The James Martin 21st Century School - Blog

A new approach to nuclear disarmament

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:37:00 -0000

In the latest contribution to our Michaelmas term seminar series on 'Getting to Zero' Dr Patricia Lewis, Deputy Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, gave an insightful lecture on nuclear disarmament.

Entitled 'A new approach to nuclear disarmament: learning from international humanitarian law success', Dr Lewis' lecture asked what nuclear disarmament might have in common with other weapons control campaigns and what lessons we might therefore be able to draw from those movements.

Dr Lewis began by setting out some of the characteristics of nuclear weapons, arguing that they do not pose a unique problem in international relations. Nuclear weapons are characterised by the number of causalities which they inflict, the indiscriminate nature of those casualties and their long-lasting effects. However, Dr Lewis pointed out that firebombing, as used in the Second World War, inflicted casualties in a similar manner and of a similar magnitude, while landmines and cluster munitions can have similarly long-lasting effects on an environment. Given these similarities, Dr Lewis argued that the nuclear disarmament movement had a lot to learn from campaigns to ban other types of weapon, such as landmines, small arms, cluster munitions and chemical and biological weapons.

Dr Lewis then moved on to discuss the role of nuclear weapons in the world today, questioning the effectiveness of the so-called 'nuclear deterrent'. She highlighted the fact that historians are now questioning whether the Japanese surrender at the end of the Second World War was primarily due to the use of nuclear weapons. Instead, many now argue that the key factor was the Soviet declaration of war in 1945. Dr Lewis also pointed out that nuclear weapons have not changed the nature of humanity, that nations will continue to go to war, no matter how many states have nuclear weapons. Dr Lewis believes that if we don't disarm, these weapons will inevitably be used at some point in the future.

Turning to some of the more successful weapons campaigns which she had mentioned earlier, she then asked what might be responsible for the success of these campaigns. She laid out what she saw as four defining characteristics of a successful campaign:

Presenting the issue of disarmament as humanitarian action - a key characteristic of all successful weapons bans
The presence of a core group of governments who feel strongly about the issue at hand
Including a diversity of perspectives in negotiations; from politicians and activists to victims and academic experts
Thinking about security 'in human terms', which helps to put the prohibition of use at the centre of the debate

Echoing the message of a previous lecturer in our series, Professor Richard Price of the University of British Columbia, Dr Lewis concluded by arguing that the nuclear disarmament movement should try and create a strong treaty, without worrying too much about whether or not the 'key players' would sign up to it. She pointed out that weapons treaties could do a lot of good, even without the support of powerful states such as the USA and China.

As Sir Malcolm Rifkind, another recent contributor to the series, pointed out: a less ambitious treaty may not ensure the swift global elimination of nuclear weapons, but reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the world would nevertheless be hugely significant - bolstering the non-proliferation treaty and reducing the amount of fissile material at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists, potentially saving thousands of lives.

Geoengineering the climate

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:00:00 -0000

On Wednesday 18 November Professor John Shepherd, Chair of the Royal Society's recent report on "Geoengineering the Climate" gave a lecture at the 21^st Century Ocean Institute. Professor Steve Rayner, Director of the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (part of the 21^stCentury School) was a member of the multidisciplinary group of 12 working experts who conducted the study for the Royal Society.

The report set out to provide "an independent scientific review of the range of methods proposed [for geoengineering the climate] with the aim of providing an objective view on whether geoengineering could, and should, play a role in addressing climate change, and under what conditions."

During his discussion of the report, Professor Shepherd divided potential geoengineering solutions into two broad categories:

Solar Radiation Management (including mirrors in space, stratospheric aerosols, enhanced reflectivity of clouds and even painting all our roofs white)

Carbon Dioxide Management (including ocean fertilisation, engineered carbon capture, enhanced weathering and the use of biochar)

The first category of approaches (SRM) would directly modify the radiation balance of the Earth, but without doing anything to reverse the original problem of high greenhouse gas emissions. It therefore creates a potentially serious new problem in which we would have to balance the effect of one major human intervention (emissions) with that of another (geoengineering). However, SRM techniques would be effective over a timescale of a few years and hence, could provide a useful solution in an emergency.

The second category (CDM) has the significant advantage of moving the environment back towards its natural state. This state of affairs is inherently less risky than the balancing act which would result form an SRM solution, as we already know what to expect if we return the environment to this state. It should also be noted that CDM approaches would address the problem of ocean acidification due to high CO2 levels, which SRM solutions could not tackle. However, all 'carbon dioxide management' approaches operate over a relatively long timescale and it would take many decades for them to reverse the damage already inflicted.

