No Climax at Copenhagen

World leaders are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark between December 7th and December 18th 2009 for the much awaited United Nations Climate Change Conference. The overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming has translated today into heightened public awareness about the need for urgent and decisive action. Unlike the recent past, most governments now accept the scientific verdict and recognise the need for painful concessions by one and all if ours is not to be the generation that reverses the progress of civilization. However, agreeing on broad principles is only the first step. When there are concessions to be made, there is inevitable hand-wringing as nations and groups try to minimise the impact on themselves and yet maximise collective benefits. Unfortunately, Copenhagen might well be just the start of these protracted negotiations and nothing substantial is now forecast to emerge beyond agreements to continue with negotiations.(Nature, 2009b)

Reversing optimistic predictions, the organisers now caution against expecting a comprehensive deal out of Copenhagen. While the United States and other developed nations have stressed the need for large developing countries like China, India, Brazil and Russia also, along with developed countries, to take on mandatory emissions cuts by 2020, there is little indication that they will accept that.(New York Times, 2009 October 14 ) There is much disagreement on where the blame falls and who needs to act and by how much. In this context, it is interesting to explore the various arguments and world-views that form the basis of the negotiating positions of the different parties and attempt to weigh them relative to each other.

One of the arguments advanced most often, especially by developing countries, is based on historical fairness.(Joshi) Before the Industrial revolution in Europe, the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially Carbon dioxide, had remained stable for many centuries. Most of the rise in greenhouse gases since has been man-made, and caused chiefly by the residents of what today is the developed world. Although the current citizens of those countries are not responsible for the actions of their forefathers, it is undeniable that the privilege they enjoy today by virtue of being born and raised in their developed societies was built on the rapid industrialisation of their past. Scientists agree today that we can only pump so much more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere before our climate changes unacceptably. So, shouldn’t the rest of the emissions that the earth can take be divided mostly between the developing countries? If geography is destiny when it comes to inherited privilege, why is it not so when it comes to responsibility?

Understandably, this cold logic doesn’t curry much favour in the developed world. It would mean an abrupt change in their standard of living and seems punitive and vindictive. In the absence of today’s scientific data, it was not at all clear in the past that emissions of greenhouse gases will cause climate change. Is it then fair to hold one responsible for actions that were considered entirely acceptable when they were committed? Besides, it doesn’t take into account the enormous differences in the standards of living within individual countries. In developing countries today, there are wide disparities with many elite sections living a very high carbon life while the majority are poor. If it is fair to deny the developed world emissions because of their past behaviour, it is equally unfair to let the elite sections of the developing countries use up the credits that belong to their poor compatriots. In the absence of social justice, national boundaries are poor criteria on which to base the division of climate credits. Moreover, such a scheme based on history alone does not take into account the fact that while populations in most rich countries have stabilised, developing countries still face unbridled population growth and most of the rise in greenhouse gas emissions in the future will come from the developing world. Yet, this plan fails to provide any incentive for population control which is most important if we are to maintain an increasing standard of living in the future.

Another basis of a climate deal might be the dangers that each country faces from climate change. For example, rising sea levels threaten large coastal populations in island nations like the Maldives and densely packed Bangladesh. Receding Himalayan glaciers threaten the water supply of large countries like India and China. Intensifying droughts and expanding desertification are a danger to many other countries worldwide. So, the argument goes that these countries, which are the least prepared to face the consequences of climate change and hence most in need of a global deal, should be making the most concessions. Cruel as it may seem, many of the nations most vulnerable to the ravages of climate change are the ones least responsible for and least prepared to deal with it. But, such a deal will only serve to perpetuate worldwide inequities and should be unacceptable even to the most hard-headed among us.

An alternative might be to mandate a specific percentage reduction in emissions from a base year, say 2009 or 1990. This recognises that climate change is a worldwide problem and assigns equal responsibility to all of us, but doesn’t take into account the current variations in per-capita emissions around the world. It would also lead to a perpetuation of the international gap between living standards. If the reductions are to be based on a per-capita figure, it also creates further disincentives for population control in the developing world too.

There could also be a proposal where all nations are restricted to a fixed per-capita emissions level where the level for each nation is calculated based on 2009 population figures, which would be a strong incentive to curb wanton population growth. This limit would be lower than what developed countries emit today and higher than what the poorest countries of the world emit. To avoid economic shocks, various carbon trading schemes and exchange of green technology for carbon credits between countries can be used. Keeping the scientific consensus on the greenhouse gas limit in mind, the total emissions allowed for each country will have to be gradually reduced. This scheme seems to hold the most benefits for all, but that doesn’t mean it is the deal most likely to be reached.

