Small talk

After thirteen long years, the European Commission has finally adopted a bill approving the use of four different genetically mutated (GM) crops, three of which are species of corn and one a species of potato. It has been a stubborn case; an example wherein many interests meet scepticism and fear, and where prejudices meet the power of science.

Vital in the discussion about GM crops is the question why we should grow them in the fist place. Many oversimplified answers are available. Some of these are familiar ones, like better resistance to drought, pests and stress. A more radical and innovative scientific feature is altered composition, shortly described as the addition of beneficial substances into the crops themselves, thereby replacing possible later (chemical) additions in the food production process.

This arouses fear in many people. That is not strange, as genetic mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell’s genome, which are best known to us thanks to world news about radiation and viruses. But there’s more: Think of ‘don’t mess with my food’ and Hollywood scenarios telling horrifying tales of mad scientists manipulating this world. And in a sense it is true that scientists manipulate what happens in the world, yet for very different reasons and with very different means. Some basic biology helps most people see the light.

In nature there is natural selection as a driving force of evolution. Leaving the broader discussion aside, it is reasonably safe to say that, when an organism develops a trait that makes it unsuited for survival – like for instance blindness – its chances of survival are slimmer than those of its rivals. The same works the other way around, meaning when a positive trait is developed. The familiar ‘human’ variant of this is called artificial selection. Most of us have encountered real-life examples of this: Dogs. They all share a same ancestor, namely wolves, yet their looks are astonishingly different. Many dog-lineages have been carefully ‘crafted’, meaning that sexual reproduction was carefully driven into a desired direction by excluding those that did not have either the looks or characters the breeders were looking for. This is the reason why some dogs have flat snouts, some are always fluffy and some have a body/paw ratio of 100:1. In other words, if you want to breed dogs with a long snout, you keep all those with the long-snout trait, while excluding all other gene pools that do not seem to favour your wishes.

Dogs are, however, certainly not the only example of artificial selection. Mankind has tried to steer nature’s course many, many times over. The relevant examples here are agricultural products. Grow wheat each year, harvest all, yet use in re-seeding only seeds from plants that produce most. If all goes as planned, the same amount of wheat will, in due course, produce more. There are limits to that process, and they are nature’s limits. Looked at from this perspective, genetic mutation is ‘just’ the next step, the step enabling mankind to overcome difficulties that nature alone is not able to solve, at least not in our lifespan. In practice it is much more difficult to grasp than artificial breeding, for as we know not all breeders have biological know-why and know-how, but ‘all’ those involved in the actual process of mutating crops certainly have. For, as the name implies, genetic mutation happens on gene-level. Unlike in normal natural circumstances, where reproduction is only possible if a creature’s DNA or genetic structure is related closely enough to allow it to happen, this makes cross-border transfer of genes possible (for instance from fungi to bacteria).

This means that the conventional technique of breeding, where existing genes are randomly rearranged, is left behind. Generally, it is not grievously wrong to say the genes code for DNA, and DNA codes for proteins (there are exceptions, but they’re irrelevant here).  As plants and creatures are very different in phenotype (appearance), you might expect major differences on the genotype level too. And in a sense there is, but the structure of genetic material is in many ways quite similar in different species. This has the advantage that it makes scientists better suited to identity (potentially) useful genes, which in turn can be used and implemented into genetic material by Genetic Engineers instead of making the genetic material a mere combination of two distinct parents.

This sounds rather attractive when you think of the implications this can have. Can you imagine crops much better suited for long droughts or for concluding when its spring (meaning grow-time)? And what about the dependence our crops have these days on chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides? ‘Biological agriculture’ – meaning agriculture by nature so without the chemical and fertilizers – has been thriving in Holland. People apparently are willing to pay a higher price if their food hasn’t been ‘infected’ by all sorts of post-seeding substances. If scientists and farmers get more freedom, albeit carefully watched freedom, then there is much territory left to be explored.