"Geoengineering the Climate" contains a more in depth review of each of these approaches, each of which is rated on effectiveness, timeliness, safety and affordability. (You can download a copy of the report here.)

The report concludes that all proposed geoengineering solutions run the risk of creating regional effects with regard to rainfall patterns, weather systems and ocean current. Professor Shepherd argued that a geoengineered solution to climate change could probably be achieved, but that this solution was far from ideal, due to the significant degree of uncertainty surrounding almost every aspect of the proposals. While geoengineering the climate is not an alternative to emissions reduction, he advised that more research be carried out, so that we could make appropriate and effective decisions in an emergency.

In the run up to December's climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, Professor Shepherd's message to the politicians was: try harder to reduce emissions, or else we may have to implement some of these methods. And we would much rather that we didn't have to.

A podcast of this event is available here and a video will be available shortly. We invite continued discussion of these issues below.

The End of Business as Usual?

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:47:00 -0000

On Thursday 12 November, Dr Mohammed El-Erian, Co-CIO of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund, and one of the world’s most respected economic analysts, came to the 21st Century School to deliver our Michaelmas term Distinguished Public Lecture at Oxford's Sheldonian theatre. A podcast and video of the event are now available. Photos from the event are available on our Flickr site.

In a lecture titled 'The End of Business as Usual: Navigating the New Normal', Dr El-Erian spoke about the state of the global economy in the wake of the recent financial crisis. In contrast to predictions from other financial experts, Dr El-Erian made the provocative argument that the global economy is not on route to return to its pre-crisis state, but is instead on a 'bumpy road to a new normal'. He shared his thoughts on what this might mean for the future.

El-Erian began by setting out where the global economy finds itself today. Following massive government interventions and some of the biggest stimulus packages of all time, we have successfully avoided a major depression. The general consensus appears to be that the economy is now in the middle of a cyclical bounce, or recovery. However, Dr El-Erian pointed out that longer term indicators are not reacting in quite the same way as the short-term indicators on which this consensus has been built, and argued that investors should not assume that an increase in growth can be interpreted as a recovery that will extend beyond 2010.

A key point in this thesis is the idea that the 2008 financial crisis was not 'a flesh-wound', it was something far more profound. El-Erian believes that this crisis was unprecedented in its significance because it shocked the financial system at its very core, the US economy. He argues that when the core of the global financial system is shocked, investors, and policy makers need to step back and ask what the consequences will be.

In El-Erian's view, we do not currently have a full understanding of how consequential the financial crisis will prove to be. The global economy is undergoing a paradigm shift, in which the slow process of realignment from a US-centred to a multi-polar global economy, has been accelerated. The world is now in a transition phase, at what Dr El-Erian referred to as the 'point of maximum confusion'. This process will affect every level of society, from individuals and firms to national governments and international institutions. In Dr El-Erian's words: we are on a bumpy road to a new normal, but no-one knows exactly what this new normal will look like, or how to navigate the road.

However, this does not mean that the outlook is bleak. Dr El-Erian ended his lecture with the advice that the key to successful navigation was to be agile, but also adaptable. Firms and institutions that fail to change their behaviour, that respond with more of the same, will not prosper in the new global economy. It is those who are willing to adapt, to respond to the realities of the new global economy, who will be best equipped to navigate the road to the new normal.

The discussion following Dr El-Erian's lecture touched on a wide range of issues, from the role of the IMF in this new economy, to how Kindleberger's 'public goods' (traditionally provided by the US) would be provided in a multi-polar economy, and from the implications of putting the human element back at the centre of economics to what effects a new climate change agreement might have on the global economy.

We invite continued discussion and comments below.

Nuclear Weapons: a crime against humanity?

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:14:00 -0000

The latest seminar in our 'Getting to Zero' series was given by Dr Rebecca Johnson, Executive Director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. Speaking on the topic of nuclear weapons, Dr Johnson made a passionate argument about the importance of marginalising the use, possession and supply of such weapons.

Dr Johnson began on a positive note, referencing a quote from 'Weapons of Terror', a 2006 report by Hans Blix's WMD Commission, to which she was a Senior Advisor:

'Weapons of mass destruction cannot be un-invented. But they can be outlawed, as biological and chemical weapons have been, and their use made unthinkable. Compliance, verification and enforcement rules can, with the requisite will, be effectively applied. And with that will, even the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is not beyond the world's reach.'

