Paris

I write this only a few days after the end of the Paris Climate Change convention (more formally COP21 and more). My despair over climate change had smouldered for a few months leading up to this event, obviously hoping for some positive outcome, late as it would be. Through the 2 weeks, the messages seemed to be good. In the end, there was much cheering and satisfaction. This looked positive, although there were nay-sayers too, on both left and right. There was even a staunch denialist letter to the Canberra Times arguing the cooling line, as I remember (it makes you wonder, but Trump is also unseemingly popular). I read some articles, but largely awaited this event at ANU. The event was "Deciphering the Paris Climate talks : where to next?" coordinated by the ANU Climate Change Institute featuring 5 people (all men, noted by several woman around me) who had attended Paris, so this was informed. They were: Assoc Prof Frank Jotzo, Dep Dir, Crawford School, Dir, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy; Adj Prof Howard Bamsey, formerly Australia’s Special Envoy on Climate Change; Luke Kemp, lecturer and finishing PhD student at ANU with a focus on climate negotiations (the young one); Doug McInnes, Dept of Foreign Affairs & Trade; Alex Gosman, CEO, Australian Industry Greenhouse Network. Chaired by Prof Mark Howden, Dir, ANU Climate Change Institute; introduced by H.E Sem Fabrizi, Ambassador, Delegation of the European Union to Australia; summarised by Prof Brian Schmidt, Leader of the Mainau Declaration on Climate Change (and soon to be ANU's VC, and our fave local Nobel prizewinner). A powerful team, it must be admitted! Each spoke for a few minutes, then some questions, then the summary. The session didn't summarise the agreement so much as talk of why and how success was reached and suggestions for what was now required. Here's my summary.

There were three elements for the successful outcome (and it is certainly seen as successful): Ambition (<2degC, targetting 1.5degC); commitment (transparency through INDCs, 5-yearly reviews, regular overall reports and a mechanism to ramp up ambitions by individual countries); solidarity (support for developing countries and the commitment to $100b pa transfers). The success was a function of France's "masterclass in diplomacy" (day 1 commitment by heads of government then transparent, inclusive shuttle diplomacy; a multilayered approach; good planning with a tight team; the writing and release of the draft then final texts). Also, the involvement of the USA ("a vindication of Obama"); Kerry's "masterful intervention"; the pre-G20 US/China deal that so flummoxed Abbott as "instrumental"; the behind-the-scenes bilaterals. But also important was the "alignment of the stars": Trudeau cheered for "Canada is back"; Australia "in from the cold" and winning only one Fossil of the Day award (oddly, a good result!); Obama not Republicans, more. And public scrutiny: all public events being televised thus limiting negativism and promoting positive ambition; the Paris Action Agenda of commitments by 800 businesses and NGOs. Amusingly, there was talk of calling the Pope to speak to the one country with a flag up approaching the final gavel, but he was unavailable, in Mass. It was recognised that this agreement comes nowhere near 2degC (I read variously 2.7-3.5degC) but it codifies existing efforts, sends signals to industries and commits to a mechanism to ramp up action. There's a certain optimism here, but it's reasonably founded and the outcome is more than might have been hoped for. A carbon price was not included (but that's a domestic decision) and neither was decarbonisation mentioned in the text (but it's an inevitable implication). The INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) are not legally binding, but the process of 5-yearly reports and ramped up actions apparently is binding and the burden of change has been shared to some degree by all parties, developed and developing. It was "heartwarming" that Australia was back in the process and apparently we did good work, even Greg Hunt (who would'a thunk it). The plan is for net zero emissions by end-century (or was it 2050?) and this requires all manner of actions to be used, including carbon sequestration (although I imagine that's an increasingly relatively costly option). ACT presented well as a subnational government but most others displayed good intentions and talk rather than action. Carbon Tracker ( http://www.carbontracker.org/ ) is a useful incentive for divestment and BHP did well by publishing its carbon risk; carbon risk will become increasingly recognised by business. Brian Schmidt observed that "humanity is pretty good at close problems (eg, nuclear war) ... this is long term, therefore a great achievement". That this is a framework but there are challenges ahead. That technology will be important but also the social sciences and humanities. That the ANU Climate Change Institute does great work. That this is the defining issue of our times and that it requires coordinated, long term generational effort without immediate gain (mmm, that's a worrying thought).