People, especially in Europe, are weary of the process, though. Some have religious reasons, stating that ‘it is God’s job do steer nature’. Luckily for us, most are sensible enough to go beyond that argument. Their other arguments don’t hold much sway, as they’re aimed mostly at safety. This might be another Hollywood left-over, creating unwilling minds when it comes to genetic mutation, or it might not be. Whatever the reason, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has rigorously assessed the now legal products, and not just once. Also, as already stated, GM crops have already been safely used over and over again in other countries. Fears that they might spread in our own national wildlife, creating havoc and destroying other species, have become common, though groundless, myths. First of all, most agricultural products aren’t grown at places where similar species grow, meaning gene flow isn’t possible. Second, the advantages of genetic mutations are aimed at reasonably controlled agricultural situations; hence the advantages are much less useful in nature. You might note here that bugs and other small creatures travelling along on our ships and aeroplanes do create just the havoc we seek to avoid: Nature itself is probably much more unsafe than are GM’s.

The former is not meant to be saying we shouldn’t be careful. On the contrary: A couple of decades of GM crops cannot be considered as something worthy of the label ‘long-term proof’. The demand for case-by-case studies then, in order to asses each GM crop on its merit instead of judging the whole scene at once, is certainly legitimate And that is only a good thing. A strict procedure aimed at both the safety of civilians as well as Mother Nature should not be neglected, but then again it never should have.

And there are reasons abound for introducing more GM crops, so there is no need so stick with a biologically framed vision. Equally pressing and mundane matters are waiting, and not exactly waiting in line. First of all there is shortage of food, on a global scale. In recent years it has led to a steady increase of average food prices, which has, as always, hit the poorest hardest. More production in Europe is unlikely to change a persisting lack of supply, but being more self-sufficient might lower demand and therefore prices.

A second reason is added value for farmers. They will be able to make their own choices, no longer being told whether or not to grow GM crops. As these mutated crops have advantages over their natural ‘predecessors’, they might also improve the European market compared to countries which started using them long ago such as China, India, USA and Brazil. In the last decade more and more farmers opted for GM crops, both in richer, developed nations as in those less well off. How many of us are inclined to ascribe that process to randomness rather than to apparently serious practical advantages? Relevance can be found too in the area of energy and environment. Crops needing less water or other post-seeding activities demand less of our resources, which is something well in-line with the European Union’s long-term ambitions.

The last and most profound ‘argument’ is not scientific but about science: A wide-spread consensus that the advantages are great, the dangers much less so. The European Commission has (finally) done something pragmatic, something that overcame prejudice. Not that I would stress blind faith in ‘science’, but the reports, examples and needs are too numerous to leave these plans in ruins. Hunger is still our enemy, not difficult innovation.

Those against genetically mutated crops should raise several questions. Not the least of those is whether or not they would ponder over its acceptability if they were starving themselves. That is a staggeringly easy question to answer I think, but we need to remind ourselves of its power. Let our brains do the work, are GM’s will keep on paving the way, despite opposition.

If you can forgive me for writing in a hurry, then I’ll draw your attention once again to the phenomenon I spoke of a few days earlier. That is climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) might have committed itself to consistent misinterpretation. Whether this actually occurred and, if so, to what extent people are to be held responsible for doing so knowingly and willingly, is another matter, but we’ll come back to that later.

As I previously argued we have good reason to believe climate change is occurring, and also that we do not have conclusive proof that humans are at its roots. That naturally leads to a great deal of scepticism, which is a good thing as long as it does not prevent us from taking on matters effectively. I would consider it to be good thing that such is the trend these days. We might not have a decent climate bill yet, but that is more to the fact of stubborn Chinese officials and the economical unwillingness of nations.

But as there are always two sides to one coin, this news was ‘too good’ to be left well alone. Since 1990 the number of weather stations used by the IPCC has shrunk from a total of 6000 to only 1500. According to some scientists, of which Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts are two familiar names, this is one of the major reasons why numbers so consistently point to higher average temperatures.