She went on to argue that, while doctrines such as nuclear deterrence are accepted, the world will never be free of nuclear weapons and that banning the use of all such weapons would be a key step on the road towards total abolition. In order to achieve this goal, Dr Johnson would like to see the use of nuclear weapons, under any circumstances, classified as a crime against humanity.

Dr Johnson believes that this classification would be justified because nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, annihilating combatants and non-combatants alike and destroying habitats and the environment on a massive scale. It was argued that this classification would simply turn a widespread ethical understanding into a legal norm. Responsibility for this crime would rest with individuals, governments and anyone responsible for supplying, or enabling the supply of the materials for such weapons.

While Dr Johnson accepted that declaring the use of nuclear weapons to be a crime against humanity could not eliminate all the associated dangers overnight, she believes that it would both reduce the value and attraction of nuclear weapons to existing and aspiring nuclear powers, and provide clear legal mechanisms allowing the international community to hold to account any individual or government involved with nuclear weapons.

As for how the goal of declaring nuclear weapons use a crime against humanity might be achieved, Dr Johnson suggested three possible approaches:

Amending the definition of ‘crimes against humanity' in the 1998 Rome Statute.
Using the Security Council to recognize or make the use of nuclear weapons a crime against humanity.
Encouraging a series of unilateral declarations by individual governments.

The discussion following Dr Johnson's presentation touched on a wide range of issues. Questions included:

Framing the debate in the context of crimes against humanity sets a very hard target. Would a more gradual approach not be more successful?
What does this debate imply for the future of nuclear energy?
Would it be fair to say that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dying?
Has the international community ever been successful in banning any weapons with a comparable standing to nuclear weapons?

A podcast of this lecture will be made available shortly, on our 'Getting to Zero' podcast page. We invite continued discussion and comments below.

Bottom billion or bottom zero? Eliminating global poverty

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:17:00 -0000

The third seminar in the 21School seminar series on "Global Zero" was given by Professor Tony Venables, Director of Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies and Professor of Economics University of Oxford. In the spirit of the theme of the seminar series, Professor Venables talked about the prospects for global poverty elimination - what are the means, mechanisms and obstacles for rapid and radical poverty reduction.

While achieving an end state of zero in terms of poverty may be an impossible goal, Venables started his seminar with a review of the different concepts and measurements for poverty. Is poverty a relative or absolute concept? Should it be measured in monetary values (the so-called $1/day threshold identified by the World Bank) or by outcome indicators, such as health, nutrition and attainment? Certainly, any monetary measures would need to be complemented by outcome indicators to develop a picture of a nation's poverty levels, but should we worry also about lifetime poverty - the increase or decrease in wealth attainment during individuals' lives - rather than capturing an instantaneous picture in a "slice of time"?

Venables continued by showing an optimistic starting point for assessing the state of global poverty levels. Under practically all major development indicators, there has been an unprecedented rate of world poverty reduction over the past 20 years. Venables identified the main driver of poverty reduction as economic growth - i.e. it is through economic growth that human development outcomes will be achieved.

But what drives rapid economic growth? Venables identified five main characteristics, gained by examining the success of fast-growing economies:

Openness to the world economy
Macroeconomic stability
Future orientation (investment)
Market allocation (prices guide)
Leadership and governance

However, there are some major obstacles to developing effectively these criteria. These include: the "poverty trap" - breaking the cycle of low income > low saving > slow growth > low income geography; the need for adequate legal and political systems to provide incentives to invest; and the provision of public goods to support investments. And there are also other obstacles to consider, such as geography (how can a country integrate into the world economy if it is remote, landlocked and with bad infrastructure?) and resources/endowments (the trouble of "Dutch disease", when resource exports dominate at the expense of more diverse - and stable - markets). There is also the sheer size of the task to consider, to convert vicious circles of stagnation into virtuous circles of growth, and the issue of governance, building the limited capacity of governments into leadership and long-term commitment to growth.

Despite all the obstacles to growth, Venables ended as he started, on a positive note. Noting that there were 500 million fewer poor in 2005 than in 1981 despite a population increase, Venables believes the future will continue on the current trajectory of growth. Rapid poverty reduction in Asia will be ongoing and there will continue to be marked improvements in the quality of policy and performance in many African countries. The progress will be uneven, but it will continue.

