350 sense

McKibben kicks off 350.org, a new international grassroots climate campaign 12

If only atmospheric chemistry gave you points for trying.

A year ago this week, we were celebrating. I and six college-age colleagues of mine, joined by thousands of organizers across the country, had managed to pull off 1,400 simultaneous demonstrations against global warming in all 50 states. Though we didn't have much in the way of resources, Step It Up day was a success -- and within a week, both the Obama and Clinton campaigns had endorsed our call for 80 percent cuts in carbon emissions by 2050.

The glow, shall we say, faded. Within a matter of weeks, the Great Arctic Melt of '07 was underway, and the Northwest Passage was starting to open. In the months since, the science has continued to darken: there's a growing perception among climatologists that the window for action is narrower than we'd imagined, and closing faster. A growing sense that, for instance, sea levels are likely to rise much more quickly and dangerously than we thought even a year ago.

And so -- with your help -- we're trying again. This time, our effort is even more grandiose, arguably almost lunatic in its underfunded ambition. This spring, we're trying to launch an international grassroots campaign, something that's rarely been tried on any issue. It's called 350.org, and on that arcane number hangs the story.

In the late fall, after the ice melt, NASA's James Hansen gave a talk at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. He's since joined with a number of colleagues to turn it into a paper that was submitted to Science last week. It offers, for the first time, a real target for humans to aim at -- anything above 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere, the authors say, is too high, at least "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted." Which, speaking for myself, seems like a good idea.

It's a tough number -- we're already past it, at 385 parts per million CO2 and rising 2 parts per year as we burn ever more coal and gas and oil. We're like the patient who finds out from his doctor that his cholesterol is too high. We're out of the zone of safety and into the zone where heart attacks and strokes (ice shelf collapses? epic droughts?) become more likely. We've got to scramble back.

But how? The international negotiations that began in Bali to find a successor to the Kyoto treaty suddenly seem like the last bite at the apple, the last chance to really set the planet on a new path toward a low-carbon future at a speed that will get us there in time. They'll conclude in Copenhagen in December of 2009, and if they don't conclude successfully, the next round of global talks will probably be about how to deal with the effects of global warming.

Important stuff. At the moment, though, those treaty talks are going nowhere very special -- between the recalcitrance of the U.S. and the understandable misgivings of the emerging Asian powers, they seem more likely to produce a tepid treaty that keeps us in the danger zone for decades to come, something we simply can't tolerate. Consider President Bush's speech earlier this week -- if the Arctic melted last summer, why are we talking about curbing our power plant emissions in 2025?

So we need to rouse the world to a new sense of urgency and of possibility. Our plan -- again, with your help -- is to take the number 350 and beat it into every head and heart on planet Earth, to tattoo it into every brain. If our fellow earthlings know nothing else about climate change, they need to know that 350 lies in the direction of safety. We are busy trying to find artists, musicians, activists, preachers, athletes, and, well, normal people in all corners of the globe who will figure out how to make 350 the most well-known number on the planet.

Already it's starting -- 350 cyclists circling through Salt Lake City, earning real publicity as they did so. I was in Honolulu yesterday, where activists are figuring out how to put red tarps on the roofs of 350 homes in a single neighborhood that could have solar PV panels if only the utility would get out of the way. In Maui today, people promised to assemble 350 surfers off the beach for a photo. At an evangelical conference last week, pastors were talking about ringing their bells 350 times. We've heard from Mongolian cartoonists, Chinese universities, Canadians. Canadians!

Does it matter? Or is it just play? We think that if we can take that meme -- 350 -- and spread it everywhere, it will almost subconsciously set the bar for these negotiations much higher than it currently stands. We think it will nudge them sharply to the left, in the direction that physics and chemistry would indicate. We think 350 is the most important number in the world, and that at the very least everyone deserves to know it -- to understand that the world we've spent millennia building lies now in its shadow.

