About a year ago, after looking for simple information on IPCC temperature and sea level rise predictions and not finding it, I decided that it would be a useful exercise to collate the IPCC predictions and compare with relevant observations. Another year has passed (well, almost) allowing another point on the graphs. Here they are . . .

(more…)

Prompted by a notice from the American Institute of Physics that the National Academies is starting the 2010 version of the decadal priority setting exercise for research in astronomy and astrophysics, I am throwing out the idea that a similar exercise might be useful in the area of science and technology policy.  The decadal survey takes a look at these fields every ten years to see where resources should be focused.  From the Statement of Task:

“The Astro2010 committee will survey the field of space- and ground-based astronomy and astrophysics, recommending priorities for the most important scientific and technical activities of the decade 2010-2020.

“The principal goals of the study will be to carry out an assessment of activities in astronomy and astrophysics, including both new and previously identified concepts, and to prepare a concise report that will be addressed to the agencies supporting the field, the Congressional committees with jurisdiction over those agencies, and the scientific community.”

Now, there is no similar process currently underway in science and technology policy (either in practice or in research), and the field may not be sufficiently mature or coherent enough that such an effort could be transferred in whole from the astrophysics and astronomy fields.  But I think this kind of broader assessment could be useful in a number of ways.  Some possibilities:

(more…)

While Detroit struggles to stay afloat, Democrats and Republicans are split on bailing out the car companies.  Republicans claim that the auto industries brought their economic crisis upon themselves.  While not a car industry buff, I figure it is probably true that they brought most of their woes upon themselves; but a big business friendly, Republican  government did not help the matter.  Over the years, the car industry actively fought stricter CAFÉ standards claiming financial hardship and the government heeded the requests, thereby not encouraging the extent of innovation required to withstand high fuel prices…and maybe a looming recession.

Democrats and Obama are eager to bail out the industry concerned about the loss of jobs that would occur if the companies went under in addition to, further economic troubles.  In trying to appease Republicans in order to get the bill passed Democrats in the House agreed to drop a provision to force the automakers to end their legal challenges to state emissions standards, including a lawsuit in California (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/11auto.html?pagewanted=2&ref=business).

Yet, the new president-elect pledges to increase fuel economy standards and put one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015.  Not to mention while a carbon cap and trade system will hit the energy sector harder then the auto industry, it certainly won’t ease financial costs on the auto industry.

It appears that the auto industry may be aided by government with one hand and then hit over the head with the other.

Those interested in the full details of the European climate agreement reached last week in Brussels can examine it in all of its gory details here (in PDF). It is, to put it mildly, complicated. So in the interests of those just wanting the bottom line, here I offer a simplified version of the policy.

The emissions reduction goal is 20% below 1990 emissions levels. As the graph below shows (from the EEA), Europe has a head start on this goal as emissions have decreased since 1990, especially because of the enlargement of the EU to include eastern European countries. The relevant line for the goal of a 20% reduction from 1990s levels is shown in green.

So to achieve the goal Europe actually needs a further reduction of about 12% from 1990 levels.

The plan allows European countries to offset 3% or 4% of their emissions reductions via paying for emissions reductions in developing countries (a dodgy proposition, but I digress). This means that the emissions reductions will not occur in Europe. So this reduces to the goal to about 9%.

The agreement allows countries to exceed their annual emissions targets by 5% annually. So this extra headroom reduces the total emissions reduction goal to about a 4% reduction (very similar to what WWF calculates). A 4% reduction is not so far from business as usual (under some projections), which of course is why the package passed.

And this does not get into any of the other loopholes, like for Lithuanian nuclear plants, the Polish, German, Italian, etc. economies, or unusually cold or warm weather. Oh yeah, the entire agreement is subject to review and is contingent upon what happens in Copenhagen.

The Obama administration should be paying attention.

Scientific Blogging reported recently on a November meeting of a new council of the European Science Foundation.  The main point of the article is an increased, organized effort to combat scientific fraud.  This is not to say that it’s on the rise or anything of that sort.  However, unlike the United States (and surprising to me) there is no group or agency within the EC with investigatory or subpoena power to look into incidents of scientific fraud – whether it is falsification, fabrication or plagiarism.

The main objective of the Research Integrity Forum is to encourage convergence toward common standards of conduct, examination and sanction – if needed – for research misconduct.  If the trend towards more and more collaboration continues (and it’s hard to see it not increasing), some commonalities will be needed to iron out disputes that eventually happen.