A lively date followed the presentation, with such questions as:

Are free trade agreements the best method to pursue in encouraging the integration of developing countries?
What is the role of democracy in economic performance?
What has been the impact of the financial crisis? Doesn't it seem to indicate that it has fundamentally changed the trajectory of growth?
Is there a role for redistribution of wealth and resources to eliminate poverty - not just encouraging economic growth as a driver?

You can listen to a podcast of this lecture here. Please continue the discussions and add your comments below.

Eliminating Nuclear Weapons

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:26:00 -0000

On Thursday 22 October, Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP, former Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence, gave a seminar at the 21st Century School. Sir Malcolm, a leading spokesman for the Global Zero campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons, outlined some key issues concerning nuclear disarmament, arguing that any action taken towards this would need to be multilateral, not unilateral. The seminar was this second in the School's Michaelmas Term seminar series on "Getting to Zero".

At the peak of the Cold War there were approximately 65,000 nuclear warheads in the world. This has since fallen to 23,000, 95% of which are to be found in the US and Russia. Yet in the last decade, progress towards disarmament has stalled. Sir Malcolm's lecture focused on the arguments in favour of a multilateral disarmament process and on some of the challenges that might be involved.

He argued that, while nuclear disarmament during the Cold War would have been impossible, the situation today was significantly different. During the Cold War, one of the main arguments in favour of nuclear weapons was that they reduced the chances (particularly in Europe) of a third world war. Today, there is little risk of war in the truly global sense, and so one of the strongest justifications for holding nuclear weapons is gone. In addition, nuclear capabilities are proliferating at an increasing rate and there is a very real concern that terrorist groups could come into possession of fissile materials.

Yet despite these changes, there is still an extraordinary range of challenges facing the disarmament movement. Sir Malcolm pointed out that it was vital for the disarmament process to be a multilateral one, in order to preserve the balance of power. He highlighted the crucial difference between the process of the USA and Russia agreeing to a gradual and simultaneous reduction of their weapons stock from, say, 5,000 to 1,000, and more drastic reductions that would fundamentally alter that balance.

For now, multilateral moves towards disarmament would involve only the US and Russia. But eventually, they would have to involve China, the UK and France, and even India and Pakistan. At this point the more fundamental problems of relative powers, local animosities and verification of the disarmament process come into play. Expanding on this point, Sir Malcolm pointed out that countries often acquired nuclear weapons for a very specific reason (as in the case of India and Pakistan) and that individual countries would be loath to give them up without a guarantee that other countries were not cheating. Stringent verification and transparency schemes would therefore have to be in place before serious disarmament could start to happen.

In conclusion, Sir Malcolm reiterated the following points:

Whatever your individual views on nuclear weapons, it is undeniable that there are far too many nuclear weapons in the world today. Beginning with the USA and Russia, there needs to be a sustained, serious and deliberate effort to reduce this number.
Unless there is progress in reducing nuclear weapons, there is a risk that the relevance of the non-proliferation treaty will erode. There is even a chance that it will not be renewed.
The disarmament process must be multilateral. An individual country giving up its nuclear weapons would have little benefit to the country itself or to the global community.
There is an urgent need for greater transparency and enhanced verification capabilities.
The disarmament process will be protracted. We should not expect success in the next decade.

However, Sir Malcolm stressed that while the complete elimination of nuclear weapons may not be possible in our lifetimes, it is still a goal well worth working towards. Even if the Global Zero campaign fails, reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the world would be hugely significant - bolstering the non-proliferation treaty and reducing the amount of fissile material at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists.

Following the seminar, Sir Malcolm engaged in an insightful and animated discussion with members of the audience. We invite further discussion and debate on this contentious issue below.

Repairing Economic Governance

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:16:00 -0000

On 20 October 2009, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, spoke at a packed lecture hall in Oxford University's Museum of Natural History. The lecture on 'Repairing Economic Governance' was a tremendous opportunity to hear from one of the world's leading economic advisors and to discuss the challenges involved in governing globally important issues. You can watch a video of the lecture on the 21st Century School site.

The theme of the lecture was how to meet the challenge of creating effective global governance in a world which does not want a global government. Prof Sachs began by exploring some of the many global crises which international institutions have proved unable to tackle. The financial crisis was the most current example, but he also considered the failure to achieve any real movement on climate change, after more than 17 years of effort and the failure of the international community to meet the millennium development goals, despite the fact that a coherent, practical strategy was agreed in advance.