The hardest balance to strike in Copenhagen and beyond would be to reach a deal that is strong enough to curb emissions and restrain man-made climate change while doing so in a way that is seen to be fair by all the parties involved. The experience of the US signing and then failing to ratify the Kyoto protocol underscores the importance of countries building a domestic consensus on the compromises that have to be made before actually agreeing internationally to make them.(New York Times, 2009 October 20) Even if international consensus is achieved, emissions control is not the final solution. Renewable energy technologies will have to get progressively more economical to fill the gap that is created by reducing fossil fuel consumption. Increased government support to clean energy research and worldwide co-operation in sharing technology is vital.

Enormous progress has already been made as governments the world over have recognised the seriousness of human interference in climate and agreed in principle to mitigate it.(Nature, 2009a) I am hopeful that our better instincts will prevail and that we will see this issue less as a competition for the remnants of a spoiled earth and more as the call to international action that it is. Every generation in human history has strived to leave behind a better world for future generations. We have to act now if we are not to be the ones to reverse that. We owe that to our children.

References

"Climate of compromise ", 2009a, Nature, vol. 461, no. 7267, pp. 1027-1028.
"End of the road for Copenhagen? ", 2009b, News at Nature.
"Biggest Obstacle to Global Climate Deal May Be How to Pay for It", 2009 October 14, New York Times.
"As Time Runs Short for Global Climate Treaty, Nations May Settle for Interim Steps", 2009 October 20, New York Times.
Joshi, Vijay., "Burden-sharing made simple" «Prospect Magazine, 10/27/2009.

Ineffiecient, yet Satisfying

It was the end of another busy and draining day at work. Sinking into my Corolla in the department's parking lot, I felt like having a real home-cooked meal. I had, of late, been relying on semi-cooked curries that only have to be microwave-ed or fast food take-outs for most meals. The idea, obviously, was to save time for more important things like my research and reading. But, I had overlooked the calming effect the act of cooking food had on me.

In a recent post on an economics blog, I read a rather dispassionate article on the merits of consuming fast food or employing someone to cook. The analysis was based on the higher value of one's time that is saved when freed from the need to cook compared to what is spent on a cook or fast food. Neglecting for the moment, the fact that this only works for people paid sufficiently highly for their time, the obvious assumption is that the only reason to cook is to prepare food for consumption and that the perceived quality of the food we consume is unrelated to who cooked it. But, in my experience, this has not been so in the least bit.

The act of deciding what goes into the food, cutting the vegetables, tweaking the amount of spices and the exact instant they go into the pot, trying to appreciate the difference in tastes each step in the recipe makes, watching the food cook and feeling the lovely aroma waft through my apartment all help me de-stress after a long day. On that busy evening, I went straight to Stop and Shop, picked up Broccoli heads, Spinach, some garlic and buttermilk for this delectable Madhur Jaffrey recipe she called "Broccoli ka Saag. I took generous liberties in tweaking the recipe and enjoyed crackling mustard seeds and sprinking black pepper in the end and had it with Chappatti while being amused by Bill O'Reilly's comedy routine on TV.

Growing up, my Amma always cooked everyday for us despite working full-time, more I think, as a chore than for fun. But, in my case these days cooking only adds to the experience of the meal and is mostly undertaken just for the inherent pleasure. It would be interesting if the economists were to explore ways to quantify such feelings as the pleasure of cooking one's own food in such a way that it can be a factor in their calculations. Today, there is consensus on the advantage of spending our limited time on doing what we are best at and leaving other things to others who are better at them. However, or perhaps consequently, I also yearn sometimes to take back a little of my life. Maybe the answer then is not to find a way to quantify these emotions that are probably beyond accurate modelling anyway, but to appreciate that inefficient though they may be, it is satisfying to feel in touch with the mundaneness of life.

