iBiome

next on my reading list

Dave Sawyer's new report,Mind the Gap

In "Mind the Gap" Dave Sawyer explores where we stand with regard to current Canadian climate change policies and how Canada can close the gap between emissions reductions expected from current federal and provincial policies and our 2020 emissions mitigation target of 17 per cent below 2005 levels. Suggestions include expanded regulatory frameworks, as well as a renewed look at both domestic and international abatement options from offsets.

Soaring Food Prices. A result of climate change?

Krugman:

Overall grain production is down — and it’s down substantially more when you take account of a growing world population. Wheat production (this time not per capita) is way down.

You might ask why a production shortfall of 5 percent leads to a doubling of prices. Part of the answer is that some kinds of demand are growing faster than population — in particular, China is becoming a growing importer of feed to meet the demand for meat. But the main point is that the demand for grain is highly price-inelastic: it takes big price rises to induce people to consume less, yet collectively that’s what they must do given the shortfall in production.

Why is production down? Most of the decline in world wheat production, and about half of the total decline in grain production, has taken place in the former Soviet Union — mainly Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. And we know what that’s about: an incredible, unprecedented heat wave.

Obligatory disclaimer: no one event can be definitively assigned to climate change, just as you can’t necessarily claim that any one of the fender-benders taking place right now in central New Jersey was caused by the sheet of black ice currently coating our roads. But it sure looks like climate change is a major culprit.

via krugman.blogs.nytimes.com

German Military Study Warns of Finite Oil and Economic Crisis

Oil is a precious and finite resource, which is why the blocking of conversation measures, including those designed to combat climate change, exposes us to a broad spectrum of security issues, from direct impacts associated with climate change, to economic dislocation driven by soaring fuel costs.

The study was produced by the Future Analysis department of the Bundeswehr Transformation Center, a branch of the German military. It was leaked in August, and its authenticity was confirmed last week by the German newspaper Der Spiegel.

The study states that there is “some probability that peak oil will occur around the year 2010 and that the impact on security is expected to be felt 15 to 30 years later.”

The concept of “peak oil” is a controversial one, as it signifies the point at which global oil production reaches its maximum level and then enters a permanent decline. As oil is a finite resource, most energy experts consider the eventual peak and decline of world oil production to be an inevitable reality.

......

The German military study, which was analyzed and partly translated into English by Der Spiegel, declares that once peak oil begins in earnest, economies around the globe — including Germany’s — will probably struggle with price shocks as a result of higher transportation costs, and “shortages of vital goods could arise.”

via green.blogs.nytimes.com

Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.

David Frum on a Carbon Tax

Again there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. The right way is to raise a cost umbrella over all forms of green energy via, for example, a carbon tax – and then let the technologies battle it out in the marketplace. Let private investors direct capital to its best use. (As I write, I am at a conference in Montana to introduce a very promising new solar technology to venture capital funds.)

via www.frumforum.com

Apple, Climate Change, and the Chamber of Commerce

I agree with almost everything Matt Yglesias says here about the Chamber of Commerce and their stance on climate change, particularly in the context of the departure of high profile companies like Apple from the Chamber.  I don't see how opposition to climate change policy can be in the interests, even short term, of their corporate stakeholders.

The fundamental problem the Chamber of Commerce is going to have on this is that they’re really really wrong. Not like how they’re morally wrong about, say, labor rights or workplace safety rules. They’re analytically mistaken about the interests of the United States business community. If we take action to avert ecological catastrophe, economic growth will still happen. Capitalism will march on. Big companies will be big, and people will earn lots of money managing them. Yes, the present-day owners of coal companies or manufacturers specifically wedded to unusually energy-intensive processes will be in trouble. But “business” in a broad and general sense will keep on keeping on. People will still want gadgets and furniture, will shop at stores, will buy and sell, and generally keep being customers for business.

