Science and Public Policy

How should science shape public policy?

This is not a theoretical question. It is in fact a very practical one and is at the heart of the debate taking place at COP19 – the Climate Change conference taking place in Poland. The issue on the table is deceptively simple. Africa, small island states and others are seeking compensation from the developed world for the impact climate change “is having” and “will have” on their States. The sums in question are in the billions of dollars. Africa alone estimates that it requires $20 - $30 billion annually to 2035 and then significantly more, perhaps up to $60 billion a year.

The call for cash is based on the assumption that extreme weather events are “a result of” climate change. Super-storm Sandy, the Hiyan typhoon and other such events are cited as examples of the consequences of high levels of CO2 emissions.

The problem is that the scientists most closely involved in understanding extreme weather events do not see a direct link between climate change and extreme weather or between levels of CO2 and extreme weather. Indeed, the body which governments use to establish the “state of science” – the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – has explicitly said in both 2012 and 2013 that it cannot establish any clear link between climate change and the levels of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere and extreme weather events. Other researchers who have worked on this file for their careers, such as Roger Pielke Jnr from Colarado,  also agree with this conclusion (see here). While there are always some who will say that there is a link – James Hansen and Michael Mann can be relied upon to make such leaps – these are the new deniers of science.

Another rationale for this call for cash is the threat of rising ocean levels. Yet there is disputed science here. A paper published recently in Global and Planetary Change finds global sea level rise has decelerated by 44% since 2004 to a rate equivalent to only 7 inches (17.8 cm) per century – well within the boundaries of natural events. According to the authors, global mean sea level rise from 1993-2003 was at the rate of 3.2 mm/yr (± 0.4 mm/yr), but sea level rise "started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012."  Given that the science showing a link between climate change and sea level rises are not crystal clear, is this a sound basis for the redistribution of substantial sums of scarce funds?

A part of the rationale for the redistribution is the invocation of the precautionary principle. But this is a “weaponized” version of this principle and  the scientific community is now speaking out against this “weaponised” use of the precautionary principle.

For example, eighty-one of the world’s leading toxicologists recently signed a letter to the EU Chief Scientific Advisor expressing their concern at the EU’s lack of proper scientific procedures in assessing potential endocrine disruptors and their impact on health – yet the EU is seeking to ban the use of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). These are present in a large number of everyday items, such as food packaging, cosmetics and pesticides. A small number of studies have suggested a possible connection between EDCs and the decline of sperm counts, hormonal changes in women and the increase in certain cancers. The signatories emphasized the importance of using the best science to find a sensible, rational way of setting policies. But the EU is not interested in “science” just in looking to be doing the right thing (a.k.a. as political correctness).

That is what is happening in Poland. On the basis of “being seen to do the right thing”, countries are contemplating the creation of a $100 billion a year fund to compensate states for the impacts of climate change, despite the lack of strong and compelling scientific evidence that the connections being made between extreme weather events or sea level rise and climate change.

The transfer of wealth from rich to poor has always been on the agenda in these conversations, starting with the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. Maurice Strong, the Canadian who was Secretary-General of this summit, said at its opening “we should consider new taxes, user charges, emission permits, citizen funding all based on the polluter-pays principle”. Also involved here is the requirement that such funds should be managed through “global government” organizations, such as the UN. Indeed, a document leaked in 2010 makes it clear that wealth transfer and global governance are explicit goals of the UN (see here).

So is this all about science? No. Is this all about politics and political correctness? Yes. Are science and political correctness connected? What is occurring is the hijacking of science by politicians – including President Obama and others. Is this desirable? No. Is this good for science? No. We should refine our critical skills and our sensitivity to science as a practice so that we can challenge the politics of wealth transfer by challenging the claimed links to science – they simply are not there.

Sea Level Rises and the Precautionary Principle

Sea level rises are said to be the most serious consequence of climate change. According to the draft IPCC’s fifth assessment draft leaked recently, sea levels are likely to rise by between 29 and 82 centimeters by the end of the century, compared to 18-59 centimeters anticipated in the 4^th Assessment report published in 2007 – the IPCC thinks things are getting worse. Satellite measurement shows that sea levels have risen (app) 6 cm since 1990. If we see a 6 cm rise every 15 years (app) we will see a rise of (app.) 34 cm by 2100.

A paper published recently in Global and Planetary Change finds global sea level rise has decelerated by 44% since 2004 to a rate equivalent to only 7 inches (17.8 cm) per century. According to the authors, global mean sea level rise from 1993-2003 was at the rate of 3.2 mm/yr (± 0.4 mm/yr), but sea level rise "started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012."  The IPCC’s fourth assessment looks more likely to be the “best case” at this time rather than the more recent IPCC analysis.

Some suggest that these estimates are far too low. National Geographic said this in its November 2013 issue:

“Climate scientists now estimate that Greenland and Antarctica combined have lost on average about 50 cubic miles of ice each year since 1992—roughly 200 billion metric tons of ice annually. Many think sea level will be at least three feet [91 cm] higher than today by 2100. Even that figure might be too low.”

