Royal Society Alert 451

Comment this week:

1. CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICISM MEMES
Comment by Royal Society Policy Analyst, Dr Jez Weston
Scepticism is an intrinsic requirement for science to progress. It helps us
ask the right questions to test our theories. However, many questions
continually arise in scepticism about climate change. To some extent, these
arguments qualify as memes, in that they propagate and proliferate and as
memes, they resist disposal by answers. So what are some examples?

"The effect of human-produced greenhouse gases is tiny in comparison to the
warming effect of water vapour". This is true, but irrelevant. The amount
of water vapour in the atmosphere changes on a daily basis and is not
within our ability to influence. Water vapour multiplies the effects of our
own changes to the climate.

Another meme is the uncertainty of our predictions. Uncertainty is inherent
when studying a complex system like climate. The scale of response to
increases in greenhouse gases is governed by a host of feedback mechanisms,
some of which interact with each other. Hence the IPCC's 2001 warming
predictions of somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8 C. This uncertainty makes it
difficult to work out the optimum response to minimise climate change, but
it is not an excuse to pretend it isn't happening.

Other memes lie outside the bounds of scientific debate. The oft-repeated
claim that "global warming stopped in 1998" is an example of cherry-picking
of the data. 1998 was the warmest year on record. By definition,
temperatures have been cooler since the record-setting year. The global
temperature record has fluctuations because the climate has fluctuations
but the long term trend is upwards and it is long term trends that matter.

The meme that "climate change prediction depends upon obscure computer
modelling" is just plain wrong. I advise everyone to read Svante Arrhenius'
1896 paper "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the
Temperature of the Ground". Made with a pencil and paper, his predictions
are within a factor of two of the IPCC predictions, on a global scale. What
computers are needed for are the detailed calculations of impacts on a
local scale.

A final meme runs "scientific truth is not determined by consensus so the
fact that most scientists agree on climate change doesn't mean that climate
change is happening". It is true to say that science does not depend upon
consensus. I'd go beyond that to say that scientists hate consensus. It is
boring. We scientists are trained to argue with each other, over every tiny
little point. We love a good bust up. When we start agreeing it's because
we understand what's going on.

Hard to disagree with that...
The dabate has moved on from 'if' to 'what' i.e. what, if anything, should we do about our influence on climate? A viable option (albeit one i don't subscribe to) is to do absolutely nothing and let our children figure it out.
Putting your options on the table though assumes a reasonable debate and as JW's meme's comment points out - climate change 'debate' more closely resembles the "cute little baby seals" emotive campaigns of Greenpeace in yesteryear than a hard-headed political, financial and technological risk analysis.
NB please note that i think Greenpeace will be on the right side of history on that campaign, even though i disagree with everything they've stood for since the late 80's

I need this!!

this is quite possibly the best chair ever....

Second Life experiments with copyright

in Wired.
This response is far more interesting than the original one i linked to before. A norms based approach to copyright can be just as effective (think recipes and fashion vs movies and widgets). Regardless of how it turns out, this is an expt of huge proportions - it's going to be fascinating watching it evolve.

Methane clathrates off NZ coast

NIWA has just finished an expedition off the coast apparantly and tracked some indigenous methane clathrate deposits off the east coast of the Nth Island while studying the biology of the local inhabitants (which run entirely off the methane energy - no sunlight required. That's pretty cool all by itself).
The article is mistaken by referring to the deposits as 'frozen methane' although it's a pretty understandable mistake (for a journo major). A clathrate is a far more interesting beastie than plain old frozen methane (which freezes at -182.5 degrees Celcius -uumm did the reporter wonder why the water was still liquid...).
Clathrates get a good Wiki write-up here, complete with a very cool 'burning ice' photo. The methane molecule is literally trapped in a cage of water molecules. I'm not sure of the details (and i'm not sure the details are particularly clear to anyone) but some structures become more stable when they're built around scaffolding - to a chemist replace structure with 'hydrogen bonded water molecules' and scaffold with 'molecule'. Unlike say, a stone arch where you can remove the scaffolding after construction and still retain the structure, clathrates will collapse without both ingrediants.
The ice is trying to freeze which would normally create 'normal' ice (last time i checked there were at least a dozen structures for ice and an acquaintance at Oxford just made a name for himself by finding a brand new one) but in the presence of the methane, it self-assembles into a cage. As the ice starts to melt (by bringing it to the surface of the ocean) the methane is released. How cool is that?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if NZ's methane clathrate reserves made Maui look like a puddle...