Day in the lecturing Sun

Yesterday I delivered my first real lecture. My thesis adviser is travelling this week and asked me to teach his class on Physical Electronics. The time commitment involved in preparing a full-fledged theory-intensive lecture was outweighed handily by an almost childish excitement. I have been a Teaching Assistant or Part-Time lecturer for many courses now, where I have followed tightly scripted guidelines in helping students with laboratory experiments or supporting lecture courses with recitation sessions involving problem solving. But, this was entirely different. I was being asked to design a lecture introducing the basic physical theory of an electronic device, striking the right balance between a rigorous mathematical treatment that would bring out its various electrical characteristics and peppering the flow of equations with enough verbal reasoning and insight.

Preparing for it proved to be harder than I first thought. It reminds me now of this interesting practice we had in high school in India where every teacher's day (The birthday of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, India's second President), the students from 12th standard would pick one teacher each from the entire school and teach their classes for the day. I remember teaching Physics and the feeling of enormous responsibility that suddenly seemed to dawn on me that morning. That exercise left me with a reverence for the role of the teacher, and an appreciation for the trust and respect the students placed in me. Over the years as a TA in grad-school, I never felt that again until yesterday when I faced that class of Electrical Engineering seniors.

My ideal for a great lecture is influenced heavily by Professor Feynman as revealed in the transcripts of his lectures on Physics at Caltech and in the videos of the Messenger lectures, recently put online for free by Bill Gates (in my opinion, one of his greatest philanthropic endeavours!) Those lectures were for the general science enthusiasts, but his style, erudition and meticulate preparation were clear for all to admire. Before the age of the power point presentation, with the aid only of a small sheet of paper, he would proceed to unravel the mysteries of the subject, injecting the right amount of wit, perspective, drama and insightful detachment at the right moments. He also made sure to sum up the lecture at the end and finish with a memorable flourish.

Although fully aware that such mastery over the subject in question and the art of the lecture is well beyond my reach, I have found his style a great inspiration to model my efforts on. I spurned the power-point presentation, started the lecture with what I hoped was some background and perspective, outlined what I was going to cover and then proceeded to in a way that didn't leave me with many regrets. I did overshoot the 80 minute limit by a few minutes but managed to tie up all the loose ends. While wasn't immune to the few students giggling at the back and the odd face which rested on the palm only to slip down when sleep overcame, I think I learned quite a bit about how to engage the audience and try to guage whether what I said was translating well to them.

The most important takeaway from the lecture was the intensity of my preparation for it. I tried to anticipate questions and put myself in the position of someone trying to learn what I already knew in that short period. I see that there is a reason that our society hands the professor the dual responsibility of the teacher and the researcher. Although there are many exceptions, in general it is the successful researcher who has the best tools to be the successful teacher. The depth of knowledge that sustained thought about and work in a field gives is the best resource to draw upon while trying to educate university students. My fifteen minutes of faux-professorship impressed on me the enormous amount of preparation and thought that preceedes a good lecture. I shall not begrudge our professors their exalted status anymore!

Nobel politics prize

Our ever-shortening news cycle has long moved on from the surprise award of the Nobel peace prize this year to President Barack Obama of the United States. Although I haven't participated in any tea party this summer and watch Fox only for slapstick entertainment and mindless buffoonery, I have to admit my colossal surprise when I woke up one morning to this news. The Nobel prize, in my mind, was one of the last bastions of meritocracy left in today's world and I couldn't think of anything the President has achieved yet, let alone just a month into his presidency in February when apparently he was nominated for the award. It was even more surprising when I read the press release from the Nobel committee. They made no pretensions of the award recognising any achievement, but used lofty language praising the inspirational effect he is having on the world and the change of tone he has brought in the rhetoric of American leadership. Although I agree completely with these arguments and am heartened by his actions, I am dismayed that these can be valid reasons for awarding someone such a prestigious award.

I am not claiming that the Nobel committee should be answerable in their choice to public opinion. But, the credibility that the Nobel prizes enjoy around the world does not follow merely from the amount of prize money or the reputation of the committee, but because of a history of recognising substantial contributions made in the past. This is especially so in the case of awards for Physics and Chemistry, whose lofty standards have largely contributed to the lustre surrounding the prizes for peace. So, when the committee devalues the peace award by making political decisions, they only risk endangering their own credibility in the eyes of the world. I hope the committee is proved prescient and that President Obama goes on to achieve the tremendous amount he promises. But, that still doesn't refute my argument based on the principle that the prizes should celebrate only past achievements and not anticipate those in the future.

