Such negative questions and attitudes are increasing. How refreshing, on cold, windy Thanksgiving Plus One Day, which we spend with our children and grandchildren, when I went outside to shoot baskets with 5-year-old Connor. Connor is very bright, but needs work on his hand-to-eye coordination. I set the basket at a convenient height for him, but his first several shots banged off the backboard off-target. Then he said, very brightly and bravely, “I don’t quit, because I have never-give-up fighting spirit.” It seems his karate lessons are paying off.
Some adults need Connor’s help. A Scientific American article by Michael Lemonick, “Beyond the Tipping Point”, described our 2008 paper “Target Atmospheric CO2 : Where Should Humanity Aim?” Lemonick concluded with the almost-obligatory “fair and balanced” opinion, delivered by Steve Schneider. In response to our conclusion that we must get atmospheric CO2 to peak during the next few decades, and then decline back to 350 ppm or less, Schneider opines “It has no chance in hell. None. Zero. The best we can do is to overshoot, reach 450 or 550 parts per million, then come back as quickly as possible on the back end.”
Everyone knows we are overshooting. The 2009 CO2 global mean is 387 ppm and it is increasing 2 ppm per year. In our “Target” paper we showed that, if coal emissions were phased down linearly to zero in 2030 and emissions from unconventional fossil fuels were prohibited, peak CO2 could be kept at about 425 ppm—or even lower if a rising carbon price made it uneconomic to go after every last drop of oil. But Hillary Clinton recently signed an agreement with Canada for a pipeline to carry tar sands oil to the United States. Australia is massively expanding coal export facilities. Coal-fired power plants are being built worldwide. Unless the public gets involved, young people especially, CO2 of 450 ppm or higher may become unavoidable.
What would make Schneider’s “450 or 550” ppm unavoidable is a defeatist attitude. Humanity does have a free will. We do not have to accept the inevitability of extracting and burning all of the most miserably polluting fossil fuels on the planet. What we need mostly is some gumption, some never-give-up fighting spirit. I am sending to Steve, a friend of almost 40 years, the addresses of some karate schools located conveniently.
Cavalier “450 or 550” also warrants comment. Coming back to 350 ppm or less from a temporary peak of 425-450 ppm is something that would be feasible this century, mainly via “natural” actions such as improved forestry and agricultural practices. 550 ppm is a whole different cup of tea, guaranteeing a chaotic situation with climate system amplifying feedbacks and dynamics out of humanity’s control.
The most foolish no-fighting-spirit statement, made by scores of people, is this: “we have already passed the tipping point, it is too late.” They act as if a commitment to a meter of sea level rise is no different than a commitment to several tens of meters. Or, if a million species become committed to extinction, should we throw in the towel on the other nine million? What would the plan be then—escape to Mars? As I make clear in Storms of My Grandchildren, anybody who thinks we can transplant even one butterfly species to another planet has some loose screws. We must take care of the planet we have—easily the most remarkable one in the known universe.
Let’s say we have passed a tipping point—say current atmospheric composition is enough to cause a large eventual sea level rise. What do we do? Wring our hands? What we must do is restore the planet’s energy balance, or make it slightly negative. That does not guarantee that heat already added to the ocean will not further erode ice shelves and cause sea level rise. But it gives us a fighting chance to minimize that problem. Of course, it would help if we knew the current planetary energy balance accurately, and the climate forcings—that’s the subject in chapter 4 of Storms.
Any Hope of Cutting Global Carbon Emissions?
Absolutely. It is possible—if we give politicians a cold hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach—“goals” for emission reductions, “offsets” that render even iron-clad goals almost meaningless, an ineffectual “cap-and-trade” mechanism—must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics-as-usual.
Science reveals that climate is close to tipping points. It is a dead certainty that continued high emissions will create a chaotic dynamic situation for young people, with deteriorating climate conditions out of their control, as described in my book.
Science also reveals what is needed to stabilize atmospheric composition and climate. Geophysical data on the carbon amounts in oil, gas, and coal show that the problem is solvable, if we phase out global coal emissions within 20 years and prohibit emissions from unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands and oil shale.
Such constraints on fossil fuels would cause carbon dioxide emissions to decline 60 percent by mid-century, or even more if policies make it uneconomic to go after every last drop of oil. Improved forestry and agricultural practices could then bring atmospheric carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm (parts per million) or less, as required for a stable climate.
Governments going to Copenhagen claim to have such goals for 2050, which they will achieve with the “cap-and-trade” mechanism. They are lying through their teeth. Unless they order Russia to leave its gas in the ground and Saudi Arabia to leave its oil in the ground (which nobody has proposed), they must phase out coal and prohibit unconventional fossil fuels.
Instead, the United States signed an agreement with Canada for a pipeline to carry oil squeezed from tar sands. Australia is building port facilities for large increases in coal export. Coal-to-oil factories are being built. Coal-fired power plants are being constructed worldwide. Governments are stating emission goals that they know are lies—or, if we want to be generous, they do not understand the geophysics and are kidding themselves.
Is it feasible to phase out coal and avoid use of unconventional fossil fuels? Yes, but only if governments face up to the truth: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, their use will continue and even increase on a global basis. Fossil fuels are cheapest because they are not made to pay for their effects on human health, the environment, and future climate.
Governments must place a uniform rising price on carbon, collected at the fossil fuel source—the mine or port of entry. The fee should be given to the public in toto, as a uniform dividend, payroll tax deduction, or both. Such a tax is progressive—the dividend exceeds added energy costs for 60 percent of the public. Fee-and-dividend stimulates the economy, providing the public the means to adjust lifestyles and energy infrastructure.