There plenty of energy sloshing around, we just haven't bothered to look for it.

PV panel payback time

h/t to Jez Weston on a question i posed a while back on PV payback times.
Here.

Economic transformation the tech-o-no-logical way

As proposed by Jez Weston in this week's RSNZ Alert No. 450

1. IS OUR INNOVATION SYSTEM GOING TO DELIVER ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION?
Comment by Royal Society Policy Analyst, Dr Jez Weston
We have been hearing about economic transformation for about five years
now, at least since the first Knowledge Wave conference in 2001. But what
does economic transformation mean and how would we know if we had one? The
Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and Cabinet have released some work
about just that. The cabinet papers say all the right things about creating
"a high value, innovative and creative economy"; through higher
productivity, a more skilled workforce, smarter resource use, stronger
international connections, a vibrant primary sector and a diversified economy.

Given that our innovation system is supposed to be the engine of this new
car, is it going to be able to provide enough push? Many of the recent
changes to the system have been to improve the efficiency of our RS&T
setup. However, a more effective innovation system, in the first instance,
means simply a larger system. The big gap is in the private sector,
especially as private R&D produces more patents than public R&D, per
dollar. So it\'s pleasing to see our private R&D spending growing faster
than the OECD average rate (6.0% against 3.7%). The business tax review is
looking closely at R&D support and this would be most welcome. MED research
suggests that, dollar for dollar, tax incentives are more effective at
promoting private R&D than grant-based schemes such as the current
Technology for Business Growth and Grants for Private Sector R&D. Given
finite resources, tax reforms might offer greater bang for the buck.

So it seems as if we are heading towards the best policy for addressing the
major problem with our innovation system. However, business R&D might be
growing fast but it\'s starting from a tiny base, with investment less than
a third of the OECD average. Further MED research suggests that our RS&T
system is just the size you would expect, given our disadvantages of
distance from markets, firm size and industrial structure. So how much of a
push are we going to get? Given that we\'re only shelling out for a Civic,
we can\'t expect it to perform like a Porsche.


2. SEMINAR, 1 DECEMBER, ON PRICING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, WELLINGTON
Victoria University’s Institute of Policy Studies in the School of
Government and the School of Earth Sciences will be running a discussion
"So you want a Price on Carbon?" with Assoc Professor Ralph Chapman, Simon
Terry and Murray Ward to be Chaired by Professor Jonathan Boston on Friday
1 December in Room 312, Level 3 Railway Building, Bunny Street, Victoria
University from 12.30 p.m. – 1.45 p.m.
The consensus increasingly favours significant action to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The question is how and when - in particular, how and when
setup. However, a more effective innovation system, in the first instance,
means simply a larger system. The big gap is in the private sector,
especially as private R&D produces more patents than public R&D, per
dollar. So it's pleasing to see our private R&D spending growing faster
than the OECD average rate (6.0% against 3.7%). The business tax review is
looking closely at R&D support and this would be most welcome. MED research
suggests that, dollar for dollar, tax incentives are more effective at
promoting private R&D than grant-based schemes such as the current
Technology for Business Growth and Grants for Private Sector R&D. Given
finite resources, tax reforms might offer greater bang for the buck.