This does not necessarily mean the figures have become unreliable. What does seem to make this happen, however, are their geographical locations, or absence of it. Most stations have been removed from high altitudes, the North Pole and countryside. Influences of the first two of these are clear, as temperatures on great heights and the North Pole are high enough to pull down nearly any average temperature, but the countryside is highly significant as well as it generally comes with less heat radiation from asphalt and industry.

Even worse, there is another blow. Temperatures by the IPCC are measured via these weather stations, but they can also be measured via satellite systems. These systems lack one serious disadvantage, namely the one we just mentioned. Their measurements are not tied to geographical locations owing to their ‘3rd person perspective’, meaning more is measured to the same standard and viability to irrelevant or biased fluctuations is less likely. This ‘shows’ itself in the figures: The IPCC temperature on average has been rising, while satellite mappings of this earth’s temperature have shown decreases since 2001.

No opportunities have so far arisen to take a deeper look into the data, so I cannot verify the arguments here presented. The numbers are taken from several newspapers, albeit not the ones I admire best for their quality. It is truly interesting, though, as it shows the nature of science by illuminating its ability and tendency to overthrow consensus, even if matters haven’t reached this point (yet?). It not only shows that data interpretation is highly sensitive to our questions, it also shows that philosophy of science is sometimes right when it stresses that measuring devices, systems or principles can lead us astray.

Do not jump ahead here. I do not mean to say there is no climate change. Still being indebted to scientific consensus (even if fully aware of this), I need a little more in order to accept my beliefs to have been falsified. Lately, some good attempts occurred, though sadly it all came from within the branch that upheld the theory. Not by rational reflection, but by ignorant ways of using ill-founded information.

That is scandalous. The richness of literature prevents nearly everyone from knowing all about the issue, as each case tends to build upon previously collected data. Let it be stressed here that my own thoughts and articles form no exception to this rule whatsoever. The danger of doing so should by now be obvious. Even if it turns out that the IPCC has a good explanation of their weather-station numbers and satellite figures, we still have the Himalaya glaciers as a reminder.

Already in the second month of 2010, the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen seems a long forgotten story. New things have been added to the timeline in which nations worldwide want to fight the process that is said to be so devastating to this planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can be found in many headlines in recent weeks. Skepticism, fury and lies set the tone.

Fist there is the issue of alternatives. There is such widespread consensus among politicians that no one seems to doubt global warming as a result of human action, which means that too little time and money are invested to see if there are alternative explanations that could reasonably tell us why our earth is warming up. While this, in part, might be a legitimate demand, it does not change the situation we are in. If, I repeat if, climate change is happening and we can do something about it, then the time to act has come, if it hasn’t already passed. Besides that, science is about aiming for truth, wherefore the obligation to pursue various theories is a rather loose one, as accumulated evidence tends to shift the burden of proof towards other points of view.

A second issue, even much more painful, is that of an agenda. Scientists have been accused of withholding information to the public for all sorts of reasons, such as maintaining financial support. The so called “Climate gate affair” in November/December 2009 is an example of this. Over a thousand personal e-mails were stolen from the East Anglia University, and supposedly some spoke of changing data and stories in order to prevent doubts about climate change from arising. In fact, what happened was interaction between people via e-mails in ways that you and I might opt for when e-mailing. Even if -and this is hypothetical- some data cannot satisfactorily be collected or explained by the current technological means available, that does not mean that ripping things out of context brings you at places better suited for objective judgments. The only thing it is likely to do is make all ‘the evidence’ fit your story, rather than doing it the other way around by making a story out of the evidence.

There is more. Glaciers’ melting is a common horror story for everyone fearing planetary demise.  How horrifying is it that the IPCC seems to have been using the tentative, totally unproven, hypothesis of an Indian scientist. Another example, as if we need it, of using numbers and figures to your liking. We should be glad that the Himalaya glaciers will not melt before the second half on this century. Skeptics, once again, fiercely entered the fray with their claims, telling of conspiracies and lies. They are right in the sense that no one will be able to conclusively prove mankind’s influence in this planet’s overheating. They’re wrong in stating it is a conspiracy, however. The theory is build up out of numerous investigations, many collections of data and probable inferences. As the IPCC says about their unlucky mistake:

The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated:

“Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21^st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”

This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment.

