– paying $5 for a small bottle of water (best business ever), and:
– watching policemen arrest cyclists for not wearing helmets
I spent two years in London and really only started enjoying my days there when I traded the Tube for a bike.
The first few months I terrified myself over the dangers and deaths on my commuting route. I bought a Swedish Hovding airbag scarf and rode everywhere in a bright yellow jacket.
I have no regrets over the Hovding. Design and engineering that good is well worth the coin, but I soon stopped wearing it. Partly as it was designed for dainty Swedes rather than Australian-Greeks which made it a little tight around the neck, but mostly as it was an unwelcome entry of fear into my daily commute.
A Hovding. Looks best on Swedes.
It turns out cycling is actually incredibly safe. It is only about twice as dangerous as walking down the street, and noone loses sleep over that.*
Cycling safety statistics are fuzzy, but Boris bikes provide some interesting data points. Since 2010 Boris bikes are ridden helmetless by clueless tourists and children cycling for the first time. There were some 40 million rides to 2014, and maybe another 10 million since. There has been only one death.
Both of these men are still alive.
So in one of the busiest cities in the world your chance of dying is perhaps one in fifty million. This is in line with the estimate of 1 UK death per 30 million miles ridden made elsewhere, but the Boris bike data is far more robust.
Anyway, back to my favourite things, some boffin calculated that Australia’s criminalisation of helmet-less riding has increased death by a factor of 20 to 60. Twenty to sixty times!
It turns out that 90% of cycling deaths have nothing to do with your head. The real danger is being crushed to death by a garbage truck or some similar indignity.**
Even this isn’t enough to explain how injury rates are no higher when wearing a helmet. The most convincing explanations are that cyclists modify their own behaviour when freeriding, and car drivers (who actually cause all the deaths) drive more carefully around the helmetless.
But why would death rates increase?
As it turns out, cars run on petrol while bicycles run on body fat. The bizarre criminalisation of freeriding caused cycling to drop by over 30%. Multiplied by the amount of riding, that’s a lot of fat. For some groups, such as young women, the drop in cycling was almost complete.
Occasionally weird behaviour bubbles out in civilised conversation. It’s apparently OK to say that a train stop in Bondi is a bad idea as ‘all the bogan Westies would come’. It’s OK to lecture indigenous footy players on race in national newspapers, and it’s OK for a lazy air-conditioned drivers to swear at cyclists outside in the heat, who pose basically zero risk of death to anyone in a car. Fine.
But the nannies running the show over here scored a spectacular own goal. Their spouses are fatter, their kids worse at sport, the traffic thicker and the air smellier. This time they’ve also actually killed a number of people.*** But what I’ll never forgive or forget is that they’ve made life here just a little bit more dull.
* per distance unit, I’ll update this with a source at some stage
** or a crazy speedy Russian, in my only near-death experience. He veered into incoming traffic on Westminster Bridge to save my life, so I owe him at least that much
Without wanting to sound too crazy, there are a couple of things missing from the usual discussion about climate change:
Some aspects could turn out to be quite good for all of us
We are living in a historically cold period and the temperature increases simply aren’t so bad. Let me finish.
One of the earliest to consider this effect was the all-round savvantic Svante Arrhenius, who formulated (what we now call) the Arrhenius equation, one of the first steps a student so-inclined takes into the world of chemical kinetics..
Heat capacities of substances have been extensively studied for hundreds of years and the fact that the changing composition of the atmosphere will affect its temperature is about as solid as anything in science.(1)
The same certainly does not apply, however, to the consequences of said warming, though you would hardly think it listening to the coterie of pop scientists and celebrities who wear climate politics as a badge of pride and moral superiority.
The scary charts showing the higher temperatures of today compared to the last 120 years remind me of the failed efforts of would-be statisticians trying to determine ‘average’ market returns. It depends entirely on the start and end point.
As a demonstration, this is part of the core case that industrial revolution has caused an increase in temperature:
Convincing? Let’s zoom out a little further.
Not quite what you’d expect considering the thunderous applause that accompanied this man beating this woman for the 2007 Nobel peace prize.(2)
Now let’s take a look at the real long term:
It’s fairly apparent that we are well within (and are actually right at the bottom) of the historic temperature range.
Warming greenies can welcome
To put it simply, higher temperatures are good for biological life. Where temperature is high, you tend to get lush forests. Where low, you get tundra, and at the extreme, almost entirely barren arctic icecaps.
Thinking more fundamentally,you have to look hard to find the special case reactions where increasing temperature actually slows down rather than speeds up a reaction. This applies to processes that govern, for example, plant growth.(3)
Desertification and deforestation are terrible things, but have their own set of specific causes.
Like a child would write
When you read through lists of global warming ‘consequences’ it’s depressing how one-sided and shallow the arguments are. Rarely are positive benefits mentioned, and if they are, they are quietly and guiltily sneaked in at the end.
