Tag: climate change

Science and politics

As with most election campaigns, science is never on the top of the minds of voters. Perhaps it is because elections are geared towards appealing to emotion (the irrational) rather to that which is inherently rational: science.

Aberrations can occur when emotion drives science, but since advocacy taps emotion, channeling emotional appeal can be effective for lobbying for or against political action with respect to certain areas of scientific study.

Three such issues are global warming, embryonic stem cells and outer space. Al Gore (of all people) got a number of people passionate about the weather (of all things). However, is climate research the best pursuit for elusive research dollars? Or are people too “hot headed” about the topic? According to its emotional advocates, the “debate is over” and one could conclude from such a conclusive declaration that further research is unnecessary and that it is action which is needed.

Does politics hurt science? A lot of scientific study is accomplished using tax dollars, so politics will inevitably get involved. I spent a year doing malaria research in the United States in 2002. At the time, less than one year after 9/11, I was told that when professors made grant applications to federal funding agencies, they would try to find a link between their research and counter-terrorism in order to secure funding. Now, researchers tie their projects to climate change.

Malaria is an infectious disease and certain infectious diseases could be used in a biological terrorist attack. Similarly, malaria is de rigeur in the climate change debate as warmer swampy areas are breeding grounds for the malaria vector. Unfortunately for our funding, malaria is a highly unlikely infectious disease for use in terrorism and studying new ways of combating the malaria parasite directly (which is what we were researching) has nothing to do with climate. Research dollars are more likely to go to projects that find evidence to support the theory of anthropogenic climate change, not to fund research that treats its theoretical effect. Public money instead more broadly targets climate change to reduce the incidences of malaria by reducing the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This is akin to hitting an infectious mosquito with a proverbial sledgehammer. Governments will spend billions on climate change when lives can be saved at $10 per net and relatively few research dollars to develop new treatments.

Further, money is redirected into projects that are sometimes only tangentially support the theory of human-caused global warming. What do the mating songs of the American Tree Sparrow have to do with climate change, you may ask? Are their songs sadder this year compared to last indicating a warming Earth? Get some research dollars behind that project!

Emotion can also inhibit scientific inquiry. Embryonic stem cell research has proven to be a political hot potato in the past. There is great potential for therapeutic advances derived from such research. Advocates with or without a strong grasp of the cellular basis of life (and/or what constitutes human life) constitute both sides on the debate regarding research involving these cells. In many cases, emotion informs their position on the science rather than their scientific position. George W. Bush took a mediating approach on the issue when it crossed his desk earlier in his term of office: while allowing for research to be conducted on the cells, federal funds would not be used. Did the conciliatory approach cause unnecessary scientific stagnation because the emotional element? Or, as some would argue, were emotionally-driven second thoughts necessary to preserve ethics in science (or at least that which is funded in part by people morally opposed to such research)?

Scientists must always be mindful of ethics as they proceed, yet a populist balancing of complicated scientific understanding and ethics has the potential of being regressive in its emotive and sometimes ignorant reactions on a variety of research topics.

On the other hand, emotionally-driven science can deliver research dollars for tangible and measurable benefit. Consider the amount of resources used pursuing cancer treatment options and even potential cures for certain forms. Certainly this is a better pursuit than spending eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers (which were to be put in phials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers)*.

Should science policy discussions be limited to the experts since they are more likely to understand the parameters of rational scientific pursuit? Or should the process be influenced by the general public who possess real (even if uninformed) concerns often times driven by irrational emotion? Politics, often a product of emotion, causes aberrations in the scientific process. Where can we can find the ideal?

The Iowa caucuses are being held tonight. Here are the positions of the visible US Presidential candidates on science (or at least that which intersects politics due to emotionally driven undertones). (graphic from Nature.com)

*apologies to Swift

Bali conference partisan and ideological?

The media narrative of the Bali climate conference has been the “obstructionism” and “sabotage” of the talks by Canada’s government (note to Stephane Dion: outside of our borders, the “Harper/Conservative government” becomes your government too. Canadians have given the Conservative Party, not you, a mandate to speak for us on the world stage.)

We’ve heard reports that Environment Minister John Baird has been so audacious to even suggest that future climate treaties include caps on developing nations such as China and India, a truly offensive suggestive shared by the unoffensive new Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd. We’ve heard that Baird “ran away” from a meeting of environmental activists, “Canadian youth” and Svend Robinson!

CTV reports:

Baird was supposed to explain Canada’s position at a meeting with non-governmental activists attending the conference. He showed up for the meeting, but quickly left before speaking.

Canadian activists and others waited for the minister to return. But they were later told Baird had to attend negotiations and would not be back.