Prof Sachs argued that the key problem was that global governance is 'an order of magnitude' more complex than national government, requiring a more sophisticated set of institutions. He then set out the main challenges which such institutions would have to deal with:

Managing the current instability of the global economy and putting in place a regulatory system to ensure that this cycle is not repeated.
The transition from a US-centred world to a multi-polar world, which means that more effective forms of global governance will be necessary.
Building a sustainable global society, while still encouraging economic development in poorer countries.
Financing global public goods; e.g. regulating greenhouse gas emissions, containing emerging diseases and ensuring sufficient food supplies.

Having set out these main challenges, Prof Sachs asked what obstacles might be preventing the international community from overcoming them:

National government is broken. Focusing particularly on the US, Sachs highlighted the role of lobbyists in the political process, arguing that this was the greatest challenge to effective global governance.
The public has very little understanding of global issues. These problems are complex and the general public is assailed by information on so many subjects, that it is hard to break through the background noise.
There are no institutional systems to bring expertise to bear on these global issues. Experts will often be given a chance to have their say, but their knowledge is not systematically applied to these challenges.
It is extraordinarily difficult to create a system of global governance in a multi-polar world and we currently do not have the institutions to make this work.
There is currently no 'global ethic' to provide a joint understanding of why we are tackling challenges such as poverty, climate change and disease.

Expanding on this last point, Prof Sachs argued that to produce the stability, collective action and long-term strategies necessary to tackle global challenges from climate change to poverty, it would be necessary to identify a shared 'global ethic' – that is, we need a place for ethics and moral values, not just financial bottom-line assessment, in our global decision-making processes

The discussion following Prof Sachs' lecture touched on a wide range of issues, from the effectiveness of international aid to the need for a completely new set of international institutions, and from the frequency of recent financial bubbles to the lessons that might be drawn from China's rapid economic growth.

We invite continued discussion and comments below.

Aiming for Zero in Weapons Control

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:14:00 -0000

On Thursday 15 October the Getting to Zero seminar series, co-hosted by the James Martin 21st Century School and the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, was launched with a thought-provoking lecture by Professor Richard Price of the University of British Columbia. You can listen to a podcast of the lecture here.

Speaking on the topic of "Zero Chance? Aiming for Zero in Weapons Control", Prof Price drew together three strands of his research, 'tactics', 'diplomacy' and 'ethics', to set the scene for various global initiatives to target zero, especially in the context of weapons control or elimination.

On the subject of tactics, Prof Price spoke about the difficulty of defining the issue at stake. He identified the key variables affecting the success of international campaigns as:

The simplicity and clarity of your message
How well your message fits or resonates with the cultures you are dealing with.
Whether or not you are able or willing to take advantage of a relevant crisis to boost the impact of your campaign.

With regards to diplomacy, the focus was on how best to respond to the problem of powerful players (such as the USA or China) who oppose your strategy. Dr Price discussed the nuanced advantages and disadvantages of a) going forward with a strong agreement, and only a few states that are willing to commit to it, and b) settling for a weaker agreement, with the aim of tightening up the commitments later, once everyone is involved.

Finally, Dr Price and Ms. Treasa Dunworth, a Senior Lecturer in Law at Auckland University, who was invited as respondent for the seminar, discussed some ethical considerations such as:

By targeting some of the most distressing, dangerous or inhumane weapons for international bans, are we making war itself a more acceptable prospect?
Should disarmament be approached from the point of view of state security, (e.g. banning nuclear, chemical or biological weapons which are capable of wreaking unacceptable damage)? Or should we be approaching this from a humanitarian point of view?
In this case, should we shift our focus from individual classes of weapon, such as landmines, and start classing acceptable practice according to impact, for example by banning the use of explosive weapons in urban areas?

The lecture was followed by comments and questions from Dr David Rodin, co-Director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, Ms. Treasa Dunworth, and members of the audience.

Questions included:

Zero, in the context of weapons control, seems analogous with previous attempts at prohibition. Why should we expect weapons prohibition to work, where most similar schemes have failed?
Surely it is futile to put so much effort into convincing states to sign up to weapons bans, given the increasing importance of non-state actors (such as the Taliban in Afghanistan) who subscribe to no international conventions and, indeed, often set out to cause harm to civilians.
Isn't the real problem facing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that it is no longer seen as wrong to possess nuclear weapons, only to use them?
Would getting to zero in the context of nuclear weapons really result in a safer world? Wouldn't it just mean that states were less concerned about the potential risks of going to war?
In this case, should nuclear disarmament be considered separately to any other weapons disarmament initiatives?