- the 91 cm figure being much higher than the IPCC anticipate.

The World Bank analysis also assumes a higher rate than the IPCC. A recent study of the likely impact of sea level rise on coastal cities suggests that the mean sea level will rise between 0.2 meters and 0.4 meters (19. 8 cm to 39.9 cm) by 2050. This both larger and faster than other estimates.

James Hansen, the doyen of climate change scientists, sees ocean level rise as even more alarming.  He has suggested that sea level rises could be between 15 and 20 feet – that is between 457 cm and 356 cm – since the IPCC models take inadequate account of ice sheet melting.

Not to be outdone, Ben Strauss from Climate Change Central in the US suggests in a recent study that by the end of this century, if global climate emissions continue to increase, the climate system may lock in 23 feet of sea-level rise." 23 feet is 701 cm – way beyond all consensus models. He basis this on a calculation of sea level rises linked to the level of CO2 emissions and the predicted temperature rises these levels of CO2 will cause.  Strauss sees the IPCC as “enormously cautious”.

Meantime, the ultimate skeptical ocean scientist is Nils-Axel Molner. He has been studying sea level rises for most of his career and he dismisses most of the concerns out of hand.  Indeed, he suggests that there is no discernable rise in sea level beyond that normally expected for the last fifty years.

So, what to do? If you are a policy maker you have an international body suggesting that sea level rise could be somewhere between 26 and 32 cm by the end of the century. Then you have respected scientists who claim “special expert knowledge” suggesting that this is by far too cautious and is more likely to be around 700 cm. Yet another suggests not to panick, since nothing is happening. What is clear is that we don’t know – the science is very unsettled.

One place has already made its decision. Kiribati – a small island in the Pacific – is seeking to buy land in Fiji so that it can relocate its population of 113,000. One member of this community is seeking asylum in Australia as a result of these developments. Other countries are seeking reparations from the developed world to pay for sea defenses – this is a major argument behind the $100 billion annual fund being demanded in Poland as part of this weeks annual climate change jamboree (COP19).

Outgoing New York Mayor Bloomberg, whose own team of scientists suggest that sea level rises in the New York area could be as much as 73 cm by 2050, has proposed an investment of just over $19 billion in strengthening  the sea walls and flood defenses of New York city. New York is just one of twenty five cities around the world to be investing in these strategies.

The precautionary principle seems to apply. If you have responsibility for a coastal city or a community in a floodplain, there is a need to plan and to take such precautionary measures as seem appropriate and affordable. While precaution can be expensive, dealing with the aftermath of flooding is even more expensive.

But the next time you hear a politician say that the science is settled, just smile. It isn’t.

Typhoon Haiyan

Typhoon Haiyan is a terrible storm – one of the worst for some time. We should do what we can through the Red Cross to help the victims of this storm. We should also do what we can to support initiatives aimed at anticipating and adapting to such storms in the future.

But Typhoon Haiyan is not a product of global warming or climate change. This is according to those who have dedicated a significant part of their career to studying such storm and their cause. Extremely intense tropical cyclones are rare, but have always been a part of nature — we don’t need to find an excuse for them. Weather officials said Haiyan had sustained winds of 235 kph (147 mph) with gusts of 275 kph (170 mph) when it made landfall. By those measurements, Haiyan is comparable to a strong Category 4 hurricane in the U.S., nearly in the top category (5). In the list of such events in the Phillipines, catalogued since 1896 (see here), it is important but not the most severe in history, as some have claimed. Over past 1,000 years, Philippines have been hit by 10-20 thousand tropical cyclones.

So why do some seek to make a connection to global warming when those who research typhoons and hurricanes have repeatedly made clear that the link cannot be shown. Many such writers acknowledge that it is unscientific to attribute any particular weather event to global warming. But then, in the same breath, they’ll say that this or that typhoon or hurricane is “consistent with” the types of weather ”scientists” predict will become more frequent in a warming world. As Roger Pielke Jnr has observed:

“…climate activists have turned up the rhetorical heat on extreme weather in recent years. The reasons aren’t hard to fathom. The 15-year pause in global warming makes it harder to scare people about warming itself. The two greatest terrors featured in An Inconvenient Truth — rapid ice sheet disintegration leading to catastrophic sea-level rise and ocean circulation shutdown precipitating a new ice age – have no credibility. Nobody takes seriously the prospect of warming-induced malaria epidemics either. If you want to scare people, extreme weather is the only card left in the climate alarm deck.”

Pielke, Jr. acknowledges that considerable research “projects” various weather extremes to become more frequent or intense in the future as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change. However, even if those projections prove correct, “it will be many decades, perhaps longer, before the signal of human-caused climate change can be detected in the statistics of hurricanes (and to the extent that statistical properties are similar, in floods, tornadoes, drought).” Even the IPCC (AR5) accepts that the link between climate change and extreme weather events cannot be shown with any confidence.

So saying that there is such a connection is not a scientific act, but a political one – one aimed at securing the actions required to reduce emissions. It’s a scientific pilgrimage, not science.