It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment2 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly. The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance. This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report” 3. We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.

It sums up the moral of the story: They made a mistake, but the theory has not been falsified in any way.  If we’d all just stop moaning and use all our ingenuity to get a good deal through, the search for truth and a solution can be continued via various routes. A case has already been argued –not just by the unknowing me, but by the Economist- that costs will not be huge. Work together quickly and effectively, and the bank bail-outs, hugely unpopular, will turn out to be more expensive than acting on global warming. And what is more important?

Well we know what is more important, that is not the problem. The problem is a lack of responsibility on the west’s side, complemented by hugely inflated egos from developing nations. Combine this with an increasing sense of skepticism, ignorance about facts and research and an even greater general unwillingness to invest in something that is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and you have made sure ‘Green-people’ face serious challenges. This was one of the reasons why Copenhagen was neither failure, nor success.  One of the few good things that can be said about it is that China and India are now bound by at least some agreement, even if it is not legally binding.

The European Union has now decided to step into the plan as well, by formally announcing in a press release that they ‘reconfirm their commitment to a negotiating process’ which aims at limiting warming to two degrees Celsius. The aims are an emission reduction of 50% by in 2050, (in comparison with figures from 1990), and the emission peak mustn’t be any later than 2020. Intermediate goals are less ambitious, yet should still be at least 20% lower by 2020 (again, in comparison with 1990 figures). This intermediate aim is not definite, as in theory the EU can decide to increase it to a 30% cut under the conditions agreed by the European Council.

These are common sense conditions too, not idealistic ones in which Europe tries to be the only good boy in class. The extra cuts will only take place if other developed countries will also commit themselves to comparable reductions, with the extra demand of cooperation from developing nations. These should display responsible behavior, which in essence means finding ways to limit emissions, but less vigorously and/or with financial help from rich nations. That step is easily justified, as anything done by the EU will be outweighed by the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China)-countries doing nothing, and developing nations can claim help from developed ones based on the voice of industrial history.

Lets hope that 2010 will be a better year for our climate. With temperatures low, and the weather bad, we’ll face arguments even more inclined to deny global warming. The fact that countries such as England and the USA (and many more) have been plagued by bad weather doesn’t change a damn thing. Measures on a global scale, that take wind currents and directions into account, will be able to give a suitable explanations for this.

In the meantime, we have the time to think our policies through, so that hopefully we’ll come up with something good at the next climate conference. The  more we overestimate this problem, the fiercer we will act, the smaller the damage. The greater we underestimate this problem, the higher eventual costs and the more damage future generations will be stuck with. That is not a strictly sound argument, but it’s persuasive enough for me.

Haiti has been struck by an earth-quake of 7.0 on the scale of Righter. Being the poorest country on the western hemisphere its reserves and abilities to come up with a quick and effective response are already limited.

With 85% of its people living in poverty, the country can hardly be said to have recovered from 2008 hurricanes. Aid from foreign countries is desperately needed. Obama already held a speech in which he firmly stated that ‘America would not forsake Haiti’. However, latest developments still point to a slow start in aid money and products.

Death numbers started with a few dozens, but were quickly edited. Numbers now speak of a death toll far larger than 100.000. From a safe side of this planet, there is little we can do to help, except provide those who can help with money.

Haitians already had very little. Now there is, as a local said, “No electricity, no water, no food, no nothing”. If you are Dutch, then you can donate to ‘Giro 555’. If you are from somewhere else, you will probably know where your money is in good hands.

Very few people still believe anything worthy of admiration will result from the two week during summit in Copenhagen that started yesterday. It is considered as the last reasonable chance to come up with a decent replacement of the Kyoto-protocol that ends in 2012.