We invite further comments and discussion below.

Dr Helen Johnson reflects on an expedition to the Arctic

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:21:00 -0000

Dr Helen Johnson, Associate Fellow at the 21st Century Ocean Institute, recently returned from a month-long trip to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

She recounts her experiences below:

A long cold night shift doesn't seem so bad when the sun never sets. And who would want to sleep anyway when there are icebergs all around and the possibility of seeing a polar bear?! I was lucky enough this summer to spend a month aboard the Canadian coastguard icebreaker the CCGS Henry Larsen, engaged in oceanographic research in the narrow channels of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. It's a magical, inspiring, fascinating place to spend a summer! And the measurements we make are helping us to understand more about the ocean connections between the Arctic and the Atlantic, and their role in the global climate system.

I've been involved with the Canadian Archipelago Throughflow project, funded by the US National Science Foundation and the Canadian International Polar Year, since it began in 2003. The project aims to measure and understand the flow of freshened sea water and ice from the Arctic into the North Atlantic through Nares Strait to the west of Greenland, and the other channels of the Canadian Archipelago. Changes in this fresh water input have the potential to affect global ocean circulation, and hence both European and global climate, yet we know surprisingly little about the ocean circulation in this remote corner of the globe. Partly because this is such a difficult place to do science! Packed with multi-year ice that is land-fast for much of the year, Nares Strait is only accessible, even to icebreakers, for a narrow window of time each summer. Which means that we try to use every hour of time on board the ship to take measurements aimed at understanding the complex ocean dynamics and the atmosphere-ice-ocean interactions in the region.

Our principle goal this year was to recover 12 oceanographic moorings deployed in 2007. These have been taking measurements of ocean temperature, salinity and current, as well as sea-ice thickness, faithfully every 15 minutes over the two years. The instruments are attached to heavy anchors on the seabed by hooks which open when they receive a coded sound signal from the ship. They then pop up to the surface, allowing us to download the data, service the instruments, and re-deploy them for another stint.

Over the month we've also measured more than a hundred vertical profiles of temperature and salinity, taken dozens of water samples which will later be analyzed chemically in the lab, and deployed or serviced several weather stations. The ice team on board have drilled through over 2 km of multi-year sea-ice, measuring the thickness and properties of ice floes as they move southwards and gradually melt. And we've taken some of the first oceanographic measurements at the floating tongue of one of Greenland's outlet glaciers. No wonder I feel as if I haven't slept for a year! Fuelled by east coast Canadian specialities such as salt cod and brewis, and aided by the keen, talented and fun Newfoundland ship's crew, the international science team of 16 people (headed by Dr Humfrey Melling of the Institute of Ocean Sciences, British Columbia, Canada) have worked hard to pack in as much as possible.

Along the way we've seen polar bears, narwhal, walrus and seals. We've broken lots of ice, photographed amazing sunsets and worked under fogbows. We've barbecued steaks on the aft deck of the ship, and played bingo and darts with the crew. Cut-off from the rest of the world, problems and challenges with the instruments have had to be solved by those on board, using whatever we already have with us. That's made for an intense and rewarding research experience with an inspirational team of people, and reminds me of the reasons I became a scientist in the first place. And now, back in Oxford, it's time to look in more detail at some of the data! Understanding how the ocean circulation works, especially in polar regions, is an essential part of understanding the role and response of the ocean in a changing carbon cycle, the key focus of the 21st Century Ocean Institute.

A selection of photographs from Dr Johnson's trip are available to view on the 21School Flickr site.

21School Panel Discussion on The World in 2050

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:03:00 -0000

The "World in 2050" was an evening of provocative debate and engagement with a wide audience by academics from the 21^st Century School. Hosted by Intelligence Squared (the internationally renowned debating forum), and held at the Royal Geographical Society, the panel discussion brought together four academics from the 21^st Century School to give their insights into the kinds of systemic risks and extraordinary opportunities that are possible in the next few decades.

Dr Ian Goldin talked about why we so often get the future wrong and how we can best begin to think about it in more constructive ways.

Dr Malcolm McCulloch gave us two different scenarios for our energy future and showed us why - and how - we need to take action to ensure the more optimistic path is taken.

Professor Julian Savulescu talked about our capacity to change - to intervene in the ageing process, raise our intelligence levels and increase our faculty for happiness - but also revealed some of the darker sides to the biological revolution: biothreats, abuses of power, and deepening inequalities.

