Archive - Mar 3, 2010

The latest version of the World Heritage map, produced by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and National Geographic Maps with support from the United Nations Foundation, can now be ordered for a modest fee from the World Heritage Centre website. All proceeds from sales of the maps will go toward the preservation and promotion of World Heritage sites.
The map is an extremely valuable learning and awareness-raising tool that gives a rich and initial contact with the World Heritage concept, …

There is an interesting letter in Nature Geoscience this month on what climate changes we have actually already committed ourselves to. The letter, by Mathews and Weaver (sub. reqd.), makes the valid point that there are both climatic and societal inertias to consider.

Their figure neatly demonstrates the different issues:

The upper line is often what is referred to as the ‘climate change commitment’ (for instance Wigley, 2005). This is the warming you get if we keep CO₂ (and other GHG and pollutant levels) constant at today’s values. (Technically, the figure shows the case staying at year 2000 values). In such a scenario, the planet still has a radiative imbalance, and the warming will continue until the oceans have warmed sufficiently to equalise the situation – giving an additional 0.3 to 0.8ºC warming over the 21st Century. Thus the conclusion has been that because of climate inertia, further warming is inevitable.

However, constant concentrations of CO₂ imply a change in emissions – specifically an immediate cut of around 60 to 70% globally and continued further cuts over time. Matthews and Weaver make the point that this is a little arbitrary and that the true impact of climate inertia would be seen only with emissions cut to zero. That is, if we define the commitment as the consequence only of past emissions, then you should set future emissions to zero before you calculate it. This is a valid point, and the consequence of that is seen in the lower lines in the figure.

CO₂ concentrations would start to fall immediately since the ocean and terrestrial biosphere would continue to absorb more carbon than they release as long as the CO₂ level in the atmosphere is higher than pre-industrial levels (approximately). And subsequent temperatures (depending slightly on the model you are using) would either be flat or slightly decreasing. With this definition then, there is no climate change commitment because of climate inertia. Instead, the reason for the likely continuation of the warming is that we can’t get to zero emissions any time soon because of societal, economic or technological inertia.

That is an interesting reframing of an issue that comes up all the time in discussions of adaptation and mitigation. This is because it demonstrates that adaptation (over and above what is necessary to reduce vulnerabilities to current climate conditions) is unnecessary if mitigation is dramatic enough.

However, the practical implication of this reframing is small. We are clearly not going to get to zero emissions any time soon, and even the 60-70% cuts required to stabilise concentrations initially seem a long way off. Thus as a practical matter, it doesn’t really matter whether the inertia is climatic or societal or technological or economic because the globe will continue to warm under all realistic scenarios (what we do have a possible control over is the magnitude of that warming). Thus further adaptation measures will still be needed.

Leaver and Jarrar say Obama's generals are out of control

While the ongoing U.S. military "surge" in Afghanistan continues to capture the headlines, Iran’s nuclear program – and how best to deal with it – is rapidly emerging here as this year’s biggest foreign policy challenge.
Although the administration of President Barack Obama remains hopeful that
[...]

Public Focuses on Health Care and Olympics

Source: Reuters ROTURUA, New Zealand, March 4 (Reuters Life!) - It's economical, ecological and good exercise: a new human-powered monorail is attracting the crowds in New Zealand, and may become a new mode of ...

Noteworthy new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).

“Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2009,” January 27, 2010.

“Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians,” February 26, 2010.

“China-North Korea Relations,” January 22, 2010.

“Honduran Political Crisis, June 2009-January 2010,” February 1, 2010.

“Southwest Border Violence: Issues in Identifying and Measuring Spillover Violence,” February 16, 2010.

“Satellite Surveillance: Domestic Issues,” February 1, 2010.

U.S. Army doctrine (pdf) published last week anticipates an increasingly unstable information environment that may challenge Army operations and test national capabilities.

“Unprecedented levels of adverse activity in and through cyberspace threaten the integrity of United States critical infrastructure, financial systems, and elements of national power. These threats range from unwitting hackers to nation-states, each at various levels of competence. Collectively, the threats create a condition of perpetual turbulence without traditional end states or resolution.”

Under prevailing circumstances, the Army says, “Notions of ‘dominating’ cyberspace are simplistic and unrealistic. A realistic and meaningful goal is to achieve and maintain freedom of action in and through cyberspace while being able to affect that of the adversaries.”

The Army’s assessment and proposed response are described in “Cyberspace Operations Concept Capability Plan 2016-2028,” TRADOC Pamphlet 525-7-8, February 22, 2010.

The White House yesterday released a newly declassified description (pdf) of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), a highly classified program that is intended to protect U.S. government computer networks against intrusion and disruption.

The cybersecurity initiative was established in January 2008 by President Bush’s classified National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 54, and quickly became controversial in part because of the intense secrecy surrounding it.

“Virtually everything about the initiative is highly classified,” the Senate Armed Services Committee complained in 2008, “and most of the information that is not classified is categorized as ‘For Official Use Only’.  These restrictions preclude public education, awareness and debate about the policy and legal issues, real or imagined, that the initiative poses in the areas of privacy and civil liberties…. The Committee strongly urges the [Bush] Administration to reconsider the necessity and wisdom of the blanket, indiscriminate classification levels established for the initiative.”  No such reconsideration was forthcoming until now.

Concerns about overclassification were also expressed by the National Academy of Sciences in a 2009 report, which called for “a broad, unclassified national debate and discussion about cyber-attack policy,” and argued that “secrecy even about broad policy issues serves mostly to inhibit necessary discussion about them.”

The Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative was “the single largest request and the most important initiative of the President’s fiscal year 2009 [intelligence] budget request,” the House Intelligence Committee said in its report on the FY2009 intelligence authorization act.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (pdf) just last month seeking declassification and disclosure of the Bush Administration’s NSPD 54.

But that foundational directive was not disclosed, nor did the Obama Administration address the issue of offensive cyber policy raised by the National Academy.  Instead, the White House released a descriptive summary of 12 component elements of the Cybersecurity Initiative, a gesture that it said was consistent with the President’s emphasis on increased transparency.

“Transparency is particularly vital in areas, such as the CNCI, where there have been legitimate questions about sensitive topics like the role of the intelligence community in cybersecurity,” said Howard A. Schmidt, the White House Cybersecurity Coordinator who announced the disclosure.  “Transparency provides the American people with the ability to partner with government and participate meaningfully in the discussion about how we can use the extraordinary resources and expertise of the intelligence community with proper oversight for the protection of privacy and civil liberties,” Mr. Schmidt said.

But without a clear delineation of legal authorities and implementation mechanisms, the scope for meaningful public discussion seems limited.

As the House Intelligence Committee put it in 2008, “a cybersecurity initiative [is] worthwhile in principle, but the details of the CNCI remain vague and, thus, open to question.”

In order to bolster independent oversight of programs such as the CNCI that must remain classified, at least in part, dozens of public interest organizations including the Federation of American Scientists this week urged President Obama (pdf) to finally appoint the members of an independent executive branch oversight board.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (pdf), originally proposed in 2004 by the 9/11 Commission to monitor and defend civil liberties in information sharing and counterterrorism activities, was given independent agency status by Congress in 2007.  But it has remained vacant since that time and thus unable to fulfill its assigned task.

“It is crucial that you nominate qualified individuals to serve on the PCLOB, so that it may begin to provide guidance as new policies and procedures are developed,” the public interest group letter said.

For more details, please click on the link to read the article.

For more details, please click on the link to read the article.

For more details, please click on the link to read the article.

For more details, please click on the link to read the article.

For more details, please click on the link to read the article.