So it's clear that Paris was a great achievement but there's still plenty of work to do and possibility of failure and, despite the worthy target, we may not win. I still mull over the ~2.1degC positive forcing in place against the ~0.7degC negative forcing and how this fits, but the broad scientific view appears to be that there's still hope to avoid runaway climate change. That's the biggy: when the positive feedback loops start up and we lose the ability to turn things around, when those tipping points are reached, then it's game over. Paris suggests we may not get there: it seems there's hope yet. And then there are the denialists who will presumably still rant away. That should be frustrating but increasingly just an amusement for the rest of humanity.

Deciphering the Paris Climate talks : where to next? was presented by the ANU Climate Change Institute and featured Frank Jotzo, Howard Bamsey, Luke Kemp, Doug McInnes, Alex Gosman, Mark Howden, Sem Fabrizi and Brian Schmidt.

Our own local Nobel

Brian Schmidt is everybody’s favourite scientist these days given his Nobel Prize. There were murmurs of approval at Brian Brown, the previous month, when Brian’s name was mentioned as the next speaker, but then, Brian’s session didn’t end up as well attended (politicians make better saints for most people than do scientists). Brian was speaking on Evidence and Politics.

He ran through a series of arguments from the sciences and I found them mostly unarguable. Science is a process that makes predictions based on available data and this data is the evidence. The test is that it (predictions, technology) works. Scientists always question theory and evidence and this is not appreciated by the public or politicians. There are limits to evidence but there are mechanisms to decide “beyond reasonable doubt”. Once you introduce emotion to science, “you’ve lost the battle”. Politics is different; it requires compromise and ethical/moral judgement. He ran through some examples. Newton and Einstein and how we’ll never have the ultimate theory. Out technology is based on scientific deductive reasoning, and this is what gives us our modern life. We like our lives now: 700 years back “life suck[ed]”. So science works. He suggested predictions can be used for social matters and it’s also useful to recognise when “we have no idea”. His other examples may have challenged the audience: nuclear energy; coal seam gas; Murray Darling water; light rail in Canberra; fisheries; saving the Great Barrier Reef. By implication, he suggested both sides were not seeing the big picture. (FWIW, I agree).

He discussed probability and the public’s lack of comfort with it. Climate change was the obvious example: 90% certainty from evidence; 99.9999..% certainly of the underlying physical model. He confirmed that we’ll know better in 25 years … but it may not be a pleasant position to be in by then. He brought up the interesting diversion of electrons in the quantum world, that we can’t be certain of their location at any time although we can be (virtually) certain that our arms will rise when we wish, and if they don’t it’s not due to quantum physics. (Scientists have a nice wry humour about very big issues). He questioned the role of debaters and prominence given by the media and others in climate change and other contentious topics. Debaters manipulate uncertainty for an unaware public. He mentioned an obvious name, but I won’t. Debate is good, of course, but only where people genuinely understand, so a consensus of informed people is the most likely to be correct. This is where he enters into practical politics, suggesting Consensus Expert Panels to advise politics. This is not a common approach in Australia and it’s a weakness. He gave the example of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and its super-trawler decision being rolled. This may or may not be the best result, but the process has damaged the role of expert opinion. Brian knows something of this. His father was a fisheries regulator in Alaska and he’d had decisions overturned by politics. In this context, his father considers Australian fisheries to be the best managed in the world. Undermining the decisions of any independent advisor (by either side) leads to poorer decisions. If advisors aren’t independent, deal with that, but don’t roll decisions for political reasons.

I was stunned to hear of the expert committee investigating coal seam gas, set up under legislation with a budget of $150m pa (10% of the total research budget for Australia?!?!?!?!?!?!). Brian’s answer was a body like the National Research Council in the US. The NRC collects evidence and advises government with about 50 reports pa at a cost of … ~$150m pa. These bodies are willing and ready to share expertise, so a standing committee for widespread advice could cost far less than the single committee for coal seam gas. Brian suggested $20m pa. What a sensible suggestion! Politicians may start off with good intentions but our bitter, professional politics dirties what it touches. This is a very disheartening period for politics: one side that plays the emotional card (very well) and opposes all; the other side that seems incapable of arguing its case; the public increasingly despairing and despising them both.