Professor Sarah Harper revealed what happens when fertility rates decline and life spans increase - a phenomenon happening all across the world. She described how we can expect to see radical changes in the global movements of people as nations compete for young workers, new kinds of social dynamics among families or in the workplace, and longer life spans as an increasingly dire measure of inequality with those unable to access the healthcare and resources dying young or experiencing long periods of frailty and disease.

Questions from the audience were wide-ranging, and just as provocative as the presentations that preceded them:

What would most excite a 6 year old about our world in 2050?
Is representative democracy capable of dealing with the changes ahead?
How much optimism do you have for the chance of building effective global institutions to manage these challenges?
Can we develop more genes for generosity?
What are the ways we can engage the public to better see the future?
Do we have (or can we generate) the political and economic will to harness scientific advances to give the same life chance to all people in all parts of the world?

You can watch a video of the debate here. Please post your comments here to continue the discussion.

Climate costs could be way off target

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:24:00 -0000

A new report: "Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change" warns that current UN negotiations aimed at tackling climate change have substantially underestimated the cost of adapting to its impacts.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) is currently in negotiations to draw up a replacement for the Kyoto treaty, with an international summit to be held in Copenhagen this December. However, while the UNFCC has estimated the annual global cost of adapting to climate change to be $40-170 billion, this report warns that the real costs of adaptation are likely to be two-to-three times greater.

The report's authors, including the Environmental Change Institute's Dr Pam Berry, say that the UNFCC estimate was produced too quickly and did not include key sectors such as energy, manufacturing, retailing, mining, tourism and ecosystems. Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change" calls for detailed case studies of what adaptation costs will be, pointing out that the few that already exist suggest that costs will be considerable.

Financing is a crucial factor in the negotiations leading up to the Copenhagen summit. However, if delegates are working with inaccurate figures, any deal reached will be weakened from the outset. The full report is available from the International Institute for Environment and Development. We invite comments and discussion on its implications below.

Geoengineering the climate?

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:22:00 -0000

The future of the Earth could rest on potentially dangerous and unproven geoengineering technologies unless emissions of carbon dioxide can be greatly reduced, a new report from the Royal Society has found.

Professor Steve Rayner, Director of the 21school's Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, was a member of the multidisciplinary group of 12 working experts who conducted the geoengineering study for the Royal Society.

The report recognizes the growing and urgent need for a scientifically-grounded and ethically-informed debate about the costs, benefits, feasibility and implications of large-scale intervention in the world's climate system to counteract global warming. It concludes that geoengineering the climate is not an alternative to emissions reduction, but a great deal more research and investment is needed in order to make appropriate and effective decisions in case a climate emergency arises.

At the Royal Society's launch of the report on 1 September 2009, discussions with the Royal Society's Geoengineering Working Group and senior commentators brought up calls for other ideas and perspectives, such as:

More biological and other disciplinary perspectives on providing solutions for climate mitigation
A governance roadmap to provide a pathway for policymakers to develop or improve mechanisms to put geoengineering technologies in place
Consideration of other factors, such as release of methane into the atmosphere from Arctic melting

The full report is available on the Royal Society's website. We invite comments and discussion on the 21school blog.

A Blueprint for a Safer Planet

Thu, 07 May 2009 20:54:00 -0000

On Thursday 7 May Professor Lord Nicholas Stern, world renowned economist and leading authority on climate change, came to the 21st Century School to give a lecture about his "Blueprint for a Safer Planet".

Speaking at Oxford's historic Sheldonian Theatre as part of our Distinguished Public Lecture series, Lord Stern was introduced by 21st Century School Director, Dr Ian Goldin. Approximately 800 people heard Lord Stern explain his vision for a global deal on climate change, exploring the importance of the way we invest, use energy, organise transport and manage forests over the next thirty years.

The subsequent discussion with the audience touched on a wide-range of topics, with questions including:

What can the general public do to encourage politicians to make the necessary commitments at the 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen?
Is the capacity to remotely monitor carbon emissions from specific geographic locations necessary in order to enforce any international agreement?
Should governments be funding geo-engineering, just in case states fail to reduce emissions in time, or does this give governments an excuse not to reduce emissions?
What stance do you expect China to take in the run up to the Copenhagen conference?
Once temperatures begin to rise, carbon will be released at an even faster rate, yet these feedback loops are not included in your model. Doesn’t this mean that the problem of global warming is far more urgent than you have suggested?

This blog provides an opportunity to continue the debate. Submit your comments by clicking the "Add comment" link below. (Your email address will not be shown on the website.)

