Some observations from The Times of London
Glaciers
The IPCC says its statement on melting glaciers was based on a report it misquoted by WWF, a lobby group, which took its information from a report in New Scientist based on an interview with a glaciologist who claims he was misquoted. Most glaciologists say that the Himalayan glaciers are so thick that they would take hundreds of years to melt
Sea levels
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says sea levels could rise by 6ft by 2100, a prediction based on the 7in rise in sea levels from 1881-2001, which it attributed to a 0.7C rise in temperatures. It assumed a rise of 6.4C by 2100 would melt the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.
UK Climate Projections, published last year by the Government, predicted a rise of one to two feet by 2095
Arctic sea ice
Cambridge University’s Polar Ocean Physics Group has claimed that sea ice will have disappeared from the North Pole in summer by 2020. However, in the past two summers the total area of sea ice in the Arctic has grown substantially.
Global temperatures
The Met Office predicts that this year is “more likely than not” to be the world’s warmest year on record. It claims the El Niño effect will join forces with the warming effect of manmade greenhouse gases.
Some scientists say that there is a warming bias in Met Office long-range forecasts which has resulted in it regularly overstating the warming trend
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Deceit and the IPCC
This week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted it was completely wrong in claiming that climate change would lead to the disappearance of all ice in the Himalayas by 2035. It had previously claimed, based on a magazine interview with a single scientist, that this claim was 90% reliable. Now it admits it was 100% wrong. Its not the only thing they are going to have to back-track on.
One of the leading scientists working on understanding natural disasters in Roger Pielke Jnr. He is a Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado and he has done extensive studies of the link between climate change and the cost and frequency of natural disasters, concluding that there is no link.
In 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Working Group II report cautiously claimed in its Chapter 8 that the upward trend in the costs of disasters had a climate component, and supported this assertion by referencing a non-peer reviewed published in 2000. That Munich Re report compared disasters in the 1970s to the 1990s and only speculated on issues of attribution, focusing particularly on 1999. Pielke offered a critique of this paper, which was in any case speculative.
In 2006, the UK Stern Review report picked a single non-peer reviewed discussion paper from a workshop intended to generate an estimate of escalating damages due to greenhouse gas emissions. The Stern Review also mysteriously inflated the cost of damages due to natural disasters by a significant order of magnitude so as to make more dramatic its claim – just one of several inflations in the report. The Stern Review dramatically misrepresented the scientific literature and understandings so as to make a political point – it is, after all, a political report, not a scientific review.
In 2007 the IPCC released its Fourth Assessment Report and, and also relying in the same non peer reviewed paper used by Stern, reitterated the same claim. Further, the IPCC included a graph attempting to show how closely temperature anomalies match up with disaster losses, using a scaling of the axes to suggest a relationship where none has been shown in any of the peer-reviewed literature.
Here is what the IPCC says:
“Global losses reveal rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s. One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend”.
It is clear that in this report, the IPCC are reaching for whatever they can to support a conclusion that simply is not backed up in the broader literature: its another claim in the same status as the 2035 Himalaya claim and is also based on a non peer reviewed paper.
But this story gets worse. Before the release of the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) by the IPCC in 2007, one of the senior scientific reviewers said this about this claim:
“Initial drafts of the SPM had relatively nuanced statements such as: “Global economic losses from weather-related disasters have risen substantially since the 1970s. During the same period, global temperatures have risen and the magnitude of some extremes, such as the intensity of tropical cyclones, has increased. However, because of increases in exposed values …, the contribution of these weather-related trends to increased losses is at present not known.” (my emphasis)
“For unknown reasons, this statement (which seems to implicitly acknowledge Roger’s and the May 2006 workshop conclusion that societal factors dominate) was dropped from the final SPM. Now the SPM has no statement on the attribution of disaster losses, and we do not know what is the ‘consensus’ here.”
This did not prevent the claim being made, despite protests from scientific reviewers.
It gets worse. One reviewer suggested that there was a need to check the statement in the IPCC report with Roger Pielke Jnr, widely regarded as one of the leading experts in the world on this topic. The IPCC responded with a comment which Pielke now takes objection to. The IPCC said (dealing with the issue of adding 2004 and 2005 data to the analysis), in response to the reviewers suggestion:
"Pielke agrees that adding 2004 and 2005 has the potential to change his earlier conclusions – at least about the absence of a trend in US Cat[astrophic] losses."
In fact, Pielke was never asked and, if he were, would have taken a very different position. He makes it clear that the IPCC simply made up a misleading and false response about his views.
The UN IPCC, in defending itself against criticisms from the scientific community, frequently makes two points. First, all of its conclusions are based on peer reviewed science. Second, the process of developing their assessments is both rigorous and has a high integrity. These two points, they claim, ensure that there is thorough due diligence.
It is not clear that the IPCC in two matters – Himalayas and 2035 and the link between climate change and the costs of natural disasters – that it did not use peer reviewed literature, that it exaggerated the science in a very misleading way and that it is willing to use untruths in order to justify its work.
The IPCC is a problem organization. One which claims that the science is settled, even though scientists, like Roger Pielke, disagree.
One of the leading scientists working on understanding natural disasters in Roger Pielke Jnr. He is a Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado and he has done extensive studies of the link between climate change and the cost and frequency of natural disasters, concluding that there is no link.
In 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Working Group II report cautiously claimed in its Chapter 8 that the upward trend in the costs of disasters had a climate component, and supported this assertion by referencing a non-peer reviewed published in 2000. That Munich Re report compared disasters in the 1970s to the 1990s and only speculated on issues of attribution, focusing particularly on 1999. Pielke offered a critique of this paper, which was in any case speculative.
In 2006, the UK Stern Review report picked a single non-peer reviewed discussion paper from a workshop intended to generate an estimate of escalating damages due to greenhouse gas emissions. The Stern Review also mysteriously inflated the cost of damages due to natural disasters by a significant order of magnitude so as to make more dramatic its claim – just one of several inflations in the report. The Stern Review dramatically misrepresented the scientific literature and understandings so as to make a political point – it is, after all, a political report, not a scientific review.
In 2007 the IPCC released its Fourth Assessment Report and, and also relying in the same non peer reviewed paper used by Stern, reitterated the same claim. Further, the IPCC included a graph attempting to show how closely temperature anomalies match up with disaster losses, using a scaling of the axes to suggest a relationship where none has been shown in any of the peer-reviewed literature.
Here is what the IPCC says:
“Global losses reveal rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s. One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend”.
It is clear that in this report, the IPCC are reaching for whatever they can to support a conclusion that simply is not backed up in the broader literature: its another claim in the same status as the 2035 Himalaya claim and is also based on a non peer reviewed paper.
But this story gets worse. Before the release of the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) by the IPCC in 2007, one of the senior scientific reviewers said this about this claim:
“Initial drafts of the SPM had relatively nuanced statements such as: “Global economic losses from weather-related disasters have risen substantially since the 1970s. During the same period, global temperatures have risen and the magnitude of some extremes, such as the intensity of tropical cyclones, has increased. However, because of increases in exposed values …, the contribution of these weather-related trends to increased losses is at present not known.” (my emphasis)
“For unknown reasons, this statement (which seems to implicitly acknowledge Roger’s and the May 2006 workshop conclusion that societal factors dominate) was dropped from the final SPM. Now the SPM has no statement on the attribution of disaster losses, and we do not know what is the ‘consensus’ here.”
This did not prevent the claim being made, despite protests from scientific reviewers.
It gets worse. One reviewer suggested that there was a need to check the statement in the IPCC report with Roger Pielke Jnr, widely regarded as one of the leading experts in the world on this topic. The IPCC responded with a comment which Pielke now takes objection to. The IPCC said (dealing with the issue of adding 2004 and 2005 data to the analysis), in response to the reviewers suggestion:
"Pielke agrees that adding 2004 and 2005 has the potential to change his earlier conclusions – at least about the absence of a trend in US Cat[astrophic] losses."
In fact, Pielke was never asked and, if he were, would have taken a very different position. He makes it clear that the IPCC simply made up a misleading and false response about his views.
The UN IPCC, in defending itself against criticisms from the scientific community, frequently makes two points. First, all of its conclusions are based on peer reviewed science. Second, the process of developing their assessments is both rigorous and has a high integrity. These two points, they claim, ensure that there is thorough due diligence.
It is not clear that the IPCC in two matters – Himalayas and 2035 and the link between climate change and the costs of natural disasters – that it did not use peer reviewed literature, that it exaggerated the science in a very misleading way and that it is willing to use untruths in order to justify its work.
The IPCC is a problem organization. One which claims that the science is settled, even though scientists, like Roger Pielke, disagree.
The US Debt Mire
As of the end of the fiscal year 2010, the indebtedness of the United States will be $13 trillion – close to the US Gross Domestic Product of $14 trillion. Its current operational deficit – the difference between what it will spend this year and its revenues – will be in excess of $1.75 trillion. A prudent nation would have debts of no more than 40% of its GDP and would be close to balancing its budget or have a public sector borrowing requirement within the 40% of GDP level. The US is in very serious financial trouble and has been for some time. The last year in which the US debt level was under 40% was in 1984.
Most of the US debt is owned by four countries – China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. They own this debt by buying various forms of securities – government bonds, which they then insure. At some point, and many suggest that this could occur as soon as 2011, these countries will reach their “debt wall” – they will own more debt than it is prudent for them to own and may start to sell. They will be less likely to buy more debt. At this point, the Federal Reserve, which is an independent and arms length organization from government, will increase its purchase of the US debt. When this occurs, recessionary forces will be back and firms will find borrowing more difficult to secure.
The US government debt is attractive for many countries to own. For example, the more reliant the US is on China’s ownership of US debt, the more likely they are to be cooperative and supportive of China. China simply needs to threaten to dump a significant chunk of its bonds or to sell off US currency for the US to start to engage in a meaningful dialogue. In other cases, it secures rapid access to resources – natural resources, defence resources and so on.
At some point, and the republicans are arguing that this point is “now”, the US government needs to deal with its deficit and debt problem. As one former British finance minister once observed, “when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging”. What the government has to do first is to bring its spending into line with its revenue. This requires the government to do two things: increase taxation and reduce spending. Obama’s proposed tax on bank profits is a way of increasing taxation, as are many of his proposals for energy and climate change. Obama’s health care plan is, in part, a way of controlling health care costs. The republican concern is that insufficient attention is being paid to this issue and that many of Obama’s plans will increase the deficit rather than reduce it.
In terms of the US government debt, the options are narrow. The first thing they government does is to offer bonds to the market. The value of these bonds is based on the probability that their terms will be honoured – that the government will not default on its commitment to honour the bond and pay the guaranteed interest. Standard and Poor and Moody’s rate the US as highly reliable in their bond rating service – something used by bond buyers to calculate risk. The government uses its current revenues and investments to pay bond holders back with interest – a kind of giant Ponsi scheme.
The challenge the US has is that many countries are in the market to raise funds through bonds – almost every country in the world. Canada, for example, will seek to raise over $100 billion in 2010 to cover its deficit. At some point in the period 2011-14 there may be more bonds than buyers, which will lead bond sellers to offer better interest rates so as to attract buyers. When this occurs, inflation follows. Inflation reduces the value of the buying power of the currency and makes past debt “cheaper” to buy back.
The other mechanism which governments use is to offer what is known as Treasury Bills (T-bills). Governments issue T-bills in very large denominations of $1 million or so. Banks and investment dealers break these up and sell them to investors. You always buy a T-bill at a discount to its face value. That means you pay less than what you'll get back when the government cashes it for you. T-bills are mostly offered in terms of one month to just under one year. You might pay $975 for a T-bill and get back $1,000 when it matures one year later. Your profit is stated as a percentage of your investment, in this case it would be about 2.56% ($25 on $975). Even though your return on T-bills is a capital gain, the government treats the return as interest income, which is taxed at a higher rate. The difference between a bond and a T-Bill is that the bonds are for longer terms and carry guaranteed interest and the T-Bill is short term with a very low return rate. T-Bills are, however, very safe investments.
Some countries issue bonds and then default on them when the time comes to pay. For example, on the markets in January 2010 there was a lot of speculation that the Government of Greece might default on its bond commitments. A large part of the bond market excludes the possibility of Greece’s default, if only because it would be too painful and seriously threaten EMU [European Monetary Union] and the European economic recovery. But some remain concerned and these same anxieties are spreading to other countries, notably Spain and Portugal.
The bottom line is simple. Debt, while often helpful, has to be managed and the “golden rule” of public financing is that debt should not exceed 40% of GDP. In the US, debt will surpass GDP at some point in 2010-11. The real political agenda will soon shift focus, as it is already doing in Canada, to debt and deficit reduction. Such a focus is critical to the bond and T-bill market, since it sends signals that the Government will actually be able to honour its commitments.
Most of the US debt is owned by four countries – China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. They own this debt by buying various forms of securities – government bonds, which they then insure. At some point, and many suggest that this could occur as soon as 2011, these countries will reach their “debt wall” – they will own more debt than it is prudent for them to own and may start to sell. They will be less likely to buy more debt. At this point, the Federal Reserve, which is an independent and arms length organization from government, will increase its purchase of the US debt. When this occurs, recessionary forces will be back and firms will find borrowing more difficult to secure.
The US government debt is attractive for many countries to own. For example, the more reliant the US is on China’s ownership of US debt, the more likely they are to be cooperative and supportive of China. China simply needs to threaten to dump a significant chunk of its bonds or to sell off US currency for the US to start to engage in a meaningful dialogue. In other cases, it secures rapid access to resources – natural resources, defence resources and so on.