Back to questions for Brian. Is the Australian media complicit? A: Not really, they are just commercial organisations. I didn’t quite agree with this response. At least one paper seems to have been run for ages without profit, presumably for political influence. An ANU law lecturer questioned the use of “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” in this context. He hadnt used it in a strict sense; she highlighted the structure of courts with judges to mediate and confirm proper practice. Someone asked about “muddling through” as an approach to politics. A: It’s a bad strategy when stakes are high, like with Climate Change. There was inevitable discussion of teaching kids about probability and evidence. A: Should kids be opt out of maths and science and the rest. I certainly hear plenty of poor logic and unrecognised assumptions these days and wonder if return to a more traditional, classical education would help. Someone asked about pilot programs. A: They are sensible when issue are “murky” but require the best evidence to design them and they benefit from multiple pilots. Someone asked about balancing evidence with other values. This seemed strange to me: surely evidence is not a value; rather, it’s value-free. I was interested how Brian responded. His wife is an economist. He suggested many processes (cause-effect links) in economics are clear but the ethics of moving equity around is contestible on moral/ethical grounds (eg, efficiency vs. distribution). Also, individuals can remain free (eg, to smoke), but given the costs of their actions are clear at the social level (health costs), actions at that level are justifiable (heavy taxes). I found this good, clear thinking. The last question was on scientists in Parliament. Interestingly, Brian wasn’t worried about that. He noted that the two professions require different skills. Also that under a Westminster system a politician must be prepared to argue positions s/he doesn’t believe in, and “I couldn’t do that”. I can understand that.

I didn’t find anything particularly new, although I enjoyed several observations and I despaired with him over some of the examples he raised. I liked the suggestion of a moderately funded and internationally-connected National Research Council. Good on evidence, I reckon.

Let me mention my encounters with Brian. Astronomy is one of my lifelong interests. Before Stromlo burned, I was a member of RAPT*, a group of amateur astronomers gathering data for professionals at Mt Stromlo Observatory. Brian was one of our professional advisors/leaders. We’d taken part in the discovery of extra-solar planet ~no.9 and Brian had called us together to explain. It ended up with the group members listed as authors for an article in Nature (!). Also, I remember my stunned surprise one morning when I woke to read on the front page of the Canberra Times that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating, not decelerating. This was the work of a team on the Hubble led by Brian. That led to his Nobel and the rest is history.

PS: *RAPT was the Reynolds Amateur Photometry Team. RAPT was using the 30” Reynolds telescope at Stromlo to track light curves of Macho candidates to inform on dark matter. Basically, dark matter makes up 90% of the mass of the universe. This is known from speed of rotation of galaxies (another story). The theorised explanations were machos and wimps (wonderful physicist humour). Machos are Massive Compact Halo Objects, basically Jupiter-sized objects that we don’t see optically, but we can observe as they cause gravitational lensing of more distant visible objects. Wimps are Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, basically neutrinos that pass through everything and so are difficult to observe. The question is what proportion of each of these are out there. A team on the 50” Great Melbourne Telescope at Stromlo was observing ~20 million stars per night to find candidate Macho objects (by observing changes in brightness in two colours of stars in the Megallanic Clouds). RAPT would track the light curves of candidate objects in more detail. MACHO light curves would be the same in different colours (unlike variable stars that change brightness through inherent physical processes). As I remember, they expected ~20 Macho objects pa, but found ~6pa, suggesting that some part of dark matter was Machos, but some part was something else. Our extrasolar planet was a spike in the light curve of one of these Macho candidates. In the end, the RAPT team also worked on other projects, including Gamma Ray Bursters and supernovae. It’s a ridiculously small part to play in the development of knowledge, but I look back on it fondly.

Brian Schmidt was leader of a team working on the Hubble Space Telescope to better quantify the speed of expansion of the Universe. He used Type 1A supernovae to determine distances which he them matched with speed of recession (from red shift) to determine change in speed. Physical properties of these supernovae allow astronomers to dertermine their absolute luminosity, so their apparent brightness informs us of their distance. In another delightful twist on language, astronomers refer to these and other objects with knowable absolute luminosity as secondary candles and use them to determine distance in the universe. All this, and uninformed fools still persist in questioning scientific consensus on issues including global warming.

I’d have to hunt for the Nature article, but RAPT got written up for a more mainstream audience in Planet pay dirt, by Cheryl Jones, in The Bulletin, 17 Mar 1998, p.22-23.