So it seems as if we are heading towards the best policy for addressing the
major problem with our innovation system. However, business R&D might be
growing fast but it's starting from a tiny base, with investment less than
a third of the OECD average. Further MED research suggests that our RS&T
system is just the size you would expect, given our disadvantages of
distance from markets, firm size and industrial structure. So how much of a
push are we going to get? Given that we're only shelling out for a Civic,
we can't expect it to perform like a Porsche.

ummm, from the number of negative items i throw out on this blog based on RS Alerts you'd think i tend to disagree with Jez a lot but on this, i don't think anyone could argue that NZ has exactly the research infrastructure it paid for.

But to belabour the point - we've heard all the talk ad nauseum for a decade. I'm inclined to think if I started working in the mid-80's rather than the mid-90's, i'd be able to say that we've been hearing this for 2 decades...
Here some measurable goals:

1. The NZ Centre for Biotechnology - a $100 million dollar institute devoted to creating a centre of excellence in applied biotechnology to our pastoral industry. It's either in Auckland or Hamilton since if you want to attract int'l talent, you should be pitching the closest thing NZ has to a global/regional city
2. Give it a decent wad of funding each year to distribute as it sees fit - scientists are the best judge of science not Wellington beuracrats. Back up the funding with some clear deliverables and fire the CEO if they're not met.
   
3. Increase public sector funding to 2x the OECD average and legislate for a 25 year timeframe.
4. Allow public sector funding applications to include capex and opex for both salaries and equipment. Not funding for salaries is a sop to university/CRI research and hinders one of the most important parts of the tech development cycle - the entrepenuer angle (Q is this still true? what % of contestable funding allows complete independence of a govt organisation?)
   
5. Public sector R&D gets a 125% tax write-off. Go on, make it attractive to develop your IP

You get what you pay for...

More on climate change opportunities

Brian Fallow in the Herald today.
This:

In the face of this it is easy to say that while New Zealand's per capita emissions might be high and growing, we are still only four-tenths of 1 per cent of the problem and the inertia of the big boys lets us off the hook.

is never an excuse. Your actions should be guided by what you think should be done. It's a decidedly craven attitude to let someone else's base instincts guide your behaviour. It might be the nuggest of truth you need to decide whether you're 'leading' or following.

"If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you?" is a parent cliche precisely 'cause it's true!

Oh, and by the way - 0.4% of the emmissions from 0.06% of the world's population is about a 7-fold more than our fair share...

Helen Clark discusses sustainability

blogger was down when i wrote this a few days ago. then i forgot about it. thought i'd chuck it in just to throw it out there.

Helen Clark's sustainibility speech at the Labour conference seems to be stirring up some comment. I don't won't to be a kill joy but we've all seen the govt & The NZ Herald up in arms about some or other issue, it lasts for a few months and then dissapears without a trace. Off the top of my head we have an electricity crises or near crisis every winter, we had a knowledge wave that turned into a damp squib, a fart tax that got canned and next year is NZ Export Year (which says a lot about the priorities of a trading nation that we need to be reminded every now and again to hunt in bigger pastures). Will climate change be a stayer?
I'm thinking it might be, there is a lot of international awareness, especially in countries we're trying to sell stuff to. We've been caught on the back foot with respect to food miles in Europe and politically, i think there's a fair amount of community support for some kiwi ingenuity in shaping how we impact the planet.
The NZ Herald has a couple of op-ed's here and here (which i've lost), and once again, Fran O'Sullivan and John Armstrong hit a couple of nails on the head, especially the capacity Labour has to do anything big - we all remember the back-down over the 'fart' tax which should have been rammed through sans KY. It is a small start but could have provided the impetus for change 2 or 3 years ago (assuming it was either revenue neutral or dedicated to feebates/R&D).
Over at stuff NZ there's Rod Oram and he has some very pertinent things to say - especially regarding Fonterra's and Federated Farmers head-in-the-sand approach to dealing with problems.

Meridian's 'Choices' discussion document on NZ Energy

at Meridian's website here.
H/T to Brian Fallow for pointing the way (when is the herald going to figure out that they can 'link' to other websites in their stories, not just the pathetic little 'more columns' bit at the end, it took almost 4 mins to track it down via Google. that's a lifetime in web surfing...).