At some point, and the republicans are arguing that this point is “now”, the US government needs to deal with its deficit and debt problem. As one former British finance minister once observed, “when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging”. What the government has to do first is to bring its spending into line with its revenue. This requires the government to do two things: increase taxation and reduce spending. Obama’s proposed tax on bank profits is a way of increasing taxation, as are many of his proposals for energy and climate change. Obama’s health care plan is, in part, a way of controlling health care costs. The republican concern is that insufficient attention is being paid to this issue and that many of Obama’s plans will increase the deficit rather than reduce it.
In terms of the US government debt, the options are narrow. The first thing they government does is to offer bonds to the market. The value of these bonds is based on the probability that their terms will be honoured – that the government will not default on its commitment to honour the bond and pay the guaranteed interest. Standard and Poor and Moody’s rate the US as highly reliable in their bond rating service – something used by bond buyers to calculate risk. The government uses its current revenues and investments to pay bond holders back with interest – a kind of giant Ponsi scheme.
The challenge the US has is that many countries are in the market to raise funds through bonds – almost every country in the world. Canada, for example, will seek to raise over $100 billion in 2010 to cover its deficit. At some point in the period 2011-14 there may be more bonds than buyers, which will lead bond sellers to offer better interest rates so as to attract buyers. When this occurs, inflation follows. Inflation reduces the value of the buying power of the currency and makes past debt “cheaper” to buy back.
The other mechanism which governments use is to offer what is known as Treasury Bills (T-bills). Governments issue T-bills in very large denominations of $1 million or so. Banks and investment dealers break these up and sell them to investors. You always buy a T-bill at a discount to its face value. That means you pay less than what you'll get back when the government cashes it for you. T-bills are mostly offered in terms of one month to just under one year. You might pay $975 for a T-bill and get back $1,000 when it matures one year later. Your profit is stated as a percentage of your investment, in this case it would be about 2.56% ($25 on $975). Even though your return on T-bills is a capital gain, the government treats the return as interest income, which is taxed at a higher rate. The difference between a bond and a T-Bill is that the bonds are for longer terms and carry guaranteed interest and the T-Bill is short term with a very low return rate. T-Bills are, however, very safe investments.
Some countries issue bonds and then default on them when the time comes to pay. For example, on the markets in January 2010 there was a lot of speculation that the Government of Greece might default on its bond commitments. A large part of the bond market excludes the possibility of Greece’s default, if only because it would be too painful and seriously threaten EMU [European Monetary Union] and the European economic recovery. But some remain concerned and these same anxieties are spreading to other countries, notably Spain and Portugal.
The bottom line is simple. Debt, while often helpful, has to be managed and the “golden rule” of public financing is that debt should not exceed 40% of GDP. In the US, debt will surpass GDP at some point in 2010-11. The real political agenda will soon shift focus, as it is already doing in Canada, to debt and deficit reduction. Such a focus is critical to the bond and T-bill market, since it sends signals that the Government will actually be able to honour its commitments.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Britain's New Realtiy Show: Austerity
In 2007 Britain’s national debt was 44% of GDP and the cost of insuring the debt incurred by the British Government was app. £5,000 for each £10 million of securities they issued. In 2014 Government debt in the UK will be 75% of GDP and the current cost of insuring £10 million of the securities needed to underwrite the debt is £72,000. The Government is in trouble and relies on the Bank of England to print money (euphemistically called “fiscal easing”) so as to manage its debts. It is threatened with a lowering of its debt rating by the debt rating agencies, who are concerned that, sometime soon, Britain may default on its debt.
But the challenge of reducing debt while encouraging an economic recovery is becoming a focus for the election, likely to take place in early May of this year. Britain has over 2 million unemployed and some one third of adults receive one form or other of welfare payments. There are two million children in Britain growing up in homes where no-one works. 7.5% of GDP is now spent on welfare provision.
What options does an incoming Government have in terms of reducing its debt load while stimulating the economy. Not many.
Option 1: The first is to cut programs in this vast welfare state while at the same time raising taxes. This is the option favoured by the Conservative Party. Its Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, has indicated that cuts will begin in its first week in office, should the party win the election. However, for reasons of political expediency, it has already protected some key budgets – especially health. Labour has also indicated that they will seek to reduce public spending in a “measured and planned” way – seeking to contrast their way of cutting with that of the Conservative Party. Their strategy – freeze public spending at 2011 levels for five years. This does not take full account of the fact that there are structural problems with the UK government budget – there is a permanent gap between spending and income of some £90 billion.
Option 2: The second option is to encourage inflation, which would wipe out the value of the debt, making it easier to pay off. Such a strategy has consequences. It doesn't just wipe out debts, it wipes out people's hard-earned savings and increases the number living in poverty, expanding welfare and creating additional government spending. It also leads to sizeable wage claims and labour unrest.
Option 3: Is to seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Britain did this in 1976 when Dennis Healey was Chancellor and Harold Wilson was Prime Minister. Healey asked the IMF for a £2.3bn bail out, saying unemployment and inflation were at exceptional levels – with unemployment notably lower than they are now. The IMF does not just loan funds – it does so with conditions, usually associated with severe public spending cuts and wage constraints in the public sector.
Option 4: Britain could just default on its debt. Not pay it. Other countries have done that in the past, but rarely have these been G8 countries. The immediate impact would to make borrowing by British based organizations, especially public ones, both more difficult to obtain, more expensive in terms of interest rates and insurance against non-payment. While this openly mentioned in policy discussions, all parties mention it and dismiss it in the same sentence. Britain’s credit rating, already under constant “watch” status, would be lowered.
Whatever actions are taken by whichever government wins power in May, it is not likely that Britain’s debt will be under control and back below a “safe” level (40% of GDP) until 2032, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies. This assumes significant tax rises, cost cutting and inflation are all part of the strategy. Any independent assessment dismisses the current governments forecasts as too fanciful. Some analysts suggest that it may take until 2040 to bring spending back in control.
Austerity will be the catchphrase that Briton’s will hear more and more of over the next twenty five years. Yet when Gordon Brown came to power, thing looked very different.
But the challenge of reducing debt while encouraging an economic recovery is becoming a focus for the election, likely to take place in early May of this year. Britain has over 2 million unemployed and some one third of adults receive one form or other of welfare payments. There are two million children in Britain growing up in homes where no-one works. 7.5% of GDP is now spent on welfare provision.
What options does an incoming Government have in terms of reducing its debt load while stimulating the economy. Not many.
Option 1: The first is to cut programs in this vast welfare state while at the same time raising taxes. This is the option favoured by the Conservative Party. Its Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, has indicated that cuts will begin in its first week in office, should the party win the election. However, for reasons of political expediency, it has already protected some key budgets – especially health. Labour has also indicated that they will seek to reduce public spending in a “measured and planned” way – seeking to contrast their way of cutting with that of the Conservative Party. Their strategy – freeze public spending at 2011 levels for five years. This does not take full account of the fact that there are structural problems with the UK government budget – there is a permanent gap between spending and income of some £90 billion.
Option 2: The second option is to encourage inflation, which would wipe out the value of the debt, making it easier to pay off. Such a strategy has consequences. It doesn't just wipe out debts, it wipes out people's hard-earned savings and increases the number living in poverty, expanding welfare and creating additional government spending. It also leads to sizeable wage claims and labour unrest.
Option 3: Is to seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Britain did this in 1976 when Dennis Healey was Chancellor and Harold Wilson was Prime Minister. Healey asked the IMF for a £2.3bn bail out, saying unemployment and inflation were at exceptional levels – with unemployment notably lower than they are now. The IMF does not just loan funds – it does so with conditions, usually associated with severe public spending cuts and wage constraints in the public sector.
Option 4: Britain could just default on its debt. Not pay it. Other countries have done that in the past, but rarely have these been G8 countries. The immediate impact would to make borrowing by British based organizations, especially public ones, both more difficult to obtain, more expensive in terms of interest rates and insurance against non-payment. While this openly mentioned in policy discussions, all parties mention it and dismiss it in the same sentence. Britain’s credit rating, already under constant “watch” status, would be lowered.
Whatever actions are taken by whichever government wins power in May, it is not likely that Britain’s debt will be under control and back below a “safe” level (40% of GDP) until 2032, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies. This assumes significant tax rises, cost cutting and inflation are all part of the strategy. Any independent assessment dismisses the current governments forecasts as too fanciful. Some analysts suggest that it may take until 2040 to bring spending back in control.
Austerity will be the catchphrase that Briton’s will hear more and more of over the next twenty five years. Yet when Gordon Brown came to power, thing looked very different.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Not a Great Start to the Year for the "Warmists"
It has been a bad start to the new year for those who are concerned that action needs to be taken now to forestall the impact of climate change in the future. The `warmists`` – those who are convinced that the science of “closed”, that the action plan has to be massive reductions in CO2 emissions globally coupled with a strong push for green energy - are in retreat.
First, Climategate –the affair of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia – refuses to die down. The emails are being used in a law suit against the Environmental Protection Agency to try and prevent it from enacting regulations to control CO2 emissions. As more and more people work through the emails, more and more issues are brought to the surface. Al Gore’s protestations about them as being “irrelevant to the real issue” is no longer heard, as many now see other issues with the data and the quality of the science.
Second, the implications of the debacle at Copenhagen rumble on. The UN is sidelined in follow-up discussions as the US, China and India seek to cut a deal before the G20 meeting in Canada this coming summer, ignoring the position taken by the EU and the UN as well as the developing world. The “major polluters” want control of their fate. This is not what others had in mind.
Third, the US is backing off commitments made at Copenhagen to work to find $100 billion to support developing world’s climate change adjustment. Secretary of State Clinton is suggesting that little of this $100 billion will be ``new` money and the developing nations are crying `foul``.
Fourth, the Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been accused of a major conflict of interest with his business dealings in green technology companies benefiting from the position the UN takes on climate change and the need for clean energy. While Dr Rajendra Pachauri is not paid for his UN work (other than travelling expenses), he is increasingly using his position to advocate policies which directly benefit companies he is a director of. The IPCC summarises the science of climate change, its impacts, and possible countermeasures. It enables politicians to make informed decisions. The IPCC is not permitted to recommend any course of action. Dr Pachauri, a railyway engineer, denies the conflict but the evidence is mounting that it is real. The fact that Al Gore, Chairman of an investment company that directly benefits from climate change, gets away with similar duplicity does not make the conflict of interest any less serious.
Fifth, and its only early in the new year, the UN IPCC is backtracking on a major claim. In its fourth assessment released in 2007, the IPCC claimed that the Himalayas could be ice-free by 2035 due to global warming. This has been used by many as an example of why action is needed urgently, as has the `sinking of the Maldives`. The ice free by 2035 claim is not supported, in turns out, by any peer reviewed science and most scientists who have studied the glaciers in the region completely disassociate themselves from this claim. Yet the IPCC defends it.
The claim is based on a comment made in a newspaper. Yet whenever the IPCC is under attack, the defence is always that everything it reports is based on peer reviewed science. Clearly not the case. It is the case, however, that author of this comment is a colleague of Dr Pachauri and they have together sought to raise significant funding on the basis of this claim.
Yesterday, however, Dr Pachauri began to distance himself from his own past statements. In an email to Reuters he said "We are looking into the issue of the Himalayan glaciers, and will take a position on it in the next two or three days." `This follows the release of a major study by the Indian Government suggesting that they could find no link between global warming, CO2 emissions and the state of the glaciers in the Himalayas. A messy situations – one that connects the conflict of interest issues with the quality of science issues raised by Climategate.
Finally, in President Obama’s agenda in the period between now and the mid-term elections in November, climate change and energy security (these two policies are inextricably linked) is being pushed further away from the floor of the Senate. While the Environmental Protection Agency is pushing ahead with its regulation of CO2, the cap and trade legislation and other components of the climate change bill are so far from everyone’s mind as to be almost forgotten. The debacle at Copenhagen was a taste of what is to come in the Senate.
This time last year, the `warmist` were riding here, predicting great success at Copenhagen and refusing to debate the `science``, which they claimed was settled. It clearly is not and now there is a vacuum in terms of policy and action plans. Many campaigners believe that progress is being made, but the evidence to support this view is hard to find. It will be interesting to watch what happens next in the global fight against climate change.
First, Climategate –the affair of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia – refuses to die down. The emails are being used in a law suit against the Environmental Protection Agency to try and prevent it from enacting regulations to control CO2 emissions. As more and more people work through the emails, more and more issues are brought to the surface. Al Gore’s protestations about them as being “irrelevant to the real issue” is no longer heard, as many now see other issues with the data and the quality of the science.
Second, the implications of the debacle at Copenhagen rumble on. The UN is sidelined in follow-up discussions as the US, China and India seek to cut a deal before the G20 meeting in Canada this coming summer, ignoring the position taken by the EU and the UN as well as the developing world. The “major polluters” want control of their fate. This is not what others had in mind.
Third, the US is backing off commitments made at Copenhagen to work to find $100 billion to support developing world’s climate change adjustment. Secretary of State Clinton is suggesting that little of this $100 billion will be ``new` money and the developing nations are crying `foul``.
Fourth, the Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been accused of a major conflict of interest with his business dealings in green technology companies benefiting from the position the UN takes on climate change and the need for clean energy. While Dr Rajendra Pachauri is not paid for his UN work (other than travelling expenses), he is increasingly using his position to advocate policies which directly benefit companies he is a director of. The IPCC summarises the science of climate change, its impacts, and possible countermeasures. It enables politicians to make informed decisions. The IPCC is not permitted to recommend any course of action. Dr Pachauri, a railyway engineer, denies the conflict but the evidence is mounting that it is real. The fact that Al Gore, Chairman of an investment company that directly benefits from climate change, gets away with similar duplicity does not make the conflict of interest any less serious.