The whole thing reminds me of those ridiculous anti-drug campaigns designed to spook children about non-toxic but arbitrarily illegal recreational drugs, that list ‘mild euphoria’ after a host of ‘effects’ that include everything from nausea and hair loss to diarrhoea and death. I mean, if all your information came from this list you would wonder why anyone would bother in the first place.
Seriously, when I was about ten years old those campaigns scared the hell out of me. For some reason it’s taboo to suggest a more logical approach might be to grade drugs by how harmful they actually are. Flawed logic on a societal scale, and a topic for another post. The incredibly named Professor Nutt lost his job running the Drug Advisory board of the UK for suggesting something similar.
To get back on topic here’s some examples some irritating one-sided thinking when it comes to climate change effects:
Health and Psychological Benefits
From the IPCC, who were honoured beside Mr Gore with that Nobel: ‘Climate change is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with significant loss of life.”
The threat of tropical diseases spreading further from the equator features prominently, ostensibly to spook USAmericans and Europeans, totally ignoring how modern countries like Singapore live comfortably within malarial zones and still achieve world-leading life expectancies and medical outcomes (and have rather lush vegetation as well..)
Heat waves are also predicted to cause widespread death. Well, by simply considering the substantially higher death rates in Winter over Summer we can expect there to be at least some kind of positiveimpact.
Yet somehow respectable international institutions are allowed to claim otherwise.
This paper from Stanford suggests that global warming could feasibly save 40,000 lives per year in the US alone.*****
And, while noone ever seems to say it, we would all enjoy a little warmer weather. Svante himself looked forward to a time when Sweden ‘may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.’
There are usually substantial omissions from calculations of the ‘cost’. To pick one example, the Arctic trade route will open up, saving enormous amounts of fuel (ironically), and creating an economic windfall.****
As when anything complex changes, this is not to say that there aren’t unfortunate losers. In this case it is the inhabitants of low-lying islands that will have to relocate. (Densely populated mainlands should be fine, as it will be economic to fortify barriers.) But the right way to respond to this would be to fund relocation.
Again while charts like this are scary, before you panic note that the scale is in millimetres.
There is a real cost to these climate schemes
While at best only having a marginal impact on temperature in 100 years time (which furthermore may or may not be a good thing), smart people who could otherwise be doing something more useful are twisting themselves in circles trying to figure out how to sell carbon taxes and complex financial trading schemes to a sensibly sceptic public.
Considering that much of the proposed cost of global warming is related to extreme weather, it bears keeping in mind that we are yet to predict whether it will be sunny next week.
For good reason as well.. the climate is a complex system, of the type that might require generational increases in computing and theory to properly pin down, and will probably forever frustrate economists.
Tellingly, the most optimistic predictions of all those man hours and cost increases and political headaches that have been funnelled into creating complex, opaque markets and extra taxes is a minor deviation from the short-term trend (and an absolute blip on the long-term).
With politically sensitive industries at stake, you can expect there to be severe and more importantly concentrated pressure on governments to release more permits than they originally promise.. the effect naturally being that again and again the market will crash (as it has).
So be wary of investing in carbon. In fact, in almost every case it would make a great short. I mean, as if the price is going to go up? Industry would be in uproar and demand the release of more permits.
We are lucky to be warming instead of cooling
It would be far worse if we entered a global ice age. If that occurred we would see devastation that put the ‘increased risk of severe storms’ in stark relief. In fact, if that occurred a few hundred years ago, the resulting famines likely have significantly retarded human progress.
I’d like to think that if that if we entered an ice age today our aversion to, say, nuclear power would diminish and the West would be ok. But all the artificial greenhouses our combined economic might could muster would hardly compensate if the agricultural belts were restricted to the equator.
Nobody knows if or when our climate might take a cooling turn, but you can bet that if it does we’ll be thankful for every last bit of rotational and vibrational energy stored in those infamous molecules of CO2.
Climate change deniers are quacks, but the scaremongering has been way ahead of the science for some time (and more in line with weather forecasting than say, chemistry). Almost to a rule, the fear mongers ignore any process of adaptation by society or the biosphere, despite a quite a large amount of evidence that that is, in fact, how things work.
While higher levels of CO2 will certainly lead to higher-than-otherwise (not necessarily higher) temperatures, whether what happens next is a good or bad thing is not preordained. At the very least it would do well for all of us to hear the good with the bad. This is a religion we would do well to lose.
ps in case you misread that I’m not a sceptic of climate change, only the rather one-sided celebrity doom mongering of its effects. I would probably even settle for the debate being a little more balanced.
(1) If you’re interested this is part of the field of thermodynamics where much interesting work can be done without the atomic model, so you could be unaware of the existence of atoms and still do useful work.
(2) not that I imagine she cared.
(3) In chemistry there’s a rule of thumb that for every 10 degree/kelvin increase reaction rate doubles. I’ve never actually seen someone use this, but it’s great for setting questions, typically: ‘given the fore-mentioned rule of thumb and the Arrhenius equation (crafty fellow), derive the activation energy’.
(4) they also think medical expenses will be reduced by $20 billion, but I can’t be bothered to see if how they calculated it makes sense.