Labour is also set to release an energy policy document - i wonder if helen was softening us up with her Rotorua agenda on sustainability.

Renewable energy in schools

described here.
I'm all for the govt leading the charge on showing renewables and leading from the front and i think schools are an excellent place to start - i think most of us can remember at least once when a 6 year old reminded us to 'make it click', it just seems a little more obvious when a primary schooler says it ;-)

Anyway, i hope the social studies (not entirely sure what SS has to do with renewables) and science teachers don't just espouse the benefits of solar panels as 'good' and not solar panels as 'evil'. the debate is far more subtle than that.
for instance - where did the silicon come from to make the solar panels? how much energy was used (via carbon) to make (and transport) the silicon that you have used to stay 'green'. i don't have any numbers but i suspect that solar panels dig themselves a hole of several years worth of carbon emmissions before they start to go into credit. having said that, they're solid state devices with bugger all failure mechanisms so they should last for decades. i think a school would be the perfect place to invest in the future like that - after all, they're already investing in the most important part of our collective future anyway...
the other side of the equation = conservation, so i hope that the schools involved are serious about things like lighting, insulation and dynamic management - there's lots of scope for savings that aren't thought about.

and why is Genesis helping out? their business is to sell kWh, not deny themselves a customer. i suspect (and by suspect, feel free to subsitute the words 'am certain') that this is being billed under the advertising/marketing budget code. Quick question to any Genesis shareholders (ha!) : what is the ratio of your R&D:advertising budgets? Anything less than 1 is a green wash and i'm guessing yours is probably about 0.00001

Another 2050 scenario for NZ

is our marine zone.
Take the worst case scenario's for sealife like this one.
Imagine it's 2035 and NZ marine industry has managed it's resources well and achieved a nice sustainable harvesting level. Now imagine the "£"£$ knuckle over the way who hoovered up theirs with the next generation of drift-nets - the Scourer 3000.
What are they going to do? You would hope that they would honour your boundaries and then buy your product at higher prices but then, let's get real... we already see dodgy registered vessels ducking in and out of our marine areas scooping up some free kaimoana do you think they'll have an attack of the guilties in 25 years? with prices even higher due to no local supply?

If i had to pick a scenario as equally scary as climate change and it's impact on NZ's (hunter gatherer) economy, this would be it. Sure we earn (now) more money from meat and butter but we have to farm for that. Long term, i would expect fisheries, among other maritime bounties, to be a far more lucrative and sustainable asset if managed well. How are we going to react if/when our boundaries are violated at will? Will we have a beefed up naval response force? Hard to believe with NZ's character. WTO complaints? Against who? loads of countries will accept the registration fee of a ship, doesn't mean squat about who actually owns the damn thing. Unlike climate change, there is no need for a global consensus, NZ will have to help itself on this one and that is likely to be expensive - we've got, what?, the 4th largest maritime zone per capita in the world or something?

I would suggest NZ start to diversify it's economy so that if and when (and let's hope never) this starts to happen, it becomes a problem for <5%>10%.
I wonder if anyone has already written an analysis on this scenario...?

Meridian sends massive dividends through to the govt

here.
$1.1 billion dollars. Sure there's a windfall gain in that of $800B but still...
Just think of a 1% investment in NZ's energy R&D (which it should be blindingly obvious that energy is what Meridian is supposed to be involved in). That's.... 11 million dollars. Let me write that out slowly... 11,000,000 dollars.
You could start up a lab with 25 PhD's in it and run it for a few years on that kind of cash. 25 world class people in a room, thinking about NZ, food miles, biofuels, hydrogen, carbon neutral, carbon trading, feebates, flourescent lightbulbs, transport hubs, diesel, hybrids, grid upgrades, plug'n'play networks, small scale consumer energy trading...
Good grief Meridian, you couldn't even flip ten mill off the top as an advertising fillip. Your shareholder(which is my freakin' govt who love to talk the talk) should be embarrassed by the excesses you're giving them. Surely you could have thought of something to do with 1 or 2% of that money?