Fifth, and its only early in the new year, the UN IPCC is backtracking on a major claim. In its fourth assessment released in 2007, the IPCC claimed that the Himalayas could be ice-free by 2035 due to global warming. This has been used by many as an example of why action is needed urgently, as has the `sinking of the Maldives`. The ice free by 2035 claim is not supported, in turns out, by any peer reviewed science and most scientists who have studied the glaciers in the region completely disassociate themselves from this claim. Yet the IPCC defends it.
The claim is based on a comment made in a newspaper. Yet whenever the IPCC is under attack, the defence is always that everything it reports is based on peer reviewed science. Clearly not the case. It is the case, however, that author of this comment is a colleague of Dr Pachauri and they have together sought to raise significant funding on the basis of this claim.
Yesterday, however, Dr Pachauri began to distance himself from his own past statements. In an email to Reuters he said "We are looking into the issue of the Himalayan glaciers, and will take a position on it in the next two or three days." `This follows the release of a major study by the Indian Government suggesting that they could find no link between global warming, CO2 emissions and the state of the glaciers in the Himalayas. A messy situations – one that connects the conflict of interest issues with the quality of science issues raised by Climategate.
Finally, in President Obama’s agenda in the period between now and the mid-term elections in November, climate change and energy security (these two policies are inextricably linked) is being pushed further away from the floor of the Senate. While the Environmental Protection Agency is pushing ahead with its regulation of CO2, the cap and trade legislation and other components of the climate change bill are so far from everyone’s mind as to be almost forgotten. The debacle at Copenhagen was a taste of what is to come in the Senate.
This time last year, the `warmist` were riding here, predicting great success at Copenhagen and refusing to debate the `science``, which they claimed was settled. It clearly is not and now there is a vacuum in terms of policy and action plans. Many campaigners believe that progress is being made, but the evidence to support this view is hard to find. It will be interesting to watch what happens next in the global fight against climate change.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Obama's First Year
Barrack Obama is becoming expert at managing disappointment. Whether it is health care (still not finished), climate change and energy (not yet started and already back-tracking from Copenhagen), Guantanamo (closure delayed), the war on terror (half-hearted) or homeland security (not very secure), the man who declared just a year ago ‘yes we can’ is now saying ‘maybe’ more often. Even the relief efforts in Haiti are faltering.
He is also loosing traction. Two Senators have announced their retirement, weakening the position Obama has in the Senate. More are expected to follow. It is widely thought that the democrats will not do well in the mid-term elections in November and most blame Obama for the difficulties the party faces in these election. Even Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat in Massachusetts looks vulnerable.
So what went wrong?
First, the expectations of Obama – the first black President, incredibly articulate (especially after the sometimes-incoherent George W Bush) – were so high that it was impossible for him to fulfill them. Oprah, on the day after his election, indicated that she thought the world was now changed. The Nobel Committee, in a moment of theatre, awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize before he had time to settle into the Oval Office. The “yes we can” victory speech appeared to promise more than any President could ever deliver. Obama set himself up for a fall.
Second, Obama underestimated the challenges of the job. When he arrived at the Oval Office, the economy was in shambles, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were in some confusion, momentum on climate change was stalling and the republicans had established a reign of non bipartisan politics – across the aisle agreements, while nice in theory, rarely happened in practice. He underestimated the extent of raw “politics” associated with every move he would make.
Third, he has shown a lack of real leadership. Though on television almost every day, the real work of laying out a policy platform and then working the phones and contacts to ensure allegiance and alliances has not happened. On health, he outlined a broad framework and let the House and Senate go at it. On climate change, the same thing. The result is that Nancy Pelosi was allowed to run the House, and she became a lightning rod for dissident democrats and reluctant republicans.
Finally, Obama has overplayed his popularity to the point where many Americans are now simply fed up of seeing him. Whether its on Leno, Letterman, CNN or some other show, he is a very visible President. Each time he appears, he loses support – “Oh not Obama again!”. His popularity ratings are the lowest in modern times for any President at the end of their first year. One headline in the Huffington Post suggest that Charles Manson, the satanic mass murderer, has a better chance of winning the next Presidential race.
When Oprah interviewed him and asked him to give himself a year end-grade, Obama gave himself a B+ (A- if health care passed). He was alone in this assessment. The best grade awarded by others is a C+. Most think he has failed his first year – especially those ten million now unemployed.
Obama could well be a one term President if, and it is a very big “if”, the Republicans can find a reasonable candidate to run against him. The prospects of this happening are slim. No one is emerging at this time who can provide a reasoned, compassionate and effective opposition. Obama may win a second term by default – the fault being with the republicans. If they are foolish enough to consider Sarah Palin, they may just hand Obama his second term.
To redeem himself, Obama needs to spend less time on media releases and TV appearances and more time on substantive work on policy. He needs to forge alliances across the aisles for key decisions that need to be made on the economy, the future of energy and the cuts to spending needed to pay down the deficit – the largest in American history. He needs to change his key advisors, especially his economic team, and create bipartisan momentum for economic change and development. Finally, he needs to find ways of focusing the democratic effort on lowering the rhetoric and increasing the work-rate, especially in the Senate.
He is also loosing traction. Two Senators have announced their retirement, weakening the position Obama has in the Senate. More are expected to follow. It is widely thought that the democrats will not do well in the mid-term elections in November and most blame Obama for the difficulties the party faces in these election. Even Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat in Massachusetts looks vulnerable.
So what went wrong?
First, the expectations of Obama – the first black President, incredibly articulate (especially after the sometimes-incoherent George W Bush) – were so high that it was impossible for him to fulfill them. Oprah, on the day after his election, indicated that she thought the world was now changed. The Nobel Committee, in a moment of theatre, awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize before he had time to settle into the Oval Office. The “yes we can” victory speech appeared to promise more than any President could ever deliver. Obama set himself up for a fall.
Second, Obama underestimated the challenges of the job. When he arrived at the Oval Office, the economy was in shambles, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were in some confusion, momentum on climate change was stalling and the republicans had established a reign of non bipartisan politics – across the aisle agreements, while nice in theory, rarely happened in practice. He underestimated the extent of raw “politics” associated with every move he would make.
Third, he has shown a lack of real leadership. Though on television almost every day, the real work of laying out a policy platform and then working the phones and contacts to ensure allegiance and alliances has not happened. On health, he outlined a broad framework and let the House and Senate go at it. On climate change, the same thing. The result is that Nancy Pelosi was allowed to run the House, and she became a lightning rod for dissident democrats and reluctant republicans.
Finally, Obama has overplayed his popularity to the point where many Americans are now simply fed up of seeing him. Whether its on Leno, Letterman, CNN or some other show, he is a very visible President. Each time he appears, he loses support – “Oh not Obama again!”. His popularity ratings are the lowest in modern times for any President at the end of their first year. One headline in the Huffington Post suggest that Charles Manson, the satanic mass murderer, has a better chance of winning the next Presidential race.
When Oprah interviewed him and asked him to give himself a year end-grade, Obama gave himself a B+ (A- if health care passed). He was alone in this assessment. The best grade awarded by others is a C+. Most think he has failed his first year – especially those ten million now unemployed.
Obama could well be a one term President if, and it is a very big “if”, the Republicans can find a reasonable candidate to run against him. The prospects of this happening are slim. No one is emerging at this time who can provide a reasoned, compassionate and effective opposition. Obama may win a second term by default – the fault being with the republicans. If they are foolish enough to consider Sarah Palin, they may just hand Obama his second term.
To redeem himself, Obama needs to spend less time on media releases and TV appearances and more time on substantive work on policy. He needs to forge alliances across the aisles for key decisions that need to be made on the economy, the future of energy and the cuts to spending needed to pay down the deficit – the largest in American history. He needs to change his key advisors, especially his economic team, and create bipartisan momentum for economic change and development. Finally, he needs to find ways of focusing the democratic effort on lowering the rhetoric and increasing the work-rate, especially in the Senate.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
A Very British Coup Attempt
In a remarkable day in Westminster, an attempt was made today to oust Gordon Brown as Prime Minister of Britain and the Leader of the Labour Party. Two former cabinet ministers – Geoff Hoon and Patrician Hewitt – used an email to see if they could create the momentum required to force a vote amongst sitting Labour MP’s on Brown’s leadership. This very British coup so near to a general election is unprecedented in parliamentary history and it looks to have failed.
By the end of the day all of the potential leadership contenders – Alan Johnson, David Milliband, Jack Straw, Lord Mandelson, Ed Balls, Alistair Darling – had come out in support of the Prime Minister. Only those who attempted a similar move last summer appear to support the Hoon-Hewitt coup. These rebels include Barry Sherman, Charles Clark and Frank Field – all former cabinet members. Parliamentary Labour Party chairman Tony Lloyd says the plot has "not gone anywhere" among backbench MPs, many of whom are standing down at the next election, now expected May 6th 2010.
Gordon Brown saw off a similar move headed by Charles Clark last summer when, with some humility, he spoke with passion to the Labour MP’s promising a vision for the future and real change. At the time, the Labour Party was close to twenty five percentage points behind the Conservatives in pre-election polling. As of yesterday, the Labour Party was less than ten points behind, despite a faltering economy, massive government spending debt and pending spending cuts.
Hoon-Hewitt argue that a leadership ballot would, once and for all, put the leadership question to rest and clear the air. If Brown won the ballot convincingly, they suggest, then the voices of opposition to him within the party would be silenced and create unity in the run up to the electorate. The rules of the Labour Party require a ballot of all party members – not just MP’s – to determine the leadership of the party.
The Conservative Party, as is clear from several shadow cabinet commentaries on radio and television simply cannot believe their luck. They are using the Hoon-Hewitt move as a vehicle for demanding an earlier election – March rather than May. They are also using it to challenge the ability of the Labour Party, now in serious financial trouble, to govern the country when it cannot manage itself.
While the “noises off”, as one cabinet Minister called the coup attempt, are likely to rumble on for the next few days, the challenge seems to have died out. Politics as usual within the Labour Party.
By the end of the day all of the potential leadership contenders – Alan Johnson, David Milliband, Jack Straw, Lord Mandelson, Ed Balls, Alistair Darling – had come out in support of the Prime Minister. Only those who attempted a similar move last summer appear to support the Hoon-Hewitt coup. These rebels include Barry Sherman, Charles Clark and Frank Field – all former cabinet members. Parliamentary Labour Party chairman Tony Lloyd says the plot has "not gone anywhere" among backbench MPs, many of whom are standing down at the next election, now expected May 6th 2010.
Gordon Brown saw off a similar move headed by Charles Clark last summer when, with some humility, he spoke with passion to the Labour MP’s promising a vision for the future and real change. At the time, the Labour Party was close to twenty five percentage points behind the Conservatives in pre-election polling. As of yesterday, the Labour Party was less than ten points behind, despite a faltering economy, massive government spending debt and pending spending cuts.
Hoon-Hewitt argue that a leadership ballot would, once and for all, put the leadership question to rest and clear the air. If Brown won the ballot convincingly, they suggest, then the voices of opposition to him within the party would be silenced and create unity in the run up to the electorate. The rules of the Labour Party require a ballot of all party members – not just MP’s – to determine the leadership of the party.
The Conservative Party, as is clear from several shadow cabinet commentaries on radio and television simply cannot believe their luck. They are using the Hoon-Hewitt move as a vehicle for demanding an earlier election – March rather than May. They are also using it to challenge the ability of the Labour Party, now in serious financial trouble, to govern the country when it cannot manage itself.
While the “noises off”, as one cabinet Minister called the coup attempt, are likely to rumble on for the next few days, the challenge seems to have died out. Politics as usual within the Labour Party.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Best Dressed Man?
It is official. Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, was awarded the title of the worst dressed man in Britain by GQ Magazine this week. It’s the least of his worries. More serious is the fact that the Labour Party he leads is going into a general election in May with hardly any funds. The party has been forced to scrap a planned manifesto meeting of its National Policy Forum on cost grounds and has around £7 million ($13 million) to spend on a four week campaign, expected to take place in late April for a vote on May 6th.
In 1997, when Blair led the party to an overwhelming victory, it had substantial funds donated by a range of private companies, trade unions and individuals. Now most of its funding is coming from trade unions, who expect certain policy positions to be taken in return.
The Conservative Party, widely tipped to form the next Government, even if it is a minority government, has some £25 million ($42 million) at its disposal, with more funds likely to arrive as the election call is made. In the battle for advertising space, TV commercials, manifesto distribution and candidate support, the Conservatives are already significantly ahead and have momentum.
Meantime the Liberal Democrats, who have had no real funds since the second world war, have a great deal of what has come to be known as “hung” capital. If, as some commentators expect, the race is closer than was expected and there is a hung parliament, the Liberal Democrats could hold the key to power. By reaching a basic agreement with one party on the key issues, they could offer support to a minority government, probably led by David Cameron. While Nick Clegg protests that he has no interests in being a second fiddle player, that is what he will be. When the results are in, the horse trading will begin.
Last week Gordon Brown lavished praise on the Liberal Democrats, while before Christmas David Cameron made another overture to the Lib Dems, highlighting areas of agreement between their parties on issues ranging from constitutional reform to civil liberties. The courtship is on.