Climate skeptics keep referring to the enormous costs involved in fighting climate change, while it is not at all sure that mankind has any influence on the actual process. ‘Greens’ keep stressing we have only one planet and that the evidence is overwhelming. Neither is completely right, but the Greens show more understanding when it comes to its importance, and the irreversibility of some of possible results. What will the Copenhagen summit bring us, and what should it?

The answers given to these questions are very diverse, so we should perhaps begin with the problem itself  before turning  to politics. A lot of open questions remain, despite many attempts to settle the dispute, enormous budgets and much public attention. Let’s stress at the outset that climate change is not settled beyond reasonable doubt. There are skeptics, pros and cons as there are in any field of scientific enterprise. Not so much about the way in which data is gathered or in which way underlying processes function, but about which conclusions to draw from them. So people who doubt whether mankind has a hand in changing this world’s climate have a fair point. What they miss out on is that this is not a justification or argument that needs to make us refrain from taking action.

This seems contradictory, though it is not. We will perhaps someday know whether the ‘greens’ or the skeptics were right. However, if the green side turned out to be right and no action was undertaken it will mean catastrophe. If the skeptics are right, and we did act, no harm has been done, only some money has been lost. Since the issue remains disputed and one side bids us to act now, we would do best by minimizing harm. You can accept or decline this way of reasoning; to me it is very persuasive, after all we only have one earth.

Taking a step back to the summit we have a good number of politicians who either agree with this or are inclined to take more ferocious steps. In my eyes, the Kyoto protocol was a well intentioned, dismal failure. Only in 2004 was it ratified as legally binding by its own standards, since that was the year Russia decided it could no longer turn a blind eye to nature’s troubles. Not that ratification depended on Russia’s support; it was only because at least 55% of the countries that took care of polluting this world needed to be in on it. It would have been utterly useless to have a protocol with a backing lower than that. A big difference favoring our targets and hopes this time is Obama’s position. He does not want to be seen as a president that neglects milieu. True, his visit will be one of short notice  (he will come to Norway to pick up his Nobel-peace prize, visit Copenhagen for a day or two, after which he’ll travel on), but it’s better than not showing up at all.

Even with a good number of politicians supporting a new climate bill, reaching one will get pretty difficult. From America’s point of view there is still the Senate. Obama will need to convince the rest of the world that they will not pose an obstacle on ratification. This would have been much, much easier if America had passed a cap & trade bill before the summit started. Arguing on urgent tones is more convincing if American policies themselves would have implicitly supported it. They might not be the world’s biggest polluter anymore – China can now claim that dubious title – they still account for a big share of it. Fierce American politicians claim that countries such as India, China and Brazil need to make promises too. Their counterstrikes keep reminding of the fact that Westerners already used the opportunity to damage the earth, and that it is not their but America’s task to take initiative. Strikingly as it may seem, China doesn’t even need to act. Their current targets will probably be met without any need for a change in policy. The USA criticized them for this, saying standards are too low. In fact, they are not. China has already done some work on lowering emissions, the only question that remains is whether this is because image-building is so important to Beijing or that they care about our climate. That however, seems illegitimate and misplaced at this time.

Not all the blame is being awarded to America. Politicians are often good at transferring messages and discussing topics in public. Their ideas are not self-styled and written though. Think-tanks and scientists are vital not just to our education. Any politicians willing to fight climate change will find it impossible to do so if not for science. And it is from that corner that more critique arises. Negotiators are diplomats, their “know-why” is often limited. Very few will be able to tell exactly why climate change occurs. A result of this is that their “know-how” is also lacking expertise backing. If you want to resolve issues as complex as this one, a clear and well-founded insight to both problems and solutions are necessary.

Opponents of a climate bill stress the huge costs involved in creating policies towards a problem we are not sure that exists. It isn’t that bad, though it certainly could be. If negotiators’ willingness to come up with a deal that acts fervently, costs by fighting climate change could end up with being no more than 1% of global economic output, compared to about 5% for recent bank and company bail-outs (figures provided by the Economist.com, article “Stopping Climate Change”, Dec. 3rd). Waste time and act bureaucratically, and costs will be sure to rise dramatically. On a side-note, this will also be a good time for Europe to show that the appointment of Van Rompuy and Lady Ashton were not the result of worthless ambitions. Not that their role is likely to be prominent, but European countries have here an excellent chance to show the world it wants to take the lead other than in economics. Brussels: Stand up and take responsibility.