Bill McKibben, a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, is the author of a dozen books, most recently The Bill McKibben Reader. He serves on Grist’s board of directors and is cofounder of 350.org.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Erik Hoffner's avatar

    Erik Hoffner Posted 12:58 am
    18 Apr 2008

    picturesqueGreat idea to build awareness of this important number. Besides the straightforward interpretations of 350 like the cyclists, etc, I think Bill's right that this can be tremendous in terms of the opportunities for blending the arts with activism - the conceptual framework of 350 can be overlaid on all sorts of popular art from visual to sculptural and performance, increasing the avenues to reach new people.
    Erik

    The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

    Permalink

  2. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 2:32 am
    18 Apr 2008

    "Global" is necessary......even if very ambitious.  Gore mentioned the need for a global movement in his recent TED speech.  The next leap -- a global political movement, that would push for similar legislation all around the world.  Now, I think that legislation should involve direct government build-up of renewable technologies, involving trillions of dollars, since we don't have much time...but I would imagine most would first push for some form of carbon pricing.

    Permalink

  3. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 2:57 am
    18 Apr 2008

    Bill will be on a panel at the Monterey Institute.on Wednesday the 23rd at 6:00 PM along with scholars and journalists. It's free and open to the public.
    http://policy.miis.edu/programs/maiep_events.html

    I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

    Permalink

  4. lorna salzman Posted 5:57 am
    18 Apr 2008

    Bill McKibben 350 campaignDear Bill: How does the 350 campaign translate into action? Do you have specific proposals and positions that you want the public to support and which you want put into legislative form in congress? I ask these questions once again after seeing the wonderful fervor of Step It Up and the less fervent lack of follow-up. Our adversaries are in congress daily, where they have been for years, promoting toothless "remedies" for global warming that avoid disturbing fossil fuel interests or Business As Usual or even inconveniencing the American public too much. For example, it is abundantly clear that we must curb energy growth and find replacements for coal and oil. But as long as we accept the carbon trading scam, avoid carbon taxes, continue fossil fuel subsidies and lack broad mandatory efficiency standards and measures, we will lose the battle. The energy legislation that passed congress does none of these. Moreover, we have adversarial friends like Adam Werbach, and Nordhaus and Shellenberger who tell us we don't have to make drastic changes in our life styles; we just need to tweak our purchasing choices a little. Your idea is commendable but without the public behind SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS nothing will change. Politicians follow; they don't lead. We need a huge constituency behind tough energy positions, starting with a  ban on new coal fired plants and a rapid phase-out of existing coal plants. Unless this happens, cap and trade will remain the modus operandi and the coal utilities and mining interests will continue to dominate our energy policies. Will you take the lead in developing a real constituency for radical change? Will you focus on stopping coal as  your top priority, so that renewables and efficiency have a level playing field to attract investment? Let's table the generalities about "taking action" and put those brass tacks on the table. This is a political movement, and as such has to have clarity and purpose. I hope you can provide both of these.

    Permalink

  5. lorna salzman Posted 5:58 am
    18 Apr 2008

    Bill McKibben 350 campaignDear Bill: How does the 350 campaign translate into action? Do you have specific proposals and positions that you want the public to support and which you want put into legislative form in congress? I ask these questions once again after seeing the wonderful fervor of Step It Up and the less fervent lack of follow-up. Our adversaries are in congress daily, where they have been for years, promoting toothless "remedies" for global warming that avoid disturbing fossil fuel interests or Business As Usual or even inconveniencing the American public too much. For example, it is abundantly clear that we must curb energy growth and find replacements for coal and oil. But as long as we accept the carbon trading scam, avoid carbon taxes, continue fossil fuel subsidies and lack broad mandatory efficiency standards and measures, we will lose the battle. The energy legislation that passed congress does none of these. Moreover, we have adversarial friends like Adam Werbach, and Nordhaus and Shellenberger who tell us we don't have to make drastic changes in our life styles; we just need to tweak our purchasing choices a little. Your idea is commendable but without the public behind SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS nothing will change. Politicians follow; they don't lead. We need a huge constituency behind tough energy positions, starting with a  ban on new coal fired plants and a rapid phase-out of existing coal plants. Unless this happens, cap and trade will remain the modus operandi and the coal utilities and mining interests will continue to dominate our energy policies. Will you take the lead in developing a real constituency for radical change? Will you focus on stopping coal as  your top priority, so that renewables and efficiency have a level playing field to attract investment? Let's table the generalities about "taking action" and put those brass tacks on the table. This is a political movement, and as such has to have clarity and purpose. I hope you can provide both of these.