The period between now and March will be the period of the phony war when the parties “test run” election platforms, slogans and strategies. The real campaign will start in March. But the phony war will be interesting, since the fundamental shape of the campaigns will be established. As this develops, the media will begin to form their view of the election and its likely outcome and the polls will show the reaction of the electorate. As things stand, Cameron is not doing as well as he should be doing if he expects to win an outright victory. Time will tell if he can pull significantly ahead to capture the prize of a majority government.
In 1997, when Blair led the party to an overwhelming victory, it had substantial funds donated by a range of private companies, trade unions and individuals. Now most of its funding is coming from trade unions, who expect certain policy positions to be taken in return.
The Conservative Party, widely tipped to form the next Government, even if it is a minority government, has some £25 million ($42 million) at its disposal, with more funds likely to arrive as the election call is made. In the battle for advertising space, TV commercials, manifesto distribution and candidate support, the Conservatives are already significantly ahead and have momentum.
Meantime the Liberal Democrats, who have had no real funds since the second world war, have a great deal of what has come to be known as “hung” capital. If, as some commentators expect, the race is closer than was expected and there is a hung parliament, the Liberal Democrats could hold the key to power. By reaching a basic agreement with one party on the key issues, they could offer support to a minority government, probably led by David Cameron. While Nick Clegg protests that he has no interests in being a second fiddle player, that is what he will be. When the results are in, the horse trading will begin.
Last week Gordon Brown lavished praise on the Liberal Democrats, while before Christmas David Cameron made another overture to the Lib Dems, highlighting areas of agreement between their parties on issues ranging from constitutional reform to civil liberties. The courtship is on.
The period between now and March will be the period of the phony war when the parties “test run” election platforms, slogans and strategies. The real campaign will start in March. But the phony war will be interesting, since the fundamental shape of the campaigns will be established. As this develops, the media will begin to form their view of the election and its likely outcome and the polls will show the reaction of the electorate. As things stand, Cameron is not doing as well as he should be doing if he expects to win an outright victory. Time will tell if he can pull significantly ahead to capture the prize of a majority government.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Scanners or Profiles?
The attempt to detonate a bomb concealed in the underwear of a passenger on a flight to the US as it was passing through Canadian airspace has caused a new wave of security measures for flights into the US from world-wide destinations. Airport security staff now routinely pat down passengers and there is talk of the deployment of full body scanners. These measures are theatre – they would not have detected the explosives carried by the would-be bomber.
The full body scanners will detect small metal objects, but will not detect plastics or liquids – the core components of the Christmas bomb. Patting a person down, particularly when it becomes a routine, is also unlikely to detect liquids in small quantities. The substance of the bomb was just three ounces of a dry powder distributed in the front of a pair of underpants. The “trigger” was a liquid held in a plastic syringe.
The measures now in place show that the response to a threat is to increase the extent of theatre in the hope that the show of deterrence will be sufficient to deter terrorists. The evidence is that the terrorists just get smarter.
There are a growing number of voices that say that the real answer here is to start profiling likely terrorists and make more effective such measures as “no fly lists” developed on the basis of profiling or past convictions. Those concerned with civil liberties will challenge such profiling as an infringement of human rights – as they are already arguing with respect to the full body scanners. The trade off’s here are best calculated in terms of preventing terrorism and enabling appropriate and efficient access to air travel.
Most security measures in place at airports are about appearances, not about the reality of preventing terrorism: the bomber passed through security at a major airport and was on a no-fly list.
The full body scanners will detect small metal objects, but will not detect plastics or liquids – the core components of the Christmas bomb. Patting a person down, particularly when it becomes a routine, is also unlikely to detect liquids in small quantities. The substance of the bomb was just three ounces of a dry powder distributed in the front of a pair of underpants. The “trigger” was a liquid held in a plastic syringe.
The measures now in place show that the response to a threat is to increase the extent of theatre in the hope that the show of deterrence will be sufficient to deter terrorists. The evidence is that the terrorists just get smarter.
There are a growing number of voices that say that the real answer here is to start profiling likely terrorists and make more effective such measures as “no fly lists” developed on the basis of profiling or past convictions. Those concerned with civil liberties will challenge such profiling as an infringement of human rights – as they are already arguing with respect to the full body scanners. The trade off’s here are best calculated in terms of preventing terrorism and enabling appropriate and efficient access to air travel.
Most security measures in place at airports are about appearances, not about the reality of preventing terrorism: the bomber passed through security at a major airport and was on a no-fly list.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Noble Causes, Science and Public Policy
(This blog post is written following a reading of Science and Public Policy – The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science by Aynsely Kellow, published by Edward Elgar in 2007. I strongly recommend this book. The arguments below are largely based on it).
Some of the claims made by respected scientists with respect to the environment and climate change will, with the benefit of hindsight, look ridiculous. Let us just cite one example from amongst many. Sir David King, former Chief Scientist for the UK Government, said in 2004 that “Antarctica is likely to be the only habitable continent by the end of the century”.
What leads these scientists to make such claims is the increasing reliance, especially in the environmental sciences and climatology, on computer simulations largely based on scenarios. Given that randomized control trials of environmental change or climate change are not possible, researchers have moved increasingly to simulators and models which depend for their data not on observations, though some are used in the building of models, but on assumptions. Such models now dominant some branches of science and their results, as opposed to the results of direct observation are seen as ``superior``. One example of this is the preference for the models which show continuous global warming in this century, whereas the direct observations suggest that the global temperature has been cooling for some time.
E.O Wilson’s biodiversity loss assumption, which newspapers escalate routinely as indicating a loss of between 50,000 and 100,000 species each year, is another example of the model being seen as preferable to actual data. Wilson has claimed that some 27,000 species are lost each year. The claim is based on a simple mathematical equation, not observation. The equation looks at the probability of biodiversity within a geographic area and then makes assumptions about what will happen in that area if its character of that area is changed (e.g. through deforestation or flooding) and what species may survive and which will not. It is a scenario, not a prediction and certainly not a fact. Direct observations of actual locations suggest that species loss is less than three species, not accounting for the hundreds of new species found each year.
Computer models are complex. They rely for their veracity on equations which show the relationships between variables, generally driven by regression and multi-dimensional scaling. Such equations in turn depend on interpretation of a theory – a theory of the relationship, for example, between the sun, sun spots, clouds, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, the tilt of the planet, ocean currents, the effective of the oceans as heat and CO2 sinks, the impact of volcano’s and so on. Only when these equations are built and the relationships between the variables established following a theory does actual data come into play.
These data often have to be manipulated to take into account a variety of concerns – partial data is manipulated to gain completeness, data sets are adjusted for errors in both collection and transcription, outliers are often excluded and so on. In climate science, for example, actual temperature measurements are adjusted to take into account the location of the thermometers which measure temperature. Such adjustment involves decisions about what is expected, which are in turn influenced by assumptions.
One of the ways in which those building models verify their model and its veracity is not by comparing its output to observed data – for example, comparing the scenarios developed in the IPCC assessment reports which what then actually happens – but by comparing the output of one computer model with that of another computer model. This is rather like comparing two computer simulated basket ball games between the Lakers and the Bulls and then and determining who really won as opposed to comparing a computer simulation of this game with a real game between the two teams. Part of the reason this is done is that computer models of climate, for example, have yet to accurately simulate actual events.
Let us take an actual example. Computer models of global climate are used to develop a scenario for deaths from disease – as the planet warms, the theory goes, so diseases normally associated with extreme weather events increase. This leads the World Health Organization to claim that there are already 160,000 deaths each year directly because of global warming – the figure coming from a computer simulation and the counting of all extreme weather events as being due to global warming. The actual evidence is that deaths from extreme weather events has declined as the planet has warmed – 73,700 in the period 1970-79 and 42,200 in the period 1995-2004.
What leads scientists to make such claims and predictions? There are several different explanations, none of which question the beliefs or conviction of the scientists concerned. They all focus on the corruption of science as a process in favour of science as a tool in the pursuit of a noble cause.
Noble cause corruption is a standard topic in the philosophy of science. The idea is simple. The cause is seen by those who support the cause as vitally important and one that society needs to act on – a failure to do so could, in the view of supporters, have serious consequences. Every tool – the media, political influence, film and television, investment etc – should be harnessed to support the cause so that action is taken. Science is one of the tools.
This view of science as a tool in the service of a noble cause is not, then, new. It is fundamentally a Marxist view of science as an instrument of ideology. It is a view advocated by Feyerabend, an anarchist philosopher of science writing in the late decades of the last century. Feyerabend sanctioned the introduction of theories that are inconsistent with well-established facts if they lead to an advancement of social understanding or a noble cause. Feyerabend also advocated that science should be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people – something we see now in action at the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change whose Summary for Policy Makers is written by lay people on the advice of some selected scientists, sometimes containing information and texts written over the objections of those scientists.
The idea that science is “poetic inventiveness that is story telling or myth making – the invention of stories about the world” in pursuit of a noble cause, as Sir Karl Popper observed, is not new, but has achieved a remarkable poignancy in our current politics. Though not new, it is now very problematic. Proposals are being made, “based on the science”, that will fundamentally change the developed world through decarbonising the means of production – essentially, the government will seize control of the means of production through its regulation of carbon dioxide – is the noble cause done in the name of saving mankind from him or herself.
Governments claim that there is a scientific consensus, when there clearly is not – look at the disputes in the scientific literature and the work of the Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change. They claim that 4,000 scientists endorsed the IPCC fourth assessment in 2007, when only some 2,000 scientists were involved in that assessment, with only 20% of these (around 400 persons) “deal” or had some connection with climate science – meaning that most did not. They claim that sceptics are the mouthpieces of the oil industry, when many of the IPCC scientists have also benefited from oil grants and cash or grants from parties with vested interests.
Further, while a large group of scientist may support a particular view of some matter in science, it does not make them right. A large group of scientists were wrong about the geological formation of continents, about the human papilloma virus (HPV) and its links to cancer and may well be wrong about the nature of multiple sclerosis. Science is not about consensus; it is about evidence and theory – always subject to falsification.
It is time for us to restore some balance into the scientific study of climate and the environment, to fund science differently and to challenge the role played by the gatekeepers of science. Science is itself under threat.
Some of the claims made by respected scientists with respect to the environment and climate change will, with the benefit of hindsight, look ridiculous. Let us just cite one example from amongst many. Sir David King, former Chief Scientist for the UK Government, said in 2004 that “Antarctica is likely to be the only habitable continent by the end of the century”.
What leads these scientists to make such claims is the increasing reliance, especially in the environmental sciences and climatology, on computer simulations largely based on scenarios. Given that randomized control trials of environmental change or climate change are not possible, researchers have moved increasingly to simulators and models which depend for their data not on observations, though some are used in the building of models, but on assumptions. Such models now dominant some branches of science and their results, as opposed to the results of direct observation are seen as ``superior``. One example of this is the preference for the models which show continuous global warming in this century, whereas the direct observations suggest that the global temperature has been cooling for some time.
E.O Wilson’s biodiversity loss assumption, which newspapers escalate routinely as indicating a loss of between 50,000 and 100,000 species each year, is another example of the model being seen as preferable to actual data. Wilson has claimed that some 27,000 species are lost each year. The claim is based on a simple mathematical equation, not observation. The equation looks at the probability of biodiversity within a geographic area and then makes assumptions about what will happen in that area if its character of that area is changed (e.g. through deforestation or flooding) and what species may survive and which will not. It is a scenario, not a prediction and certainly not a fact. Direct observations of actual locations suggest that species loss is less than three species, not accounting for the hundreds of new species found each year.
Computer models are complex. They rely for their veracity on equations which show the relationships between variables, generally driven by regression and multi-dimensional scaling. Such equations in turn depend on interpretation of a theory – a theory of the relationship, for example, between the sun, sun spots, clouds, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, the tilt of the planet, ocean currents, the effective of the oceans as heat and CO2 sinks, the impact of volcano’s and so on. Only when these equations are built and the relationships between the variables established following a theory does actual data come into play.
These data often have to be manipulated to take into account a variety of concerns – partial data is manipulated to gain completeness, data sets are adjusted for errors in both collection and transcription, outliers are often excluded and so on. In climate science, for example, actual temperature measurements are adjusted to take into account the location of the thermometers which measure temperature. Such adjustment involves decisions about what is expected, which are in turn influenced by assumptions.
One of the ways in which those building models verify their model and its veracity is not by comparing its output to observed data – for example, comparing the scenarios developed in the IPCC assessment reports which what then actually happens – but by comparing the output of one computer model with that of another computer model. This is rather like comparing two computer simulated basket ball games between the Lakers and the Bulls and then and determining who really won as opposed to comparing a computer simulation of this game with a real game between the two teams. Part of the reason this is done is that computer models of climate, for example, have yet to accurately simulate actual events.
Let us take an actual example. Computer models of global climate are used to develop a scenario for deaths from disease – as the planet warms, the theory goes, so diseases normally associated with extreme weather events increase. This leads the World Health Organization to claim that there are already 160,000 deaths each year directly because of global warming – the figure coming from a computer simulation and the counting of all extreme weather events as being due to global warming. The actual evidence is that deaths from extreme weather events has declined as the planet has warmed – 73,700 in the period 1970-79 and 42,200 in the period 1995-2004.
What leads scientists to make such claims and predictions? There are several different explanations, none of which question the beliefs or conviction of the scientists concerned. They all focus on the corruption of science as a process in favour of science as a tool in the pursuit of a noble cause.