The real risk is being run by doing nothing. It’s doing nothing that might end the party, and lead to various kinds of nightmare scenarios. And over time, more and more firms are going to see that they have no particular stake in underpricing pollution. One maybe of the Chamber board is a guy from Anheuser-Busch. A serious climate bill’s not going to put him out of business. Nor, to just pick board affiliated companies whose lines of business I recognize, is it going to put State Farm Insurance or IBM or AT&T or Pfizer or Accenture out of business. But the executives at those companies and their kids and their customers are all going to face all the problems caused by untrammeled climate change. And why, genuinely, should a pharmaceutical company or a telecom company be fighting to stop people from stopping an ecological disaster? It genuinely doesn’t make sense.

via yglesias.thinkprogress.org

Glibertarian - my new favourite word

The media and airwaves seem filled with these people.  The definition:

No, do be a glibertarian you have to first be a big “L” libertarian, and then only apply your libertarianism to other peoples problems. Glibertarians replies to any situation where someone else is hurt is “fuck you I got mine”, “told you so” or “nanny nanny boo boo”.

via www.balloon-juice.com

New Money for Genomics in Ontario

Ontario to award $100M for genomics research.

Minister of Research and Innovation John Wilkinson announced the new $100 million Global Leadership Round in Genomics and Life Sciences will support "globally significant, collaborative research projects" headquartered in Ontario. Scientists who work in either genomics, gene-related research, or research into stem cells or proteins will be eligible to compete for the new funds.

Great news for genomics research in Ontario.  I assume this will go through OGI. This will hopefully lessen the temptation for Canadian based scientists to head south to a US that is once again science friendly. I think Canada and other countries have benefited scientifically from the Bush years, and we need to work to keep our best and brightest, as well as the 'exiles', in place.

Peace, Order, and Good Governance, eh

References to Canada in the US media usually vary from Igloo gothic wilderness bites to how bad the outpatient queues are in Soviet Canuckistan.  Satisfying to read something about the value of pragmatic common sense in governance.

Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com. Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it's Canada. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system the healthiest in the world. America's ranked 40th, Britain's 44th.

Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize. The Toronto Dominion Bank, for example, was the 15th-largest bank in North America one year ago. Now it is the fifth-largest. It hasn't grown in size; the others have all shrunk.

So what accounts for the genius of the Canadians? Common sense.

Genome Canada cut good for science?

Chris Hogue weighs in and makes an excellent point about co-funding.  GC only provides 50 cent dollars, and the other 50 will be harder to find over the next few years.  Redirection of research funds to labs and other funding mechanisms may be a prudent way forward.

BioImplement: Market Driven Science in Crisis?. While it is certain that many Genome Canada funded scientists have become international leaders in their fields, one problem is that Genome Canada has no long-term strategy to fund these projects. Industry partnered three-year projects with no provision for renewal are the staple of Genome Canada's co-funding strategy.
 
Expectations of commercial spin-offs and an market-driven afterlife is the fairy-tale ending for Genome Canada's approach to science. Yet the horizon for success in life sciences research can be longer than a decade. So, sadly, when a researcher becomes an international leader, Genome Canada has no strategy to keep them in that position, economic downturn or not. Genome Canada is a market-driven organization.

Perhaps it is reasonable to expect that co-funding - the money contributed by industry to the Genome Canada funding scheme - will simply dry up during this recession. By its own design, Genome Canada cannot hand out its money without co-funders. If Genome Canada has no hope of attracting co-funding this year, then this budget may in fact (gasp) be a reasonable one.

And now, the walkback

Someone got a call from Industry Canada:

Researchers now pleased with budget.

The controversy continued to simmer yesterday, just as Genome Canada's board of directors issued a list of "key messages" that expressed overwhelming support for the budget. "Genome Canada is pleased with the federal government's 2009 budget in which millions will be invested in research infrastructure over the next two years," read the statement. "This is good news for the scientific community across the country."

While Genome Canada received no new funding in the 2009 budget, the board said it already has a pair of five-year funding arrangements in place with the federal government worth a total of $240-million and will be able to meet all its current funding obligations.

The organization has received $840-million in federal funding since its inception in 2000. Genome Canada received no mention in the Conservatives' first budget in 2006, but was given $100-million in new funding in 2007 and an additional $140-million last year.

No representative of Genome Canada was available yesterday to explain the group's apparent change in position on the budget, a spokeswoman said. Gary Goodyear, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, said the controversy stemmed from a "misunderstanding between a president and his board."