Fee-and-dividend can begin with the countries now considering cap-and-trade. Other countries will either agree to a carbon fee or have duties placed on their products that are made with fossil fuels. As the carbon price rises, most coal, tar sands and oil shale will be left in the ground. The market place will determine the roles of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear power in our clean energy future.
Cap-and-trade with offsets, in contrast, is astoundingly ineffective. Global emissions rose rapidly in response to the Kyoto Protocol, as expected, because fossil fuels remained the cheapest energy. Cap-and-trade is an inefficient compromise, paying off numerous special interests. It must be replaced with an honest approach, raising the price of carbon emissions, and leaving the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground.
Are we going to stand up and give global politicians a hard slap in the face, to make them face the truth? It will take a lot of us—probably in the streets. Or are we going to let them continue to kid themselves and us, and cheat our children and grandchildren?
Intergenerational inequity is a moral issue. Just as when Abraham Lincoln faced slavery and when Winston Churchill faced Nazism, the time for compromises and half-measures is over. Can we find a leader who understands the core issue, and will lead?
Digging into Obama’s 2011 budget on energy and the environment
Comments
View as Flat
robbert Posted 8:45 pm
30 Nov 2009
BEATS
SEQUESTERED
CARBON
LEAVE IT
BURIED!
ACT
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 11:56 pm
30 Nov 2009
Rather than trying to make carbon really expensive, why not use carbon pricing to make renewable energy really, really cheap? That approach works well when renewables still have small market share, because a very small fee on fossil fuels could finance a comparatively huge subsidy for new renewable energy. The fees would increase as renewables gain market share, eventually squeezing fossil fuels out of the market -- but not before alternatives have become commercially viable. Consumers would reap dividends from the clean-energy subsidies -- not as cash handouts, but rather in the form of affordable energy prices.
Whatever method is used to rebate carbon pricing revenue to consumers, would it not make sense to give them dividends that grow -- not decrease -- as fossil fuels are phased out?
Permalink
Joel W Posted 2:43 am
01 Dec 2009
http://www.greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/africa/malawi/masitala/energy-saving-the-boy-who-harnessed-the-wind/
The other tipping point worth considering is when the younger generation realizes what their parents and grandparents will leave them and decide to act.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:58 am
01 Dec 2009
They will not set that aside to pay higher electric bills. That I will guarantee. They will spend it, in fact, they will use it to make payments on stuff, and some of that stuff will involve ways to use less electricity. The high electric bill will get people looking for cheaper sources, and they will find them.
If a solution does not mesh with human nature, it won't stick. This one meshes. Politicians can buy votes with an idea like this. "Vote for me and I will send you a check twice a year worth $xxxx to spend in any way you wish!"
The Republican (or Democrat) would counter with "He is planning to raise your electric bill!"
But the voter is thinking, "Hmmm, if I install curly bulbs, replace the old fridge, and put in that insulation, I can use those checks to buy more beer ...I can always claim I voted Republican (or Democrat)."
Plant the meme in the minds of the politicians that they can buy votes with this idea. Plant the meme in the minds of the voters that they will be better off with a tax on the bad guys--coal and tar sand oil.
Keep the message simple, satisfy self-interest.
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 2:02 pm
01 Dec 2009
Tax-and-dividend is like the nonsensical "environmental certainty" of cap-and-trade. (What kind of "environmental certainty" is achieved by capping emission reductions at an unsustainable level?) Both are "nifty ideas" that people love -- maybe more than they love the idea of saving the planet.
Hansen says "Such a tax is progressive -- the dividend exceeds added energy costs for 60 percent of the public." Real nifty. But that goes way beyond avoiding regressivity. Creating class warfare is not a viable strategy for climate policy. The notion that people will be drooling at the prospect of free money and demanding carbon dividends doesn't work. Obama tried it with his "cap-and-dividend" proposal, which was a political non-starter.
If we need a more progressive tax system, we can make the tax system more progressive -- that's not the job of climate policy. Is there any sense in making people economically dependent on dividends derived from carbon pricing if we are trying to eliminate carbon emissions? Let's be sensible.
Permalink
Glenn Campbell Posted 11:04 am
01 Dec 2009
In citing the "chaotic dynamic situation for young people," I think Hansen has stumbled upon the bedrock of messaging that we need for the long slog of persuasion of public opinion that awaits us. We need to focus on this chaos that we are inflicting on our young people at every single mention of climate change. That is what has the best hope of transforming those middle-of-the-roaders into the activists we need to slap our policymakers in the face on this issue. Relentless tying of climate disruption to "chaos for today's young people" will make this issue personal and immediate in a way it simply hasn't been (but so deserves to be).
This, together with Biodiversist's beguilingly wise "tax-at-the-source/check's-in-the-mail" policy proposal, gives me more fightin' spirit than I've had in months.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:47 am
02 Dec 2009
The capping takes place with the pressure from the market. Nobody can raise that cap later on because of some dire "emergency".
Subsidies directly to homeowners and small businesses that go with renewable energy and conservation will be best.
But how can anything pass blue dogs who rule over key commitees? The "D" in front of their names, under their talking heads are really "C" for corporatist. The "R" is almost always a "C".
These lowlifes have to get bigger bribes from renewable energy lobbyists than they are getting from fossil fuel industries. Either that or be prosecuted for accepting bribes. One problem, those very senior corporate shills, re-elected over and over by gullible voters. They are in charge of the entities that are supposed to prosecute bribery.
Bribery is the only practical alternative, the law is only for little guys, solid citizens, big crooks get a pass. Aren't their any rats on our side that can deliver the goods? We each chip in 5 bucks I bet we could outbid the coalies, hehey.
Permalink
Anna Haynes Posted 12:11 pm
03 Dec 2009
Permalink