Noble cause corruption is a standard topic in the philosophy of science. The idea is simple. The cause is seen by those who support the cause as vitally important and one that society needs to act on – a failure to do so could, in the view of supporters, have serious consequences. Every tool – the media, political influence, film and television, investment etc – should be harnessed to support the cause so that action is taken. Science is one of the tools.
This view of science as a tool in the service of a noble cause is not, then, new. It is fundamentally a Marxist view of science as an instrument of ideology. It is a view advocated by Feyerabend, an anarchist philosopher of science writing in the late decades of the last century. Feyerabend sanctioned the introduction of theories that are inconsistent with well-established facts if they lead to an advancement of social understanding or a noble cause. Feyerabend also advocated that science should be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people – something we see now in action at the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change whose Summary for Policy Makers is written by lay people on the advice of some selected scientists, sometimes containing information and texts written over the objections of those scientists.
The idea that science is “poetic inventiveness that is story telling or myth making – the invention of stories about the world” in pursuit of a noble cause, as Sir Karl Popper observed, is not new, but has achieved a remarkable poignancy in our current politics. Though not new, it is now very problematic. Proposals are being made, “based on the science”, that will fundamentally change the developed world through decarbonising the means of production – essentially, the government will seize control of the means of production through its regulation of carbon dioxide – is the noble cause done in the name of saving mankind from him or herself.
Governments claim that there is a scientific consensus, when there clearly is not – look at the disputes in the scientific literature and the work of the Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change. They claim that 4,000 scientists endorsed the IPCC fourth assessment in 2007, when only some 2,000 scientists were involved in that assessment, with only 20% of these (around 400 persons) “deal” or had some connection with climate science – meaning that most did not. They claim that sceptics are the mouthpieces of the oil industry, when many of the IPCC scientists have also benefited from oil grants and cash or grants from parties with vested interests.
Further, while a large group of scientist may support a particular view of some matter in science, it does not make them right. A large group of scientists were wrong about the geological formation of continents, about the human papilloma virus (HPV) and its links to cancer and may well be wrong about the nature of multiple sclerosis. Science is not about consensus; it is about evidence and theory – always subject to falsification.
It is time for us to restore some balance into the scientific study of climate and the environment, to fund science differently and to challenge the role played by the gatekeepers of science. Science is itself under threat.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Gordon Brown's New Years Wish
Gordon Brown, now in the last three months of his tenure as Prime Minister of Great Britain, is doing something remarkable. He is narrowing the gap between him and his political rival – David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party. Commentators now generally talk of a “hung parliament” in which neither the Labour nor Conservative parties have a majority. The general election, according to most pundits, will likely be in March and must occur before the end of May.
The latest opinion polls, which just last April showed close to a twenty point lead for the Conservatives, are now showing just a nine point Conservative lead with Labour gaining some momentum. Given the way seats are distributed and the massive majority Labour currently has, nine points will not be enough to unseat the Government. Gordon Brown’s New Years wish will be to get this poll difference down to five or six points, closer to the margin of error in polling.
The British House of Commons has 646 seats, with the Conservative Party currently holding just 193. Some 94 seats belong to third parties – Liberal Democrats, Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, Irish independents and others. To win, David Cameron has to secure an additional 128 seats – something that requires a massive swing away from Labour to the Conservatives and a reasonable turn-out at the polls. At the 2005 election Conservatives polled only three percentage points less of the vote than Labour did, but their tally of seats was 157 smaller.
A hung parliament causes an interesting constitutional challenge for the Queen. She has to decide who to call as her Prime Minister. By convention, she would seek a continuation of the present Government until such time as it became clear that the Prime Minister no longer could rely upon the support of the House. At this point, she would then offer the position to whoever could command the largest sustainable support from the other parties in the House of Commons. Given the momentum Cameron and the Conservatives would have created to create a hung parliament, some sort of coalition to sustain a minority government would likely occur.
Over the last 100 years, some 34 years have involved coalition or minority rule. If anything, the multiple-term governments of the Tories throughout the 80s and 90s and Labour in the 90s and 2000s have led us to forget this fact. Coalitions are also commonplace throughout Europe. In Britain, hung parliaments tend to be short-lived and contentious. We may have more than one election in 2010.
The crucial factor in determining the election outcome will be electoral turn-out. Some are suggesting that, disaffection with the politicians following expense scandals, the over use of half-truths in explaining various policies and events, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all may lead to a high turn-out representing voter disapproval for the work of the current government. Others, pointing to these same factors, suggest that the turn-out will be very low showing voter disaffection with politics in general and politicians in particular. A low turnout generally favours the Conservatives, but, such an advantage will not be enough to secure an overall Conservative victory. Large turn-outs have traditionally favoured Labour, but there have been occasions when turnout was high and Labour lost. History tells us, however, that voter turnout is higher when the result of the election is in doubt – people feel that their vote may actually count for something.
A large number of MPs - some one hundred and nineteen in total, with seventy six Labour MP’s amongst them - are retiring. This is the largest number to retire since 1945 and the list includes many former cabinet Ministers and prominent politicians who had strong personal following in their constituencies. The list includes well known characters like Bob Marshall Andrews, Clare Short, John Prescott, Ruth Kelly and Anne Widdecombe. This may “free” voters who supported the individual rather than the party they stood for and give them “permission” vote differently in the election.
The issues in the election are clear. There are four. First , the need for a restoration of trust in the political process and politicians, lost during the lead up to the Iraq war and extended by the expenses scandal – Briton’s now are rightly questioning the way politicians think, act and understand their role. Second, the economy and the need for Britain to move out of recession, reduce unemployment and lower government debt. Third, the Iraq and Afghan wars are seen as costly in terms of lives and unnecessary in terms of purpose – Britons want Britain out of these wars. The final issue is less tangible – it is about restoring the pride people have in being British and championing Britain. There is a sense of “loss” of identity taking place which many are anxious about – politicians need to address this.
There are dangers lurking in the election. The most significant being the British National Party (BNP). This neo-Nazi party has had some electoral success with two members elected in by-elections in 2009. The election of these two MP’s, which is largely related to the British identity issue, shocked many and has given serious cause for alarm. These xenophobic nationalist are promoting policies of hate and isolationism which many find offensive, yet others see them as “standing up for being British”. The chattering classes do not quite know what to do about the BNP. It is possible that they will gain ground, especially if turnout is high.
It will be an interesting time between now and election night. Gordon Brown will be in his element as a street fighter, ideologue and spin-master. His New Years wish of more favourable polling may come true, but the election is the ultimate poll and he is still likely not to be Prime Minister come June.
The latest opinion polls, which just last April showed close to a twenty point lead for the Conservatives, are now showing just a nine point Conservative lead with Labour gaining some momentum. Given the way seats are distributed and the massive majority Labour currently has, nine points will not be enough to unseat the Government. Gordon Brown’s New Years wish will be to get this poll difference down to five or six points, closer to the margin of error in polling.
The British House of Commons has 646 seats, with the Conservative Party currently holding just 193. Some 94 seats belong to third parties – Liberal Democrats, Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, Irish independents and others. To win, David Cameron has to secure an additional 128 seats – something that requires a massive swing away from Labour to the Conservatives and a reasonable turn-out at the polls. At the 2005 election Conservatives polled only three percentage points less of the vote than Labour did, but their tally of seats was 157 smaller.
A hung parliament causes an interesting constitutional challenge for the Queen. She has to decide who to call as her Prime Minister. By convention, she would seek a continuation of the present Government until such time as it became clear that the Prime Minister no longer could rely upon the support of the House. At this point, she would then offer the position to whoever could command the largest sustainable support from the other parties in the House of Commons. Given the momentum Cameron and the Conservatives would have created to create a hung parliament, some sort of coalition to sustain a minority government would likely occur.
Over the last 100 years, some 34 years have involved coalition or minority rule. If anything, the multiple-term governments of the Tories throughout the 80s and 90s and Labour in the 90s and 2000s have led us to forget this fact. Coalitions are also commonplace throughout Europe. In Britain, hung parliaments tend to be short-lived and contentious. We may have more than one election in 2010.
The crucial factor in determining the election outcome will be electoral turn-out. Some are suggesting that, disaffection with the politicians following expense scandals, the over use of half-truths in explaining various policies and events, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all may lead to a high turn-out representing voter disapproval for the work of the current government. Others, pointing to these same factors, suggest that the turn-out will be very low showing voter disaffection with politics in general and politicians in particular. A low turnout generally favours the Conservatives, but, such an advantage will not be enough to secure an overall Conservative victory. Large turn-outs have traditionally favoured Labour, but there have been occasions when turnout was high and Labour lost. History tells us, however, that voter turnout is higher when the result of the election is in doubt – people feel that their vote may actually count for something.
A large number of MPs - some one hundred and nineteen in total, with seventy six Labour MP’s amongst them - are retiring. This is the largest number to retire since 1945 and the list includes many former cabinet Ministers and prominent politicians who had strong personal following in their constituencies. The list includes well known characters like Bob Marshall Andrews, Clare Short, John Prescott, Ruth Kelly and Anne Widdecombe. This may “free” voters who supported the individual rather than the party they stood for and give them “permission” vote differently in the election.
The issues in the election are clear. There are four. First , the need for a restoration of trust in the political process and politicians, lost during the lead up to the Iraq war and extended by the expenses scandal – Briton’s now are rightly questioning the way politicians think, act and understand their role. Second, the economy and the need for Britain to move out of recession, reduce unemployment and lower government debt. Third, the Iraq and Afghan wars are seen as costly in terms of lives and unnecessary in terms of purpose – Britons want Britain out of these wars. The final issue is less tangible – it is about restoring the pride people have in being British and championing Britain. There is a sense of “loss” of identity taking place which many are anxious about – politicians need to address this.
There are dangers lurking in the election. The most significant being the British National Party (BNP). This neo-Nazi party has had some electoral success with two members elected in by-elections in 2009. The election of these two MP’s, which is largely related to the British identity issue, shocked many and has given serious cause for alarm. These xenophobic nationalist are promoting policies of hate and isolationism which many find offensive, yet others see them as “standing up for being British”. The chattering classes do not quite know what to do about the BNP. It is possible that they will gain ground, especially if turnout is high.
It will be an interesting time between now and election night. Gordon Brown will be in his element as a street fighter, ideologue and spin-master. His New Years wish of more favourable polling may come true, but the election is the ultimate poll and he is still likely not to be Prime Minister come June.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Canada to Lead on Climate Change - Whether it Wants to or Not
The one thing we can learn from the Copenhagen debacle is that the UN process for securing global alignment around climate change is dead, though attempts at resuscitation will occur twice in 2010 – death can be denied.
Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, recognizes this and is seeking a new form of global government to deal with climate change. He is looking at the newly invigorated G20 as a means for achieving this. This means Canada holds the torch for the future of the planet.
What should the G20 meeting focus on? The first thing it can do is end the work of the IPCC. The revelations of the ties its Chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has to business interests and the Climategate scandal all now point to it being a corrupted organization. It is also deceptive – claiming that there is a consensus in “the science”, when in fact there is not. It is also deceptive in that it chooses to ignore actual measurement in preference to computer models, since the latter present gloomy scenarios which then encourage governments to act. Just as the Stern economic analysis of the costs of climate change mitigation was a political document written to enable specific political action, so the IPCC is now a political lobby group which ensures that the “science” confirms to the politically correct position with respect to the science of climate change.
The second thing it can do is to recognize reality. Developed nations, including the US, Britain, Canada and the rest of the EU are not going to cut emissions by anything like the numbers either they suggest or the “science” demands. For example, Brown’s offer to cut UK emissions by 42% by 2020 (just ten years from now) is simply nonsense. The “warmist” science suggests that a cut of 40% by 2020 and 90% by 2050 is needed to stand a fifty-fifty chance of holding temperature gain down to 2C – requiring a massive reinvention of the world’s economy. Its not going to happen, period. While reducing emissions may well be desirable, the 18% cuts currently on the table will not stop climate change but will have significant economic consequences – higher energy and food prices, slowing down economic growth and creating massive need for subsidy for energy systems leading eventually to higher taxation.
The US and Canada have this right – reduce emissions as best one can while protecting economic growth. A 4-5% cut in emissions on 1990 levels is do-able and meaningful, especially if followed by other reductions once appropriate technologies become available.
That’s the third thing the G20 should do: focus much more energy and resources on technology development and technology transfer. The real task is to develop technologies which, by their nature, use less fossil fuels for energy generation and distribution, transport and economic activity. Accelerating the development of the hydrogen economy, looking at new sources of renewable energy, accelerating the adoption of regulation which requires CO2 capture and storage, carbon taxation to fund technology investment – all mechanisms which could reduce emissions in pace with the emergence of effective technological alternatives. Adaptation is a more productive strategy than emissions reduction targets – something Canada has been advocating for years.
The fourth thing that the G20 can do is to spend time thinking about how technologies developed in the developed world can quickly, effectively and economically be transferred to the developing world. This requires a technology transfer strategy of Marshall Plan proportions as well as a liberation of intellectual property regimes, which currently make such transfer expensive. It requires money and a systematic approach – it will not occur by happenstance.
The final thing that the G20 can do is to stop thinking about “reparations” due to the developing world and link any funding to these emerging economies to verifiable installations of technology. Giving money to Africa is a proven method for guaranteeing corruption – just ask Robert Mugabe. Better to link funding to technology adaption, installation and utilization than to simply measure CO2.
Canada has an opportunity to change the focus for the climate change conversation at the G20 in the summer of 2010. It needs to start positioning this thinking now if it is to be truly influential in redirecting the energies of the parties during the year.
Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, recognizes this and is seeking a new form of global government to deal with climate change. He is looking at the newly invigorated G20 as a means for achieving this. This means Canada holds the torch for the future of the planet.
What should the G20 meeting focus on? The first thing it can do is end the work of the IPCC. The revelations of the ties its Chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has to business interests and the Climategate scandal all now point to it being a corrupted organization. It is also deceptive – claiming that there is a consensus in “the science”, when in fact there is not. It is also deceptive in that it chooses to ignore actual measurement in preference to computer models, since the latter present gloomy scenarios which then encourage governments to act. Just as the Stern economic analysis of the costs of climate change mitigation was a political document written to enable specific political action, so the IPCC is now a political lobby group which ensures that the “science” confirms to the politically correct position with respect to the science of climate change.
The second thing it can do is to recognize reality. Developed nations, including the US, Britain, Canada and the rest of the EU are not going to cut emissions by anything like the numbers either they suggest or the “science” demands. For example, Brown’s offer to cut UK emissions by 42% by 2020 (just ten years from now) is simply nonsense. The “warmist” science suggests that a cut of 40% by 2020 and 90% by 2050 is needed to stand a fifty-fifty chance of holding temperature gain down to 2C – requiring a massive reinvention of the world’s economy. Its not going to happen, period. While reducing emissions may well be desirable, the 18% cuts currently on the table will not stop climate change but will have significant economic consequences – higher energy and food prices, slowing down economic growth and creating massive need for subsidy for energy systems leading eventually to higher taxation.
The US and Canada have this right – reduce emissions as best one can while protecting economic growth. A 4-5% cut in emissions on 1990 levels is do-able and meaningful, especially if followed by other reductions once appropriate technologies become available.
That’s the third thing the G20 should do: focus much more energy and resources on technology development and technology transfer. The real task is to develop technologies which, by their nature, use less fossil fuels for energy generation and distribution, transport and economic activity. Accelerating the development of the hydrogen economy, looking at new sources of renewable energy, accelerating the adoption of regulation which requires CO2 capture and storage, carbon taxation to fund technology investment – all mechanisms which could reduce emissions in pace with the emergence of effective technological alternatives. Adaptation is a more productive strategy than emissions reduction targets – something Canada has been advocating for years.
The fourth thing that the G20 can do is to spend time thinking about how technologies developed in the developed world can quickly, effectively and economically be transferred to the developing world. This requires a technology transfer strategy of Marshall Plan proportions as well as a liberation of intellectual property regimes, which currently make such transfer expensive. It requires money and a systematic approach – it will not occur by happenstance.
The final thing that the G20 can do is to stop thinking about “reparations” due to the developing world and link any funding to these emerging economies to verifiable installations of technology. Giving money to Africa is a proven method for guaranteeing corruption – just ask Robert Mugabe. Better to link funding to technology adaption, installation and utilization than to simply measure CO2.
Canada has an opportunity to change the focus for the climate change conversation at the G20 in the summer of 2010. It needs to start positioning this thinking now if it is to be truly influential in redirecting the energies of the parties during the year.
Got a Light?
CBC News has found that in some cases compact fluorescent bulbs (C.F.L.s) can have the adverse effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, depending on how consumers heat their homes.
Physics professor Peter Blunden at the University of Manitoba said C.F.L. bulbs are certainly more energy efficient than older incandescent bulbs.
But in cold-weather climates such as Canada’s, Blunden said older incandescent bulbs do more than just light our homes. During the long winter months, they also generate heat. The new C.F.L. bulbs, on the other hand, produce minimal heat so the loss has to be made up by fossil-fuel burning gas, oil or wood to heat your home.
“To some extent, the case [in favor of C.F.L.s] has been oversold” because of the offset in higher heating costs, he said.
Physics professor Peter Blunden at the University of Manitoba said C.F.L. bulbs are certainly more energy efficient than older incandescent bulbs.
But in cold-weather climates such as Canada’s, Blunden said older incandescent bulbs do more than just light our homes. During the long winter months, they also generate heat. The new C.F.L. bulbs, on the other hand, produce minimal heat so the loss has to be made up by fossil-fuel burning gas, oil or wood to heat your home.
“To some extent, the case [in favor of C.F.L.s] has been oversold” because of the offset in higher heating costs, he said.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
A New Approach to Climate Change Negotiations
Just six months ago, the Copenhagen Climate Change summit was being regarded as a key moment in history – the moment when world leaders would sign up to a new agreement which would begin the seriois work of reducing CO2 emissions and decarbonizing the global economy. Phrases like “a tipping point” and “a pivotal moment for mankinf” were commonly used to refer to the summit.
Noting that Copenhagen was meant to be the final stage of a two year process and that there had been many meetimgs of the parties in the two year negotiating period, the design of the Copenhagen process was intended to finalize a document, develop action plans and have world leaders sign up to the commitments made by their negotiators on the last day. The design was predicated on the idea, developed by the Danish hosts, that there was already alignment on the key principles, and a draft agreement was submitted early in the proceedings.
It soon became clear that it was a disaster. Of the two hundred and ten statements in the draft agreement, one hundred and ninety two were in dispute by the third day of the summit. After this, thing got worse rather than better. Unlike other summits, the G20 nations found that they were no longer in control of the agenda or the process. African states, small island states and the least developed countries stood up for themselves and challenged the basics of the agreement. They refused to be brow beated by powerful nations – they stood their ground. At one point, five competing draft agreements were ciculating and different factions were in or out of the process. Many seasoned journalists covering the summit made clear that they had never seen anything like it – chaos, confusion, despair.
At the end of the summit, amid more shambles and discord, the summit ended without an agreement. The agreement now been spun by some is in fact an agreement between five of the one hundred and ninety two nations present at the summit. These five nations – the worlds biggest polluters and South Africa – see the agreement as a statement of intent. It is not binding, not enforecable and has many conditions attached. The summit itself chose to note it rather than reject it – there was no possibility of acceptance.
So what now? As far as the UN is concerned, it is busy organizing the next summit for Mexico in December 2010. They will try again to secure an agreement on CO2 emission reductions, funds for developing nations, technology transfer and intellectual property and the verification and governance mechanisms required to enforce what they hope will be a legally binding agreement. Talks have failed, so let us have more talks is the mantra.
Others, like Bjorn Lomberg, the skeptial environmentalist, are suggesting that its is time to change the fundamental focus for negotiations. Rather than focus on a global, legally binding agreement on CO2 emisisions, he suggests that the focus should be on technology and mitigation efforts. Rather than live out the fantasy of “stopping climate change”, we should instead focus at the international level on dealing with the effects of climate change, whileat the same time reducing emissions through national and bilateral agreements. He is not saying “don’t cut emissions”, but rather he is promoting the idea that climate change is something that has to be managed through investments in innovative technology and adaptation.
This is an unpopular view, sincemany have bought the fantasy that action now can stop climate change. The religious belief in CO2 reduction as mankinds only chocie is now invested in so heavily, in more ways than one, that shifting the basis for the conversation is politically and economically difficult. Nonethless, it is what it needs to happen if the world is to make progress.
Noting that Copenhagen was meant to be the final stage of a two year process and that there had been many meetimgs of the parties in the two year negotiating period, the design of the Copenhagen process was intended to finalize a document, develop action plans and have world leaders sign up to the commitments made by their negotiators on the last day. The design was predicated on the idea, developed by the Danish hosts, that there was already alignment on the key principles, and a draft agreement was submitted early in the proceedings.
It soon became clear that it was a disaster. Of the two hundred and ten statements in the draft agreement, one hundred and ninety two were in dispute by the third day of the summit. After this, thing got worse rather than better. Unlike other summits, the G20 nations found that they were no longer in control of the agenda or the process. African states, small island states and the least developed countries stood up for themselves and challenged the basics of the agreement. They refused to be brow beated by powerful nations – they stood their ground. At one point, five competing draft agreements were ciculating and different factions were in or out of the process. Many seasoned journalists covering the summit made clear that they had never seen anything like it – chaos, confusion, despair.
At the end of the summit, amid more shambles and discord, the summit ended without an agreement. The agreement now been spun by some is in fact an agreement between five of the one hundred and ninety two nations present at the summit. These five nations – the worlds biggest polluters and South Africa – see the agreement as a statement of intent. It is not binding, not enforecable and has many conditions attached. The summit itself chose to note it rather than reject it – there was no possibility of acceptance.
So what now? As far as the UN is concerned, it is busy organizing the next summit for Mexico in December 2010. They will try again to secure an agreement on CO2 emission reductions, funds for developing nations, technology transfer and intellectual property and the verification and governance mechanisms required to enforce what they hope will be a legally binding agreement. Talks have failed, so let us have more talks is the mantra.
Others, like Bjorn Lomberg, the skeptial environmentalist, are suggesting that its is time to change the fundamental focus for negotiations. Rather than focus on a global, legally binding agreement on CO2 emisisions, he suggests that the focus should be on technology and mitigation efforts. Rather than live out the fantasy of “stopping climate change”, we should instead focus at the international level on dealing with the effects of climate change, whileat the same time reducing emissions through national and bilateral agreements. He is not saying “don’t cut emissions”, but rather he is promoting the idea that climate change is something that has to be managed through investments in innovative technology and adaptation.
This is an unpopular view, sincemany have bought the fantasy that action now can stop climate change. The religious belief in CO2 reduction as mankinds only chocie is now invested in so heavily, in more ways than one, that shifting the basis for the conversation is politically and economically difficult. Nonethless, it is what it needs to happen if the world is to make progress.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
No Deal at Copenhagen
You will read that an accord has been reached at Copenhagen and will hear President Obama, Gordon Brown and others say that “it is an important step, but there is more to do”. Don’t believe them.
After a long gruelling session lasting until the early hours of the morning, the UN Conference of the Parties meeting in Copenhagen simply “noted” the accord reached by several countries (US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa), with many countries deciding to reject it outright. There is no deal at Copenhagen.
Obama’s intervention has lowered the bar, stalled real development and made securing a deal more difficult. The accord reached by the five nations is not legally binding, sets no targets for emissions, allows India and China to increase their CO2 emissions, lets the US “off the hook” with a 3-4% cut in emissions on 1990 levels, weakens commitments previously made to transparency and verification of CO2 emissions reductions and commits some modest funds to developing countries ($10 billion a year from 2010) and suggests that, if there is a global agreement on binding emissions reductions, developing nations will seek (not offer or guarantee) funding of $100 billion annually to developing nations.
The five nations also committed to developing their national plans for emissions reduction such that the planet will not warm above 2C. This is also meaningless is the absence of a global agreement. It is also flying in the face of the G77 countries demand that the target be set at 1.5C, though the agreement indicated that the overall target will be reviewed again in 2016 when all of the signatories to yesterdays accord will be out of office.
The conference rejected a proposal to dramatically reduce deforestation in exchange for significant funding, following objections from countries which practice deforestation. This effectively killed the only positive development from the Copenhagen Summit which was a comprehensive and focused approach to sustainable forestry worldwide.
There will be another summit in 2010 in Mexico. While many thought that the date of this conference of the parties (the third in this round of talks) would be brought forward, no such plan has been announced.
The spin being given to this accord is remarkable. One would think something truly important had just happened, especially if one listened to Gordon Brown. Following an absurd offer that Britain would cut emissions by 42% by 2020 – an offer backed by no plan, no funds and no political will – Brown is now claiming a great deal of the credit for securing the accord in Copenhagen. When serious commentators and analysts start taking the deal to pieces, as they are now doing, he may want to distance himself rather than attach himself to the accord. It is so seriously flawed and means nothing in terms of climate change that it will come back to bite him. The Daily Express is already labelling the British Prime Minister a “climate change nut”.
Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, played his cards smartly. He was on hand, part of the final stages of the negotiations, not visible when the accord was announced and got back to Canada as quickly as possible. He will not be tainted by Copenhagen. While Canada is often accused of stalling and blocking negotiations, he at least was not a signatory to an accord which will come to be seen as a nonsense.
Some fifteen thousand delegates from over one hundred and ninety countries spent twelve long days together and we got nothing. This was their third meeting. It is time for a completely different approach to this issue. Holding another meeting in Mexico to get nowhere makes no sense, unless these meetings represent the ultimate foil for permitting business as usual, which is exactly what the accord reached by the five nations in Copenhagen permits the world to do.
After a long gruelling session lasting until the early hours of the morning, the UN Conference of the Parties meeting in Copenhagen simply “noted” the accord reached by several countries (US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa), with many countries deciding to reject it outright. There is no deal at Copenhagen.
Obama’s intervention has lowered the bar, stalled real development and made securing a deal more difficult. The accord reached by the five nations is not legally binding, sets no targets for emissions, allows India and China to increase their CO2 emissions, lets the US “off the hook” with a 3-4% cut in emissions on 1990 levels, weakens commitments previously made to transparency and verification of CO2 emissions reductions and commits some modest funds to developing countries ($10 billion a year from 2010) and suggests that, if there is a global agreement on binding emissions reductions, developing nations will seek (not offer or guarantee) funding of $100 billion annually to developing nations.
The five nations also committed to developing their national plans for emissions reduction such that the planet will not warm above 2C. This is also meaningless is the absence of a global agreement. It is also flying in the face of the G77 countries demand that the target be set at 1.5C, though the agreement indicated that the overall target will be reviewed again in 2016 when all of the signatories to yesterdays accord will be out of office.
The conference rejected a proposal to dramatically reduce deforestation in exchange for significant funding, following objections from countries which practice deforestation. This effectively killed the only positive development from the Copenhagen Summit which was a comprehensive and focused approach to sustainable forestry worldwide.