Enforcing a treaty

To make sure that Kyoto’s mistakes are not repeated Copenhagen will have to result in more than a simple draft or agreement. Clear decisions, sooner rather than later, on ways to punish violations are needed. The whole point will be missed if governments can get away with opt-outs (one opt-out and more will surely follow).

Punishments in the form of financial fines are in place then. Since wealth is unequally distributed, this should be taken into account. A possible way in which this could be done is by tying the heights of fines to a percentage of a country’s GDP. I’m sure there will be many ways in which you can fill in the dots, but it is important to make pollution financially unattractive, since the most important interests that fuel opposition against Copenhagen are financial ones.

On a national scale the way in which this can be achieved is familiar: Cap and trade. Setting a maximum emission for pollutants at government level, and then sell the incentives to companies. This will both stimulate development and research on the long term as well as act on a short term when it comes to climate change, as investing in ‘green’ innovation will become financially more attractive and emitting too much will result in penalties. The same could in principle be achieved on a more global scale by setting a total limit, and then share the emissions-slices between the world’s countries. Some room will probably be spared for compensatory measures, such as planting trees, in order to allow countries to emit more (This process is doubtful in the long term since it does not get rid of CO2, it merely stores it for as long as a tree lives.)

When these two principles are combined on global and national scale, an emission-market will appear and regulate distribution and prices. If prices are too low, this will mean that there is too little stimulation for green-innovation as is currently the case. In Europe price per ton of emitted carbon amount to about 20 to 23 Euros, whereas American proposals don’t get any further than a laughable 13 dollars. To actually make investments in research more sensible a steady increase is needed. Also, the money involved and earned by taxing emissions should in part be used to strengthen the circle. This could for instance be done by providing cheap loans to innovation directed at a better climate. Direct subsidies are a bad idea here. Subsidies create too much bureaucracy, resistance and dependence. Companies’ own money is much more important to them. Tax-cuts could be another one, even if these too are rarely good for transparency. (Maybe, in America’s case, this will work if they get politically strong enough to impose a value added tax, get rid of some other ones and create an efficient system to impose this.)

To come back to compensatory measures: Planting trees is said not to be a solution in the long run. That is different from saying they cannot help us in creating more time. Many trees have quite large life-spans, so they’ll be able to take in a lot of CO2 (storing the C and letting out the oxygen in oversimplified words). Yes, when burned or decomposed they’ll let it go again, so any generation of trees that dies will have neutralized the effect of the one that comes after it. We need only think of how many trees we are currently cutting down, not just in rainforests, to know we need to plant a lot of trees to improve climate. However, it does have positive effects, which could be of great importance. It has already been quite successfully argued that if climate change goes on as we expect it to do, some places will thrive when it comes to agriculture, but on the whole the effect will be negative (if climate change goes on, then agriculture will be hit). With a world population growing, probably up until 2050, slowing down that process will do much good, especially when combined with cap and trade, green investments and innovations towards another green revolution. Planting trees in order to buy more time then, seems not such a foolish plan at all, as long as it is not the corner-stone upon which we build.

Now what?

The first step, in order to get things rolling, needs to come from Western countries. They have already had historic opportunities to gain wealth without eying the interests of Mother Nature. Much will depend on Obama’s persuasiveness: He needs to convince the reset that the Senate will ratify this time. Europe seems less likely to block the road here. But only when these two stake-holders of pollution act decisively, will developing nations such as China, India and Brazil follow in their footsteps. All in all we can say it’s a good thing that policies by themselves should be pragmatic in practice, scientific in nature. Now let’s see how pragmatic our leaders actually are. To sum up the current Copenhagen summit: Our hopes are high, our expectations low.