3D and 4D Printing - The Next Big Things

The word “innovation” gets overused. I know, I have been writing about innovation for over thirty years and have had responsibility for drafting policies, strategies and structures all linked to making innovation happen. I have also led innovation skills workshops and leadership development workshops focused on innovation.

From time to time, true breakthrough disruptive innovation happens rarely. The internet is a breakthrough innovation which has disrupted a great many sectors of industry – publishing, movies, radio, music, travel, banking to name just a few.  Synthetic biology will also be a disruptive breakthrough innovation, especially in terms of the treatment of dirty water, foods and energy.

At a conference recently, I spent time exploring what three dimensional (3D) printing will do for the housing industry, You may be surprised to learn that two companies – one in London and one in Amsterdam – are racing to be the first to perfect a process for the printing of 3D houses.  Giant 3D printers can build a 2,500-square-foot house in as little as 20 hours. The Contour Crafting 3D printers could even do the electrical work, plumbing, tiling, finishing work and painting.  The walls are hollow to save on materials and make them lighter, but their strength clocks in at about 10,000 psi -- more than traditional housing walls. Contour Crafting will save the construction 20 percent to 25 percent in financing and 25 percent to 30 percent in materials. The biggest savings would come in labor, where Contour Crafting would save 45 percent to 55 percent by using 3D printers instead of humans. There would also be fewer CO2 emissions and less energy used. You can see a presentation about this here.

Just as I got my head around this, I met and spent time with a business man seeking to commercialize what is being referred to as 4D printing. The new technology, as he explained, involves printing 3D objects that change after they've been printed—a self assembly process whereby printed material forms itself into another shape after being subjected to an energy source, e.g. heat, electricity, light, sound, or submersion in water. The concept draws inspiration from nature which has the ability to self-replicate and repair itself in response to external environmental conditions.

For example, products will use responsive fillers embedded within a hydrogel. This will open up new routes for producing the next generation of smart sensors, coatings, textiles, and structural components – for example, furniture that responds to changing moods or conditions (warmer colours in winter, cooler in summer).

So we have two technologies – 3D and 4D printing – which could be disruptive and transformative for building, materials, technology, textiles and other sectors. Watch this space to better understand just how disruptive these technologies will be.

Play Dough Policy Making in Alberta's Advanced Education Ministry

We have in Alberta a government that cannot focus, manage or build partnerships and trust. This has never been more evident than it its handling under the current Minister of its post-secondary education portfolio.

Thomas Lukaszuk is the Deputy Premier. He was put into Advanced Education to replace a Minister who objected to cuts to post-secondary education and was not seen to be “playing the team game” – ironic for a government which, as a team, is dysfunctional. Even though institutions had been promised a 2% increase in base budgets, Lukaszuk cut funding by 7.3% and also indicated that the post-secondary institutions could expect two years of zero – a total cut against known cost rises of 20% over three years. Thus a plan for +2 became a plan to cut 9.3% from the plans the colleges and universities had developed for 2013-14. At the same time tuition fees were frozen. Play dough time.

Lukaszuk also indicated through draft mandate letters that the role of post-secondary educational institutions would be much more directly tied to commercialization of research, skills education for the labour force and a neoliberal agenda for learning. The term “mandate” (implying enforcement) was later changed to “letters of expectation” (non enforceable). He also required a greater degree of collaboration and integration between them as part of Campus Alberta. At one point he talked about these requirements being a red line. He later backed off, permitting the institutions to offer their own letters for his subsequent finalization and approval. However, the Minister was clear that he expected a reduction in duplication and a sharing of “back office functions”. Play dough time.

Indeed, he allocated $10 million to the University of Alberta to be the “hub” for the sharing of back office functions. Rather than being compulsory, as originally intended, it is now voluntary.  Play dough time.

He also announced that a new Institute would be established – something that had been recommended by the Premiers Council on Economic Development.  This would focus on commercialization of research and channeling in a focused way the innovation agenda of the Province, to be pursued in partnership with the Universities. The University of Alberta had pushed for such an Institute.  With an initial budget of $160 million, the Institute will focus R&D on commercial challenges and commercialization. It also looks like it will be a way of rationalizing Alberta’s innovation system (yet again). Play dough time.

Today the Minister announced an additional one time allocation of $50 million to universities and colleges across Alberta to help them cope with pressure of growth in enrollments.  First we cut base funds and then we allocate one time funds. Play dough time.

It is not surprising that University Presidents and academics, not to mention their Boards, are confused by the play dough strategy of the Government. They don’t sense a plan, any coherence or consistency. Its “wham-bang, thank you man!”. I have been using the term play dough policy making, since you never know what shape the policy will be next. As one colleague I mentioned this too said – at least play dough doesn’t stick to your hands”, which is what Thomas Lukaszuk hopes for, I suspect.

What is at stake here, apart from the fact that there is no trust between institutions and government or within institutions, is the future of the Province’s links between research and innovation and our economic future. The more Lukaszuk the less confidence we have in this relationship.

A play dough way of making policy – now you see it, now you don’t – is no way to run a government. Its no way to treat students. It is no way to treat some of the brightest minds in the Province. The Premier needs to act - but she wont.