There will be another summit in 2010 in Mexico. While many thought that the date of this conference of the parties (the third in this round of talks) would be brought forward, no such plan has been announced.
The spin being given to this accord is remarkable. One would think something truly important had just happened, especially if one listened to Gordon Brown. Following an absurd offer that Britain would cut emissions by 42% by 2020 – an offer backed by no plan, no funds and no political will – Brown is now claiming a great deal of the credit for securing the accord in Copenhagen. When serious commentators and analysts start taking the deal to pieces, as they are now doing, he may want to distance himself rather than attach himself to the accord. It is so seriously flawed and means nothing in terms of climate change that it will come back to bite him. The Daily Express is already labelling the British Prime Minister a “climate change nut”.
Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, played his cards smartly. He was on hand, part of the final stages of the negotiations, not visible when the accord was announced and got back to Canada as quickly as possible. He will not be tainted by Copenhagen. While Canada is often accused of stalling and blocking negotiations, he at least was not a signatory to an accord which will come to be seen as a nonsense.
Some fifteen thousand delegates from over one hundred and ninety countries spent twelve long days together and we got nothing. This was their third meeting. It is time for a completely different approach to this issue. Holding another meeting in Mexico to get nowhere makes no sense, unless these meetings represent the ultimate foil for permitting business as usual, which is exactly what the accord reached by the five nations in Copenhagen permits the world to do.
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Copenhagen Debacle
President Obama, working with Gordon Brown and a collection of some twenty three other leaders, are working on a binding political agreement at Copenhagen.
Just pause for a moment and ask: what is a binding a political agreement? It is an agreement that is binding until the parties return home from Copenhagen. There is no such thing as a political agreement that people are bound to – ask Joe Lieberman or Jack Leighton. This is just one of the imaginative post-modern political rhetorical flourishes we are about to bear witness to.
Another is a repeat of the commitment, made by the G8, G20 and the Commonwealth, to hold the rise in global temperature to no more than 2C by the end of the century. This is already a problematic statement, since we are currently headed for 3.5C, according to a leaked briefing document from the UN, even after the 18% emissions reductions already committed to by nations attending the Copenhagen summit. Also problematic is that some one hundred and thirty nations have indicated that they will only sign up to a 1.5C commitment. Finally, such statements are only meaningful if there are significant, legally binding commitments to take specific action. No such statement is in the current draft document which Obama, Brown and others are trying to finalize.
The draft also includes the previously agreed proposal for industrialised countries to raise $10bn a year for three years to help poor countries adapt to climate change, between 2010 and 2012 and reaffirms the Clinton commitment to seek to raise $100bn a year by 2020. The document does not explain how this money will be raised, from whom, with what complete set of conditions and whether the $100 bn will be new money or existing money, repurposed for reparations and mitigation. Canada has already indicated that, while it will contribute, there will be no new funds.
There are no commitments in the draft document to any specific emissions targets – leaving it up to each country to determine its own path. The US, for example, will not sign up to a legally binding treaty which requires them to do anything on the emissions side. The US has committed to cut CO2 emissions by 3% on 1990 levels by 2020 – they were asked to commit to between 20% and 40% cuts. Obama may not even secure this modest cut in a bill in the Senate, which has postponed dealing with this issue until the spring or summer of 2010.
Also not clear is the mechanism for “transparency” (which just last week was being called verification). The document makes vague references to this requirement for accountability, presumably so as to create the wiggle room for China to sign up, even though they see any attempts at independent verification as a challenge to their sovereign rights to govern. What the document says is that developing countries should report on emissions reduction actions every two years, although other countries can ask for further evidence.
Environmental campaigners see all of this as a “nothing” agreement. There is nothing in this agreement that was not in existence before Copenhagen. Politicians know that this is pure chimera – seeking to create the illusion of something significant when in fact it is all fluff and mirrors. They will fly home later today and “spin” their achievement of a binding political agreement, which will unravel while they are in mid air. It is, in a word, a debacle.
(You can read the draft text here)
Just pause for a moment and ask: what is a binding a political agreement? It is an agreement that is binding until the parties return home from Copenhagen. There is no such thing as a political agreement that people are bound to – ask Joe Lieberman or Jack Leighton. This is just one of the imaginative post-modern political rhetorical flourishes we are about to bear witness to.
Another is a repeat of the commitment, made by the G8, G20 and the Commonwealth, to hold the rise in global temperature to no more than 2C by the end of the century. This is already a problematic statement, since we are currently headed for 3.5C, according to a leaked briefing document from the UN, even after the 18% emissions reductions already committed to by nations attending the Copenhagen summit. Also problematic is that some one hundred and thirty nations have indicated that they will only sign up to a 1.5C commitment. Finally, such statements are only meaningful if there are significant, legally binding commitments to take specific action. No such statement is in the current draft document which Obama, Brown and others are trying to finalize.
The draft also includes the previously agreed proposal for industrialised countries to raise $10bn a year for three years to help poor countries adapt to climate change, between 2010 and 2012 and reaffirms the Clinton commitment to seek to raise $100bn a year by 2020. The document does not explain how this money will be raised, from whom, with what complete set of conditions and whether the $100 bn will be new money or existing money, repurposed for reparations and mitigation. Canada has already indicated that, while it will contribute, there will be no new funds.
There are no commitments in the draft document to any specific emissions targets – leaving it up to each country to determine its own path. The US, for example, will not sign up to a legally binding treaty which requires them to do anything on the emissions side. The US has committed to cut CO2 emissions by 3% on 1990 levels by 2020 – they were asked to commit to between 20% and 40% cuts. Obama may not even secure this modest cut in a bill in the Senate, which has postponed dealing with this issue until the spring or summer of 2010.
Also not clear is the mechanism for “transparency” (which just last week was being called verification). The document makes vague references to this requirement for accountability, presumably so as to create the wiggle room for China to sign up, even though they see any attempts at independent verification as a challenge to their sovereign rights to govern. What the document says is that developing countries should report on emissions reduction actions every two years, although other countries can ask for further evidence.
Environmental campaigners see all of this as a “nothing” agreement. There is nothing in this agreement that was not in existence before Copenhagen. Politicians know that this is pure chimera – seeking to create the illusion of something significant when in fact it is all fluff and mirrors. They will fly home later today and “spin” their achievement of a binding political agreement, which will unravel while they are in mid air. It is, in a word, a debacle.
(You can read the draft text here)
Thursday, December 17, 2009
No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal
Algerian envoy Kamel Djemouai, who speaks for 53 African nations, expressed the views of many inside and outside the Copenhagen summit today when he said: "No deal is better than to have a bad deal, particularly for Africa”. But the pressure is on for something to be done so that the world leaders, now arriving in droves, can sign something tomorrow.
The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference of the Parties is the fifteenth such conference and the cumulation of two years of negotiations. These began in Bali in 2007, moved to Poland the following year and were supposed to culminate in Copenhagen. It now looks likely that many of the key issues will be postponed for further negotiations through the G8, G20 and then another negotiation in Mexico in six months time.
A small victory was won today by the developing nations. All along they have been arguing that what is required is the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol, given that the current phase ends in 2012. They have won this argument, at least from a procedural point of view. The summit now has two tracks – one for those Kyoto signatories (including Canada) and one for those nations (US for one) who either did not sign up to Kyoto or wish to revoke their commitment to the Kyoto.
The US, through the work of its Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, has offered to provide assistance in solving another problem. The problem is that the developing nations have been demanding a sizeable fund – they asked for between $500 billion and $800 billion a year – for reparations for climate change damage and for support for the growth of their economies, while making investments in renewable energy. Clinton has offered to work with others to secure a $100 billion annual fund by 2020. She has not offered to provide these funds, only to work with others to develop the fund. But there are conditions. One is that there should be complete transparency in assessing C02 emissions and the impact of fund investments in seeking to secure lower emissions. The other condition is that the attempt by the US, working with others, to corral $100 billion annually, is that there is a strong accord on climate change – something currently not at all evidence. The US has said it will “pay its share”, but has yet to make clear just what its share is. While many are reading this as a concrete promise, it is a clever piece of rhetoric. The US will “try” only “if” is not a strong commitment.
The developed world is not budging on the 2C target for the targeted limit for increases in global temperature, despite the resolute demands from many nations that the target be 1.5C. Even the African Union, led on this occasion by Ethiopia, has accepted the 2C target. There also appears to be the basis of an agreement on forests and reforestation, again dependent on new funds.
What is not agreed on is what the emissions targets will need to be under Kyoto 2.0 or the parallel agreement or what counts as an acceptable mechanism for achieving recognized reductions. The summit has postponed, but not ruled out, the use of carbon capture and storage as a mechanism at this time.
So, fraught, tense, fast changing, the conference remains without a real focus on a single strategy and is already split into two camps – Kyoto 2.0 and not Kyoto. There is no real deal on emissions, only a vague promise to keep temperature rises down to no more than 2C, which in itself requires a 40% cut in emissions by 2020 to provide just a fifty-fifty chance of achieving this modest goal. Right now the emissions “offers” on the table amount to around 18% by 2020.
So overall, whatever the communiqué that is signed, the world looked at the future and failed to act.
The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference of the Parties is the fifteenth such conference and the cumulation of two years of negotiations. These began in Bali in 2007, moved to Poland the following year and were supposed to culminate in Copenhagen. It now looks likely that many of the key issues will be postponed for further negotiations through the G8, G20 and then another negotiation in Mexico in six months time.
A small victory was won today by the developing nations. All along they have been arguing that what is required is the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol, given that the current phase ends in 2012. They have won this argument, at least from a procedural point of view. The summit now has two tracks – one for those Kyoto signatories (including Canada) and one for those nations (US for one) who either did not sign up to Kyoto or wish to revoke their commitment to the Kyoto.
The US, through the work of its Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, has offered to provide assistance in solving another problem. The problem is that the developing nations have been demanding a sizeable fund – they asked for between $500 billion and $800 billion a year – for reparations for climate change damage and for support for the growth of their economies, while making investments in renewable energy. Clinton has offered to work with others to secure a $100 billion annual fund by 2020. She has not offered to provide these funds, only to work with others to develop the fund. But there are conditions. One is that there should be complete transparency in assessing C02 emissions and the impact of fund investments in seeking to secure lower emissions. The other condition is that the attempt by the US, working with others, to corral $100 billion annually, is that there is a strong accord on climate change – something currently not at all evidence. The US has said it will “pay its share”, but has yet to make clear just what its share is. While many are reading this as a concrete promise, it is a clever piece of rhetoric. The US will “try” only “if” is not a strong commitment.
The developed world is not budging on the 2C target for the targeted limit for increases in global temperature, despite the resolute demands from many nations that the target be 1.5C. Even the African Union, led on this occasion by Ethiopia, has accepted the 2C target. There also appears to be the basis of an agreement on forests and reforestation, again dependent on new funds.
What is not agreed on is what the emissions targets will need to be under Kyoto 2.0 or the parallel agreement or what counts as an acceptable mechanism for achieving recognized reductions. The summit has postponed, but not ruled out, the use of carbon capture and storage as a mechanism at this time.
So, fraught, tense, fast changing, the conference remains without a real focus on a single strategy and is already split into two camps – Kyoto 2.0 and not Kyoto. There is no real deal on emissions, only a vague promise to keep temperature rises down to no more than 2C, which in itself requires a 40% cut in emissions by 2020 to provide just a fifty-fifty chance of achieving this modest goal. Right now the emissions “offers” on the table amount to around 18% by 2020.
So overall, whatever the communiqué that is signed, the world looked at the future and failed to act.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Did I Shave My Legs for This?
My favorite country and western album and song title is “Did I Shave My Legs for This?” – Deana Carter’s 1996 successful album. Watching the debacle at Copenhagen reminded me of the song.
The delegates have basically found themselves unable to reach agreement on the basics. They cant agree on the target they are trying to reach in terms of global temperature, on the emissions reductions required to meet the target, on compensation and funding for the developing world or in intellectual property and technology transfer protocols. They are close to an agreement on the future of the forests of the world.
They also can’t agree whether the deal will be within or separate from Kyoto, what the governance structure will be and what monitoring will be required. They have postponed an agreement which would recognize carbon capture and storage as an acceptable means for reducing CO2 emissions.
After fifteen of these meetings, you would think that the basics would be nailed down by now and the question would be who will sign up. But no, we are still at the Climate Change 101 level and nowhere near the graduation point. It is no wonder that the chief negotiator, Connie Hedegaard, resigned on Wednesday.
Delegates now sit around and wait for a breakthrough. All eyes are in Barrack Obama, with many hoping that he will come with deep pockets and make dramatic new emissions reduction commitments – 40% in 1990 levels by 2020 would be needed to create the drama required for a breakthrough. But the Whitehouse is signaling that no new money and no new emissions announcements should be expected.
Plans are already underway for a repeat meeting in Mexico in six months time to try again. Meantime, protesters are unhappy at the delegates, the police and, well, their lot in life and their protest get more and more urgent and violent.
Did I shave my legs for this? I don’t think so.
The delegates have basically found themselves unable to reach agreement on the basics. They cant agree on the target they are trying to reach in terms of global temperature, on the emissions reductions required to meet the target, on compensation and funding for the developing world or in intellectual property and technology transfer protocols. They are close to an agreement on the future of the forests of the world.
They also can’t agree whether the deal will be within or separate from Kyoto, what the governance structure will be and what monitoring will be required. They have postponed an agreement which would recognize carbon capture and storage as an acceptable means for reducing CO2 emissions.