“The minister who was supposed to address us was AWOL. He ran away,” said Olivier Lavoie of the Canadian Youth in Action.

Lavoie said the minister probably did not want to confront young activists critical of Canada’s stand.

How can Baird turn a blind eye to good people that are non-partisan, non-ideological and simply concerned about the coming worldwide devastation?

Unreported by CTV and undeclared by Lavoie is this “activist” and leader of the “Canadian Youth in Action” was also president of the Liberal campus club at McGill.

So was Baird simply avoiding a meeting with people who see so much green that they see red when they see blue?

Was he avoiding a partisan ambush by a group of NDP and Liberal activists?

When can we get some honest reporting on the merits of Baird’s plan and what interests some have in blocking it?

At its core, Canada and Australia’s vision for a future climate treaty is rooted in environmental concern.

The intent of Baird’s position is that no matter what country in which you emit CO2, you pay the same cost. All worldwide CO2 would be declared equal if Baird and Rudd had their way. However, the intent of “social” environmental activists is to shift the burden on developed nations. If China and India and other “developing” countries get a better deal on their CO2 emissions, economic development and manufacturing of companies headquartered in Canada or the US, for example, will shift to developing countries because of their lower CO2 costs. The effect of this is redistribution of wealth.

If we are concerned about CO2 emissions, then all CO2 should be costed the same. If it is not, the effect will be the creation of CO2 havens. CO2 production will be shifted rather than reduced. Perhaps what Baird is doing is calling on the warming warriors to show their cards. Is all of this noise really about CO2 or is it about the redistribution of wealth and production?

The Green Paradox

On the topic of greenhouse gases (GHGs), I think that the Conservatives will have more success cutting Canada’s output of them than the Liberals ever did. This is because swing voters are skeptical that the government will accomplish GHG reduction and therefore the Tories have something significant to prove. In a similar sense, we can look at the Liberals and their elimination of the deficit. As in that case, the ruling party is receiving pressure from the other side of the spectrum and the swing voter is skeptical of their abilities on the particular issue. This provides incentive as these voters and the pendulum swing between parties causing government turnover.

For some reason, people are more likely to believe that parties on the left will be more proficient at GHG reductions. Certainly, the record doesn’t indicate this. I’d like to show that this reasoning and the result are paradoxical.

On the environment, left-wing parties can take this sort of thinking for granted and say green things and do much of nothing. Conversely, voters don’t see the Conservative Party as the natural choice to progress on the issue and working uphill, the Conservatives are framed as a party with a lot to prove on their ability to reduce GHGs. This provides incentive to act instead of taking voter prejudices for granted as Liberals do on this particular issue. If the environment is framed as the number one issue, the Conservatives don’t have the convenience of solely paying lip service.

Conservatives have already secured the voters that favour a tax-cutting government. What they will act upon lies where they have to extend themselves to get non-traditional votes. Similarly, Liberals have more of a secure hold on environmental voters as Canadians believe the party to more of a regulating party than their Conservative opponents.

Dion’s strategy of making the environment an issue right from the start of his leadership campaign is challenging Harper to be more flexible and as a result, he is able to grab a few extra votes. Dion is handing the incumbent an opportunity to show agility over an extended period of time. Of course, it will be difficult for Mr. Harper to show real progress on GHG reductions as the current economy has quite a lot of inertia against the trend of overall GHG reduction. However, if the PM can show sincere policy that he’s put in place to get the job done over a realistic period of time, he should be able to neutralize Dion and show the voter than he’s acting in good faith on the issue.

Strategically, Dion could have made the environment a smaller issue (and one of many others) to prompt little action from the government to act on GHGs. Subsequently, he could have fired on all hybrid cylinders during an election to contrast how Canada could be different under his carbon-cutting direction (even if it is all talk).

Some say that it was the Reform party that prompted Paul Martin to balance the budget. Perhaps now it’ll be Dion that prompts Harper to succeed on the environment. And remember, on the budget, only Martin got credit.

Does the same logic apply with the Conservative party and tax-cutting? Specifically that voters expect Conservatives to be the party of tax relief and reduced spending? I believe that this reasoning does apply to the Tories, but only to a certain extent. People expect the Conservatives to cut taxes and to a degree, empty talk and promises will go far to satiate the voters. However, over an extended period of time, as we’ve seen, the conservative movement is likely to tear apart the Conservative Party if it doesn’t see its ideological agenda fulfilled. While the Liberals faced pressure from Reform to put the government’s books in order, Conservatives face not only opposition pressure but pressure from within to keep it’s course. It will be interesting to see how Conservative party addresses the environmental issues while balancing the prospect of electoral defeat with that of devolution from within. Or can it find a common path that spares it from both?