The Washington Post is running an article today that serves as a good follow-up to what I posted yesterday about former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Elias Zerhouni and the issues facing the agency.  One of the comments to yesterday’s post focused on the challenges facing young researchers in fields supported by NIH, and the article gives more details to the problems.  Director Zerhouni has made efforts to support young researchers, and the Obama campaign was generally supportive of doing the same.  Unfortunately, an announcement of Zerhouni’s replacement seems a ways off, as ‘observers’ following the transition indicated there was no leading candidate for the position.

Nature News has an interview with former National Institutes of Health Director Elias Zerhouni, who left the post October 31 after serving for most of the Bush Administration.  While some will either smile or tear their hair at his implicit criticism of the administration’s stem cell and research funding policies, I think the most interesting parts of the interview relate to whomever will replace him as NIH Director:

What should President-elect Obama be looking for in your successor?

It’s very important right now to have someone who truly understands the reality of life in academic institutions, especially in the context of an economic crisis. I think you absolutely need someone who has had management experience. I don’t think the person should be political. Disease knows no politics.

(more…)

With the nomination earlier this week of Steven Chu to head the Department of Energy, the President-elect has in the process effectively demoted his yet-to-be-nominated science advisor. Chu is a physicist who has won the Nobel Prize and heads up the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Is it now even conceivable that Obama will nominate an energy expert or even a physicist to the position of science advisor?

Chu’s nomination provides support for an argument I made last year in Nature on the 50th anniversary of the science advisor position (PDF):

Hopes within the science community that the next president will somehow return the science adviser to a position of power are based on unrealistic expectations. The relationship between the next president and his or her science adviser will be as unique and idiosyncratic as those under the past ten presidents. Far more important for effective decision-making will be how the next administration manages and uses the vast infrastructure of expert advice that it will inherit.

After Chu’s nomination, it seems clear that Obama is prepared to get science advice from a variety of sources. And given Chu’s selection, I’d say get ready for the first life scientist as presidential science advisor.

The FT reports that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has suppressed a report commissioned by his government that throws cold water on the prospects for electric cars.

Mr Sarkozy’s own government commissioned months ago one of France’s leading energy experts – Jean Syrota, the former French energy industry regulator – to draw up a report to analyse all the options for building cleaner and more efficient mass-market cars by 2030. The 129-page report was completed in September to coincide with the Paris motor show. But the government has continued to sit on it and seems reluctant to ever publish it.

Yet all those who have managed to glimpse at the document agree that it makes interesting reading. It concludes that there is not much future in the much vaunted developed of all electric-powered cars. Instead, it suggests that the traditional combustion engine powered by petrol, diesel, ethanol or new biofuels still offers the most realistic prospect of developing cleaner vehicles. . .

The misgivings over the future of the electric car may explain why the French government appears to have spiked the report. It probably considers it politically incorrect, especially when some of Mr Sarkozy’s big business chums such as Vincent Bolloré and Serge Dassault are developing either electric cars and lobbying hard. Renault too has struck a deal with Israel to jointly develop a mass-market electric vehicle. To paraphrase Al Gore’s documentary on climate change, Paris may feel it is not the best of times to publicise the inconvenient truth about electric cars.

Imagine that. A government doesn’t want to share a politically uncomfortable report.

Today’s FT reports that John Kerry has suggested that the U.S. would be willing to link a U.S. carbon trading system to that of the EU. I have heard proposals for such a transatlantic carbon market, but I have never understood the logic of how it would work politically. Maybe some one can explain this to me.

Here is the problem:

Imagine that the US and Europe decide to partner, and between them decide to allocate (for simplicity a nonsensical number) 1,000 emissions permits shared equally across all industries. Lets further say that, say, Germany, finds itself in a bit of economic trouble in its economic competitiveness for auto manufacturing, and decides to create an exemption for its industry under the trading plan, and allocates its industry an additional 50 permits. This decision raises several difficult questions. Among them:

1. In this example, would the German government accept the need for U.S. acceptance of changes to its economic policies? If the situation were reversed would the US public accept having to get EU approval for changes to its economic policies?

2. If Germany could act unilaterally, then its decisions would have an effect on carbon prices (it is a market after all), with direct effects on the U.S. economy. Would U.S. voters be happy knowing that they could be, in effect, taxed without representation?

So in either case — shared decision making or unilateral decision making — linked carbon markets across sovereign states are a political nightmare. And in democratic systems you can’t eliminate the possibility for policy makers to tinker with policy.

The only solution I can see is for a linked carbon market to work would be for the U.S. to join the EU, which doesn’t really seem likely. Barring a global carbon authority with the right to overrule national governments, linked carbon markets seem a fantasy. But maybe someone can show me what I might have missed.