As with all our Distinguished Public Lectures, a podcast and video of the event are available from the 21st Century School website.

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:27:00 -0000

We are now so dependent on science and technology that, without it, our civilisation could not survive. If global society is to continue to mature and prosper, we have to approach science and technology innovation in the right way.

On 12 March 2009, Dr Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, spoke at the 21st Century School. He asked whether society currently “does” science and technology well enough to maintain its current technological dependency.

He also spoke about the confluence of three factors: coupling, communication and control and the challenges that they raise. As we move further into the 21st century, these factors are transforming the interface between society and science:

Society is now so closely coupled to the biosphere that our actions are stressing the system to a greater extent than ever before in human history.
Information flows are being processed in new and transformative ways. Innovative approaches to communication and networking are facilitating the emergence of virtual partnerships that transcend geographical, organizational and social boundaries.
Nanoscale science and technology enable unprecedented control over matter, allowing living and non-living systems to be manipulated and used in radical new ways.

This presents major challenges to society, yet it also contains the seeds of effective solutions.

Dr Maynard is particularly concerned that our society does not have in place the systems necessary to maintain its current dependency on science and technology. The only way to sustain our way of life, at current population levels and with modern standards of living, is to innovate.

However, the current approach to science and technology policy is hierarchical and therefore inadequate in the 21st century. New approaches to the process of innovation are urgently needed. In particular we need to develop more effective feedback systems through a process of review and participation. This means that researchers must learn to listen and to communicate. More widely, there is a need for critical thinking, public discourse and increased participation in the scientific policy-making process.

A more nuanced approach to science and technology policy would therefore include: the development of research agendas driven by social challenges; engagement of citizens through building "constituencies" of interested stakeholders; and the cultivation of a clear sense of civic responsibility among the scientific community.

In the discussion following Dr Maynard's lecture, one participant brought up the MMR controversy. Dr Maynard replied that this case showed that when disseminating scientific information, the top down approach did not work well in today's society. Instead we need a range of respected figures who are part of the community, and who have the training and education to understand complex scientific issues.

For a more detailed discussion, or to download a copy of his presentation, see Dr Maynard's blog: 2020 Science.

How much can ethical certification achieve?

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:35:00 -0000

Recent years have seen a rapid proliferation in the number of ethical certification schemes, from fair-trade food and sweatshop-free clothing, to sustainable tourism and responsibly logged timber. These certification schemes are fast becoming a new class of global authority. Eschewing traditional state authority, supporters have instead turned to market supply chains in order to create incentives for ethical behaviour.

On 5 March 2009, Professor Ben Cashore, Director of the Yale Program on Forest Policy and Governance, gave a seminar assessing this phenomenon and asking if ethical certification schemes are capable of promoting sustainable business practices in a globalised world.

Critical to understanding the effectiveness of such schemes is the question of authority. Non-state market driven (NSMD) governance, (i.e. systems regulating the negative impact of the production of certain goods), have no powers of enforcement. Yet these systems still manage to persuade businesses to comply with costly regulations. Professor Cashore argues that, if NSMDs are to have real transformative impacts, the vital factor is political legitimacy.

So where does this legitimacy come from? A key concept in this seminar was the "California Effect", a phenomenon where businesses in relatively heavily regulated markets have a strategic self interest in promoting similar regulations for their less regulated competitors. This leads to the creation of so-called "Bootleggers and Baptists" coalitions with businesses and NGOs aligned for their own self interest.

Professor Cashore believes that the California Effect is a key factor in creating solid support for sustainable business practices, and therefore crucial to achieving political legitimacy. He went on to lay out a three-pronged strategy that he believes will help encourage the California Effect:

Reward the top: Don't seek to impose rules that are more stringent than those currently in existence. Instead, reward firms in relatively highly regulated sectors by awarding them an ethical certificate. This creates will help create a powerful coalition with an interest in promoting higher global standards.
Weed out the bottom: Try to exclude the worst firms, by cracking down on unethical products; particularly where laws have been broken in the production process (e.g. illegally harvested wood).
Create a "Better World": In order to reduce confusion in the marketplace and create long-term customer pressure on firms, ethical labels need to be united under one brand: "Better World", producing Better World FSC, Better World Fair Trade etc.

Professor Cashore concluded by highlighting the importance of nurturing strategic “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalitions, as a way of generating globally accepted standards of production. If certification schemes are to compensate for ineffective government regulation, then NGOs will have to take a more innovative and strategic approach.