” thing. In the current climate, it should do very well in the coming election.

But none of these parties are significant enough to challenge the stranglehold on power of the Labour Party and Conservatives. The Labour Party have that look right now of a rabbit caught in the headlights of a truck, driven by a man with a long rifle. The Conservatives have dealt with the current politicel mess with more decisiveness and clarity, though it is conservative politicians who can claim the record for stupidity. We are witnessing a spectacle of politics – the final demise of Labour but not with a sense of victory for the Conservatives. The electors will, reluctantly, favour the Conservatives but send strong messages by voting for these three other parties.

It is sad spectacle to watch. Someone should advise the Queen to dissolve parliament and require her Prime Minister to go to the people. It is the first step to cleaning up politics.