On a wider note, I think this award for President Obama throws light on how radically society's values differ from what is stated. A man who led an entire nation to freedom from foreign rule while steadfastly holding onto morals of non-violence that shamed the world's greatest empire and stripped it off its pretensions of "civilising mission" was never eligible for the prize. Maybe it can be argued that the the honour would have been the prize's if Gandhi had accepted and not vice-versa and that he was bigger than any such prize. But, it was still a political decision, quite like it is probably a political decision to choose President Obama this year. Although from a modern liberal point of view, the latter might be a good decision, the ends don't justify the means. These turn of events only illustrate the crying need for depoliticising the Nobel prizes or developing credible impartial alternatives to them.

Leonard Cohen at Madison Sq. Garden

I first listened to Leonard Cohen less than two years ago. Yet, today the depth of his voice, the sound of his song and more than all else the power of his lyrics are an integral part of my life. At many a time, I revisit his themes in Suzanne, Bird on the wire, Chelsea Hotel etc.. for their simplicity, accessibility and still fresh beauty. So, it was with some excitement that I got tickets a few months ago to his live show at Madison square garden on October 23rd 2009, yesterday.

The cheapest tickets were still expensive (more so for a grad student) and as I walked up from Penn station only a few minutes from 8pm, when the show was to begin, I could see his fans thronging the entrance. It was a curious mix of many older people, fans surely of his wonderful hits from the 60s and 70s which are still his biggest draws and many young 20-somethings perhaps impressed by his new albums. I myself count most of my favourites from his older work, especially in the poetic quality of the lyrics and their power to be simple and strong at the same time. Perhaps it has something to do with how the 60s and 70s had the same general zeitgeist that he sang about. The struggle to find the place of theindividual in an increasingly mechanised world where human bonds were fraying was everywhere and Leonard Cohen probably fed off that while producing some of his most illuminating work.

The show started a bit late. The arena was packed, mostly with adoring fans who greeted his entrance with much enthusiansm. Although in the farthest section, I could feel the warmth and admiration the crowd shared for Cohen, a more mature version of that found in your garden variety rock concert! There was also the general air that he might not be coming back to New York in a while, if at all. After the concert at Beacon theater earlier in the year and considering his long association with the city, it had a feeling of a farewell concert, although I am sure all there hoped it wasn't.

Last friday (Oct 16th), during a concert in Valencia, Spain, Cohen collapsed onstage during his classic "Bird on the wire", apparently due to food poisoning. But, he looked in good health and spirits this time and took the time to talk to the audience with much warmth."It is our interntion to give all we got"- he said to much applause. On stage with him were the delightfully melodic Sharon Robinson and the enchanting Webb sisters with vocals. He was also accompanied by an obvious maestro of Acoustic guitar who provided many solos during the night leaving the audience rapt with admiration, an elegant saxophonist, pianist and drummer.

Cohen started off with some of his newer songs like "Dance with your beauty", "Engine of Survival" and "Ain't no cure for love". The latter was sung in a halting and haunting manner, and was, in my opinion, the best delivered new song of the night. Then he sang the spectacular "Bird on the wire", in a very different tune with many stops where others jumped in with solos. Although lacking the power of the original, this version was an insight into how he views the song himself many decades later. Then, there was "Everybody knows", "In my secret love" and a marvellous acoustic guitar solo, followed by "Who shall I say is calling" and to much applause, "Chelsea Hotel". The latter was delivered in much the same way as the original and it was an exquisite experience listening to this masterpiece live. Before breaking for an intermission, he also sang "Waiting for a miracle" and the very poetic "That's how light gets in".

After a rather long intermission, there were some lovely moments when he sang "Tower of love", "Suzanne" and "Sisters of Mercy". "Suzzanne" is one of his songs that has really grown on me. It seems to have so many layers that reveal only very slowly with time in the most elegant ways. Then followed "Where's my gypsy wife tonight" and "When they poured across the border" after which Sharon Robinson sang a spectacular "Boogie street". Then the show decidedly moved towards the final segment as Cohen sang the rousing "Halleleuah" and the popular "I'm your man". He seemed to be ending the show then as he galloped (literally! though not on a horse) off the stage but by popular demand came back to deliver "So long Marianne", and then again was brought back for "Then we'll take Berlin". There were standing ovations for these epilogue performances.

In hindsight, I think this concert was more special for the presence of Leonard Cohen and being with so many adoring fans across the generations more that the music itself. Seeing him sing as I listened to those heart-wrenching classics somehow put them into context, provided background to where those songs came from. I think that was the best takeaway of the night.