After fifteen of these meetings, you would think that the basics would be nailed down by now and the question would be who will sign up. But no, we are still at the Climate Change 101 level and nowhere near the graduation point. It is no wonder that the chief negotiator, Connie Hedegaard, resigned on Wednesday.
Delegates now sit around and wait for a breakthrough. All eyes are in Barrack Obama, with many hoping that he will come with deep pockets and make dramatic new emissions reduction commitments – 40% in 1990 levels by 2020 would be needed to create the drama required for a breakthrough. But the Whitehouse is signaling that no new money and no new emissions announcements should be expected.
Plans are already underway for a repeat meeting in Mexico in six months time to try again. Meantime, protesters are unhappy at the delegates, the police and, well, their lot in life and their protest get more and more urgent and violent.
Did I shave my legs for this? I don’t think so.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Appearance and Reality
There is a new kind of politics which has emerged post Bush (41) and John Major which involves what might be termed a post-modern view of facts. Politicians and the chattering class have abandoned the idea that there is an independent reality “out there” which can be independently verified and assessed. The new political epistemology moves us from truths that can be proven and verified or falsified to narratives that can be constructed.
Lord Mandelson, the British cabinet Minister (for the third time) and ex EU Commissioner, speaks of the need to “create the truth” - of building a story that is compelling and enables the government to develop policies, positions and activities and take strong action. For him, narrative has the appearance of reality. The old dictum that “comment is free but facts are sacred” (C P Scott, editor at one time of The Guardian) is no longer the case, since in many cases (school standards, emission reporting, global warming, number unemployed) facts are “fitted” to the narrative. Even such simple things as the tracking of temperature from monitoring stations across the world are “adjusted” to fit the narrative of climate change.
What happens when this occurs is that Government lives in a parallel universe from those of us who still think that there is an independent reality out there that can be verified and that we seek to understand through science. They pursue policies – whether about climate change or schools, health care or grizzly bears – which are based on their own narratives and their own “fitted” data.
A case in point. The idea that climate scientists have, by some process, reached a “consensus” and that 4,000 of them have agreed on “the science” is an example of this kind of narrative based claim that cannot be verified by reference to facts. The figure of 4,000 scientosts comes from a press release from the UN/IPCC and is a media invention – it refers to how many people were involved in the IPCC process, not all of whom are scientists and very few of those who are happen to climate scientists. We cannot verify, however, their “views” about the science or the extent to which they would be willing to agree with all aspects of both the scientific documents in the IPCC or the Summary for Policy Makers. We do know, however, that not all of them supported the “science” and that several have called the process by the which the Summary for Policy Makers. Yet the 4,000 scientists claim is now established as if it were fact, and that is all that matters.
Equally, it is very clear that there is no consensus about the science. There is a dominant view, in part created by the usual process of gate-keeping access to publications and the very significant research funding available. But “dominant” and “only view” are not the same thing.
Science is not a democratic enterprise. It is a process of discovery based on evidence, theories and analysis. It just takes one compelling piece of evidence to disrupt the dominant view – just look at the history of science to see how important this observation can be. It is also worth noting that consensus does not mean correct. The current scientific dominant view about climate change is what it is – a view. It may or may not be correct.
The more dramatic area in which the new politics is becoming blatant is in the action plans for achieving the policies intended to reduce C02 emissions and “stop” climate change (another example of an illusion posing as a possibility).
The idea that one can reduce emissions in Canada by paying for a forest (which may or may not be planted and may or may not survive) in some other country or that we can trade carbon credits and this will reduce emissions is so obviously absurd, yet it is now part of the political reality (read myth).
Another example is the idea that emissions reductions will create Green Jobs. This rhetoric is rife, especially in the Obama administration. But the actual experience is very different. Spain is a case in point. Spain has a great many wind farms. By 2010 Spain will have 20,000 megawatts of installed capacity. Even in 2009 at the peak of the winds in February it was able to generate 11,800 megawatts – 29% of the energy requirements of Spain on a particular day (meaning that the turbines were working at 69% of their capacity). Spain ranks third in the world for wind power. Ahead of Spain are Germany, at nearly 24,000 megawatts of capacity, and the United States, at No. 1, with over 25,000 megawatts. Wind power has grown in Spain because of subsidy – also the case for solar power. In the case of wind, subsidy is market price (regulated by the Government with a requirement that the energy companies must buy wind power) plus 90% of the market price for a period of fifteen years, when it drops to 80%. In the case of solar power, the subsidy is 575% of the market price for twenty five years, when it falls to 460% above market. Contracts are underwritten by the Government at an annual cost of (app) €28.6 billion. It is not surprising, then, that the Government’s 2008 target for growth in installed capacity for renewable power of 371 megawatts was beaten by the actual new capacity created – 2,934 megawatts. The Spanish government has now capped growth.
A recent economic analysis from the Juan Carlos University in Madrid suggests that, rather than creating the 50,000 jobs the Spanish government claimed would be created, the net green jobs created are closer to 15,000. Most of these jobs are associated with construction, since few are required once construction is completed to maintain and manage the wind and solar installed capacity. What is more, renewable energy has led to lost jobs elsewhere (especially when coupled with the impact of the European Carbon Credit Trading System – cap and trade). The study just mentioned suggests that the net costs of creating a single sustainable green job are app. €500 million. It also suggests that, for every green job created, some 3.9 jobs are lost in other sectors – someone has to pay for this subsidy level.
Cap and trade is another of these cases where the rhetoric and reality are two very different things. The claim is that cap and trade for CO2 is the primary mechanism by which the world will achieve its targeted emissions. There is no convincing evidence that cap and trade in and of itself will lead to this result. It has yet to happen in any jurisdiction that operates cap and trade.
So when we look at Copenhagen and its outcomes, we should distance ourselves from the language and the rhetoric and look at evidence. After all, this is what we scientists do.
Lord Mandelson, the British cabinet Minister (for the third time) and ex EU Commissioner, speaks of the need to “create the truth” - of building a story that is compelling and enables the government to develop policies, positions and activities and take strong action. For him, narrative has the appearance of reality. The old dictum that “comment is free but facts are sacred” (C P Scott, editor at one time of The Guardian) is no longer the case, since in many cases (school standards, emission reporting, global warming, number unemployed) facts are “fitted” to the narrative. Even such simple things as the tracking of temperature from monitoring stations across the world are “adjusted” to fit the narrative of climate change.
What happens when this occurs is that Government lives in a parallel universe from those of us who still think that there is an independent reality out there that can be verified and that we seek to understand through science. They pursue policies – whether about climate change or schools, health care or grizzly bears – which are based on their own narratives and their own “fitted” data.
A case in point. The idea that climate scientists have, by some process, reached a “consensus” and that 4,000 of them have agreed on “the science” is an example of this kind of narrative based claim that cannot be verified by reference to facts. The figure of 4,000 scientosts comes from a press release from the UN/IPCC and is a media invention – it refers to how many people were involved in the IPCC process, not all of whom are scientists and very few of those who are happen to climate scientists. We cannot verify, however, their “views” about the science or the extent to which they would be willing to agree with all aspects of both the scientific documents in the IPCC or the Summary for Policy Makers. We do know, however, that not all of them supported the “science” and that several have called the process by the which the Summary for Policy Makers. Yet the 4,000 scientists claim is now established as if it were fact, and that is all that matters.
Equally, it is very clear that there is no consensus about the science. There is a dominant view, in part created by the usual process of gate-keeping access to publications and the very significant research funding available. But “dominant” and “only view” are not the same thing.
Science is not a democratic enterprise. It is a process of discovery based on evidence, theories and analysis. It just takes one compelling piece of evidence to disrupt the dominant view – just look at the history of science to see how important this observation can be. It is also worth noting that consensus does not mean correct. The current scientific dominant view about climate change is what it is – a view. It may or may not be correct.
The more dramatic area in which the new politics is becoming blatant is in the action plans for achieving the policies intended to reduce C02 emissions and “stop” climate change (another example of an illusion posing as a possibility).
The idea that one can reduce emissions in Canada by paying for a forest (which may or may not be planted and may or may not survive) in some other country or that we can trade carbon credits and this will reduce emissions is so obviously absurd, yet it is now part of the political reality (read myth).
Another example is the idea that emissions reductions will create Green Jobs. This rhetoric is rife, especially in the Obama administration. But the actual experience is very different. Spain is a case in point. Spain has a great many wind farms. By 2010 Spain will have 20,000 megawatts of installed capacity. Even in 2009 at the peak of the winds in February it was able to generate 11,800 megawatts – 29% of the energy requirements of Spain on a particular day (meaning that the turbines were working at 69% of their capacity). Spain ranks third in the world for wind power. Ahead of Spain are Germany, at nearly 24,000 megawatts of capacity, and the United States, at No. 1, with over 25,000 megawatts. Wind power has grown in Spain because of subsidy – also the case for solar power. In the case of wind, subsidy is market price (regulated by the Government with a requirement that the energy companies must buy wind power) plus 90% of the market price for a period of fifteen years, when it drops to 80%. In the case of solar power, the subsidy is 575% of the market price for twenty five years, when it falls to 460% above market. Contracts are underwritten by the Government at an annual cost of (app) €28.6 billion. It is not surprising, then, that the Government’s 2008 target for growth in installed capacity for renewable power of 371 megawatts was beaten by the actual new capacity created – 2,934 megawatts. The Spanish government has now capped growth.
A recent economic analysis from the Juan Carlos University in Madrid suggests that, rather than creating the 50,000 jobs the Spanish government claimed would be created, the net green jobs created are closer to 15,000. Most of these jobs are associated with construction, since few are required once construction is completed to maintain and manage the wind and solar installed capacity. What is more, renewable energy has led to lost jobs elsewhere (especially when coupled with the impact of the European Carbon Credit Trading System – cap and trade). The study just mentioned suggests that the net costs of creating a single sustainable green job are app. €500 million. It also suggests that, for every green job created, some 3.9 jobs are lost in other sectors – someone has to pay for this subsidy level.
Cap and trade is another of these cases where the rhetoric and reality are two very different things. The claim is that cap and trade for CO2 is the primary mechanism by which the world will achieve its targeted emissions. There is no convincing evidence that cap and trade in and of itself will lead to this result. It has yet to happen in any jurisdiction that operates cap and trade.
So when we look at Copenhagen and its outcomes, we should distance ourselves from the language and the rhetoric and look at evidence. After all, this is what we scientists do.
Last Chance Saloon in Copenhagen
Heavy snow and -12C temperatures will blanket Copenhagen over the next few days. This will nicely match the fog and gloom permeating the conference rooms and plenary policy sessions. Copenhagen is in danger of being a failure.
Something will be pulled out of a hat at the last minute, but it will not be the climate change strategy that was talked about in the lead up to this summit. We can expect compromise and trade offs all around, but whatever happens is likely to have little real impact on the earths global temperature rise over the next one hundred years.
Most informed observers now look to the US to salvage something from this summit. In particular, if the US steps up with significant funds to compensate developing countries for the pollution of the atmosphere and if it can commit to lowering emissions beyond the already declared level, then others may be willing to move and make additional compromises to get a two track deal – Kyoto for most and an alternative for others.
They will also agree to hold another meeting in 2010 to try and resolve remaining issues – another attempt (this is the fifteenth conference of the parties, not the first) is likely to perpetuate the current disagreements, but with a clearer understanding of the extent and exact nature of the differences between the parties.
However you look at it, none of this is good. George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, captures the despair many climate change activists feel about Copenhagen. His message is simple – we deepened our understanding of the future, we better understood what is expected of us and we made a deliberate choice, through our representatives, to avoid dealing with it. We went further: we substituted surrogate decisions (offsets, cap and trade) for the real decisions – dramatically lowering emissions.
While the skeptics may see the outcome as “satisfactory” and many citizens appear disinterested, serious commentators will now observe that the ability of governments to work together on a challenge that affects the world is so weak as to be a cause for serious concern.
If there is to be a deal, it will have to emerge during Wednesday for the momentum to be created for signature by the majority of countries present. At the time of writing, this looks like a stretch. Watch this space.
Something will be pulled out of a hat at the last minute, but it will not be the climate change strategy that was talked about in the lead up to this summit. We can expect compromise and trade offs all around, but whatever happens is likely to have little real impact on the earths global temperature rise over the next one hundred years.
Most informed observers now look to the US to salvage something from this summit. In particular, if the US steps up with significant funds to compensate developing countries for the pollution of the atmosphere and if it can commit to lowering emissions beyond the already declared level, then others may be willing to move and make additional compromises to get a two track deal – Kyoto for most and an alternative for others.
They will also agree to hold another meeting in 2010 to try and resolve remaining issues – another attempt (this is the fifteenth conference of the parties, not the first) is likely to perpetuate the current disagreements, but with a clearer understanding of the extent and exact nature of the differences between the parties.
However you look at it, none of this is good. George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, captures the despair many climate change activists feel about Copenhagen. His message is simple – we deepened our understanding of the future, we better understood what is expected of us and we made a deliberate choice, through our representatives, to avoid dealing with it. We went further: we substituted surrogate decisions (offsets, cap and trade) for the real decisions – dramatically lowering emissions.
While the skeptics may see the outcome as “satisfactory” and many citizens appear disinterested, serious commentators will now observe that the ability of governments to work together on a challenge that affects the world is so weak as to be a cause for serious concern.
If there is to be a deal, it will have to emerge during Wednesday for the momentum to be created for signature by the majority of countries present. At the time of writing, this looks like a stretch. Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)