    Permalink

  6. Pangolin's avatar

    Pangolin Posted 7:06 am
    18 Apr 2008

    Alarmism!!Let me play devils advocate for a minute.
    There are lots of green and "BLUE" activists who post on this board that don't see a need for a radical departure from our current lifestyles. Surely we can meet reasonable emissions goals with sensible shopping choices and comfortable changes to existing lifestyles.
    In order to get to 350 ppm CO2 all carbon emissions would have to cease and/or be offset by effective carbon sequestration. That would mean no flying, no driving gas or diesel cars, no gas heat, no oil heat and no coal or natural gas power plants.
    The only other method would involve burial of billions of tons of biochar yearly or some equivalent method of pulling CO2 from the atmosphere and mineralizing it. Given the existing atmospheric carbon load that means burying over 1.5 pounds of char for every pound of coal burned yearly.
    Who would pay for it and how do we get there? Given the constraints isn't this goal unrealistic? What are we offering people that is worth giving up their cars? What's the downside of ignoring you?



    Put the Carbon Back

    Permalink

  7. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 7:11 am
    18 Apr 2008

    and stop deforestation......but it's easy to forget something.  To be fair (?), the 350.org website seems to be a work-in-progress -- although for historical reference, you might like to know that I got into a discussion with the step it up people last year....maybe another one is in order?

    Permalink

  8. JMG's avatar

    JMG Posted 2:17 pm
    18 Apr 2008

    How about 350/5?We can get to 350 in time, without chaos, if we start NOW, with everyone at every level in the North (individually, organizationally, municipally, nationally) cutting emissions 5% a year.
    It's doable and necessary, and provides the missing step in an end-state goal like 350 ...
    Telling people "Lose 50 pounds" is worthless.  Helping them lose a pound a week for fifty weeks can happen.

    Same principle at work.

    Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.

    Permalink

  9. Pangolin's avatar

    Pangolin Posted 4:15 pm
    18 Apr 2008

    One day a month?Figure out how not to drive to work one day a month.

    Cut back one days heating or AC use.
    That's a start.

    Put the Carbon Back

    Permalink

  10. Anna Haynes's avatar

    Anna Haynes Posted 4:53 pm
    21 Apr 2008

    Where's our graphic artist?How about doing oversized-reflective-mesh-reflectors for bicycles (or reflective mesh vests for their riders), earth-shaped, with "350" written across them?  

    And hats.  T-shirts.  Purses.
    Lapel pins.

    Permalink

  11. DannyGirl Posted 2:59 am
    22 Apr 2008

    yet another campaign, yet more overhead?I'm sure it has its merits and all but, whenever I hear of campaigns such as this popping up I have to think, do we really need yet another campaign?  What about the ones we have already?  New organizations means new overhead expenses for the environmental movement "as a whole".  It just makes the whole landscape that much more fractured and disjointed.  I'd rather see an effort with the look and feel of this one coming from one of our decades-old environmental orgs, who probably need to get out the deadwood anyhow.  

    Permalink

  12. bundeslagr Posted 3:14 am
    22 Apr 2008

    350 Ride in the Bay AreaJust wanted to share on a small success to add to the list of events that are taking on this theme of 350-ifying the nation.

    We here in the Bay Area got together a group of bicyclists and rode from the county seat of San Mateo County to the City Hall of San Francisco.  We were of course shooting for 350 riders on Sunday April 20th but the distance is a pretty substantial 35 miles.  (Ridership was around 20)  

    Hopefully, with more lead time, we can achieve our goal of having a mass ride that really makes the headlines.  If you guys have any suggestions on how to make the event bigger in the future, let us hear it.  

    It is 4 hours of riding, but hey, sometimes you have to sweat for the environment.  We'll probably try again in a few months time.
    Keep the dream of protecting global ecosystems alive.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement