Our climate agenda is inadequate and may even be detrimental to the sort of effort U.S. environmentalists must now undertake. I'd like to offer for comment an alternative "bright lines" framework for climate action, and propose a shift in role and agenda for U.S. environmentalists that takes account of the circumstances in which we find ourselves and squarely faces the almost incomprehensible challenge before us.
Our goal, put starkly and simply, is to prevent the planned investment of $20 trillion over the next 25 years to increase fossil fuel supply, substituting in its place a crash global program -- capitalized at the same level -- to cut emissions, improve efficiencies, and develop renewables.
The choice should not be viewed, in the frequently invoked Robert Frost imagine, as " two roads diverged." The world is committed whole hog to fossil fuels, and there is no other road -- yet.
To create one will require restructuring the world's largest corporations, inventing appealing, low- or zero-carbon consumer products, and convincing the world's most powerful, nuclear-weapon-equipped nations to leave their reserves of oil, gas, and coal in the ground. We have less than a decade to do it.
Tectonic social change on such a scale is rapid, haphazard, and non-linear. It cannot be achieved in the time left to us by incremental, measured steps. The image of change we should carry in our minds is not Cape Wind or Toyota Prius, but the Berlin Wall crashing down.
No significant steps to taper off fossil fuel will be taken in the near term -- not because reasonable people do not want to avert cataclysm, but because they can't. No matter how committed its leaders, BP cannot go against its nature and swim away from the other fish of its kind. BP must aggressively expand its oil and gas exploration and extractions, even as it rolls out ad campaigns on carbon footprints and stands with U.S. environmentalists to call for action in Congress. Likewise, no matter how enlightened its bureaucrats, China cannot, on its own initiative, stop building coal-fired generators.
If there remains a small window of opportunity, it will be in that moment when things are thrown off kilter -- when climate change impacts have started to wreck, rather than merely damage, the structures of civilization. It is not difficult to imagine how abruptly U.S. politics would be changed if Florida were hit by two Katrina-size hurricanes in one season, for example. When the prospect that nation states may be shaken loose from their moorings becomes real, then the world will turn in earnest to a crash program of response.
What form that last effort takes, and whether it will come too late, depends largely on what role the U.S. plays. No functional global solution is possible without the leadership, capital, power, and enterprise of the world's only superpower. It may not now be possible to move the U.S. into such a course of action, but it is essential that a vision of America mobilized to save the world be framed beforehand.
If we start thinking in such terms, we see that the present U.S. climate agenda is not only inadequate, it is detrimental. Our "Kyoto-Lite" collection of climate campaigns and projects was conceived as an end-run around the Bush administration, aimed at winning reductions in U.S. domestic emissions by environmentalists' own direct efforts. Its central assumptions have been orthodoxy for so long that we forget what a radical departure they are:
- Solving climate change is not incompatible with expanding fossil fuel use.
- The objective of U.S. climate action is to reduce U.S. carbon emissions.
- Building momentum in measurable steps is more important than defining the precautionary standard of global action and driving toward it.
- Reasonable people will eventually take reasonable and responsible action; pessimistic and alarmist pronouncements are unhelpful in bringing them along, and conflict must be avoided at all costs.
- Climate change is larger but not fundamentally different than other environmental issues and does not require structural, strategic, or narrative changes to address.
Our values are flexible, but there is an irreducible core that is contradicted by these assumptions:
- Environmentalist definitions of problem and solution are based on the precautionary principle, but our agenda ignores the climate science standard of global action.
- Climate change is global, but our solutions are national, state, and local.
- Environmentalism is results-oriented, reflecting its scientific basis and the fact that it deals in fundamental questions of existence (an endangered species is either saved or not), but our climate programs are small measures developed in the abstract, without relationship to any meaningful objective.
- Environmental solutions encompass whole systems, but our agenda is conceived as discrete, mostly technical policy.
Abrupt climate change and the host of other eco-catastrophes waiting in the wings will only be addressed when environmental values are adapted in a new definition of global citizenship, entailing conflict with current systems of belief and practice; but the only people paying attention to defining environmental values our adversaries (corporate sponsors of Earth Day), and the terms of conflict are being set by our enemies (Michael Crichton).
The discord between our assumptions and our principles was easily overlooked while we were engaged in brutal political trench warfare over the reality of climate change. But conditions have changed, and the disconnect between what we are doing day to day and what we know in our bones we ought to be doing will increasingly come into sharp relief. Two seismic shifts in the last year started the process.
First, Jim Hansen's definition of the precautionary standard of global action -- a minority view of one when first proposed in 2004 -- is now the consensus of precautionary climate science, amply supported by rapid and dramatic climate change impacts. An objective standard (475 ppm limit on concentration of atmospheric carbon) must be met on a clear timeline (less than a decade for global action) to prevent global temperature from increasing more than 1.0ºC/1.8ºF above current levels. Past this point, abrupt climate change is unstoppable and the tale from there on is familiar: Warmer air and oceans cause Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves to disintegrate, sea levels rise faster and higher than anything we can possibly handle, continuity of civilization is placed in jeopardy, and the mass extinction event already underway accelerates.
Second, the readiness of a Democratic-controlled Congress to address climate change in a comprehensive way (regardless of its limited ability to do so) means that U.S. environmentalists are no longer engaged in a debate over climate change reality. We must now offer -- to Congress and America -- a solution, and we don't have one. Our present national agenda, enunciated in the Environmental Defense/NRDC A Call to Climate Action, is inadequate policy and politics. Were it adopted in its entirety, the impact on global emissions and temperature trajectories would be minimal. In offering a constricted view of climate action, it does not open the way for effective, U.S.-honchoed global action.
The great danger is that we will win it (under a new president and Congress in 2009), satisfying the political demand for climate action and delaying a full reckoning and true national debate until it is too late. If we accept the bright line nine-year timeframe, there is no room to spend two or three years fighting for limited domestic emissions reductions which will, if won, become the acceptable international standard of action.
The choice before us is to take the risk of cataclysm seriously and act appropriately, or to gloss over it. Taking it seriously is a personal challenge for U.S. environmentalists (to accept the full implications of the nine-year timeframe); an organizational challenge (shouldn't we be liquidating our assets? the thing will be decided in three or four years, what good will they be if we lose?); an institutional problem (without infrastructure, how do we find each other? how do we come up with a national strategic plan, let alone advance a global one?); and an ideological challenge (enmeshed in practical politics, our advocates must squelch their own deeply held beliefs to do their jobs).
None of these difficulties are external. We have the people, money, brains, reputation, office space, direct action skills, and so on to reshape the direction of U.S. climate action and take a shot at putting a functional global solution on the table. The effort must extend well beyond environmentalists, but as participants at the Yale Conference on Climate Change noted ...
...one could see global warming as the animating issue behind a potential new environmentalism: one in which entire ecosystems are at risk, new levels of integration with energy and economic planning must be undertaken, and the relative neglect of American stewardship is thrown into greater relief. Redefining the issue in this way requires stepping back and forging a new vision. So far this has not occurred in the organized environmental community.
That we are operating in changed circumstances has not been fully absorbed, but the brutal climate change realities are beginning to seep into environmentalist culture and thinking. The fabric of our "be worried, but not too worried, we've got solutions!" story is starting to fray. This is not only good and right, it is the only basis on which U.S. environmentalists may begin to piece together a potentially successful role and a strategy -- one that contemplates bringing the nation to a point of decision between two radical viewpoints, eliminating all comfortable and illusionary middle ground.
Such crystallizing of two irreconcilable visions across a great national divide is comparable in our history only to the Revolution and Abolition. Our role, therefore, may be compared to the Sons of Liberty and the Abolitionists, and our purpose defined as winning the sea change in American political and social view necessary to move the U.S. into leadership of a last minute, last ditch drive by humanity to avert cataclysm.
A plan of action toward this end will be presented in Gristmill in a series of posts. The intent is to move quickly beyond criticism and put forward concrete proposals for model campaigns and programs. The Bright Lines agenda is offered as an open-source strategic plan, engaging others, it is hoped, who are working out practical solutions to the same problems and would benefit from a more clearly defined strategic plan -- and are interested in helping to construct one.
(A number of people have taken part in what is best described as a sprawling two-year-long conversation, in which the Bright Lines ideas germinated. I'd like particularly to thank Susan Birmingham, Benson Chiles, Pamela Hathaway and my family, Angela Di Leo, Cynthia Ward, Cynthia VL Ward, and Harold R Ward, all of whom have done yeoman's work.)
MoveOn calls on Senate to preserve Clean Air Act in climate bill
Top Twitterers the Grist staff can’t live without
Next on climate: Improve Waxman-Markey innovation provisions in Senate
Comments
View as Flat
artfunk Posted 7:25 am
07 Feb 2007
bright lines
great job, ken.
compelling read, compelling logic.
(and i only found one typo -last paragraph, first word)
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:35 am
07 Feb 2007
Fixed.
I agree, this is an intriguing way of framing the problem -- I look forward to seeing more.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 8:07 am
07 Feb 2007
Hansen Seconds
James Hansen has made the same argument regarding coal (we must not build vast numbers of coal plants, he said in 2005) and coal gasification (we must not convert vast deposits of tar sands to gas, which would emit vast amounts of addictional carbon burning, he pointed out this week).
Personally, I like this framing of the issue.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:14 am
07 Feb 2007
Now is the time to establish a list of priorities.
Ken wrote...
"Abrupt climate change and the host of other eco-catastrophes waiting in the wings will only be addressed when environmental values are adapted in a new definition of global citizenship, entailing conflict with current systems of belief and practice..."
Are environmental organizations prepared to defend GMOs? Just like an organic farmer might select some chemicals and reject others, an environmentalist can accept some GMOs and reject others.
Our species is rapidly approaching a crisis, and there will be enormous collateral damage. GMOs are not always safe. But, in the hands of someone whose primary concern is protecting the biosphere, they might be very useful.
Plants can be engineered to sequester more carbon.
We can increase yield per acre and dedicate more land to endangered ecosystems that will sequester carbon.
We can use GMOs to reclaim land destroyed by previous agricultural practices, allowing more land to return to a natural state
Plants can be engineered to fix their own nitrogen, reducing the energy-consuming demand for fertilizer. There is not enough manure in the world to sustain organic agriculture, especially if we become vegetarians.
Round-Up Ready plants -- or a safer version of this technology -- reduce the need for tilling the soil... reducing consumption of fossil fuel, reducing loss of carbon from the soil to the atmosphere, and preventing a host of other environmental problems.
If environmentalist cooperate, they can get biotechnology into the hands of the smallest farmers.
Where do GMOs fall on your list of fears?
Are you prepared to tell your children that you could have saved the biosphere, but were too lazy to sort the good GMOs from the bad... and just rejected the technology entirely?
Forward!
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 10:04 am
07 Feb 2007
A Marshall Plan
Build NO NEW coalfired plants worldwide: complete moratorium. Replace daytime electricity needs with solar installations. (Leave the current coalfired electricity in place to cover night time need only)
Saturate the south and our coal and oil states with a kind of Marshall Plan of wind turbine royalties offered to every farmer and enough solar power so the dirty fuel income is replaced, knocking out economicly based resistance.
Provide a similar incentive to car manufacturers to produce 100 mpg hybrids, coupled with a full ban on producing any vehicle getting under 20 mpg. We phased out CFC use. We can simply phase out gas guzzzlers.
We all use electricity. We all need cars to get to work. We must all take equal responsibility for switching our economy to clean fuels.
Frame this as similar to how we geared up in 3 years for WWII from having no airforce to having what we needed to win that war.
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 3:49 pm
07 Feb 2007
Cutting emissions that much is unrealistic
In my opinion, it is unrealistic to expect a growing human population and developing economies to so dramatically cut their greenhouse gas emission so fast as to avoid abrupt climate change.
Instead, I suggest we remove the greenhouse gases from the environment after they are emitted. Nature already removes about half of mankind's CO2 emissions (although that reduce 30% by 2030). I suggest using biosequestration to improve nature's ability to soak up CO2 and CH4.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:42 pm
07 Feb 2007
Lead where ?
Greenhouse gases maybe be the only thing standing in the way of a catastrophic deep freeze.
I will say this one more time
There are two observations that do not support the Global Warming concept, and they are drying air and heating seas.
Normally air water vapour content and sea water evaporation go hand in hand but by observation they have had a divorce.
This can not be caused by greenhouse gases because a hotter air will evaporate more sea, and a new equilibrium will be reached which will be a wetter climate, with more clouds.
What is observed can only be cause by a disruption to the Earth's hydrology cycle, the sea water has a reduced evaporation rate. This inhibition has been identified long ago and this inhibitor still remains today.
It is an oil film. It is totally man made, totally unnatural and totally fatal if left unchecked.
Oh you can switch to coal, dirty but not too bad, our industry does not have to grind to a halt, but you can't use oil anymore.
Eventually coal must be phased out as the oil slick is SLOWLY removed.
But we must start on the oil first. this is an imperative, if we want to maintain civilisation.
We are playing with a lot of unknowns in this problem.
To remove CO2 and leave the oil... not good. To avert the impending ice age, we must have the science correct and we must do the undoing in the correct order.
As it is the consensus of proposed action will only make the Global Climate Change much much worse. It may even swing the equilibrium into a totally new downward phase.
Stick to your greenhouse gases... I am only the messenger. But in that case, please call me Cassandra.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:15 am
08 Feb 2007
Process-orientation vs. environmentalism
Ken Ward wrote:
Yes (also known as outcome oriented).
No. Science is process oriented, which is why it is associated with risk assessment.
Because precaution is a trait of outcome orientation, and because science is process oriented, precautionary climate science is an internally-contradictory phrase.
Permalink
bill wolfe Posted 3:19 am
08 Feb 2007
bright line
I like the bright line concept as it provides opportunites to discuss limits and to reorient and expand the "envrionmental policy" discussion to demand side and issues of political economy.
In terms of stories for the public mind, I also appreciated inclusion of the notion of systemic collapse. This is key, not only because that is what we are faced with, but because that analogy sahows that collapse can provide opportunity for positive change:
"The image of change we should carry in our minds is not Cape Wind or Toyota Prius, but the Berlin Wall crashing down."
Having just finished Kevin Phillips' latest book "American Theocracy", I'd offer another image for the public story that resonates strongly with current realities. Phillips traces the collapse of the British empire and its relation to coal. He makes links between that collapse and current US oil dependence and the political economy of the Bush NeoCon imperial ambition which is driving the US toward classic imperial over-reach and collapse. The British coal story is important because it shows that democracy can be chosen over empire, and that energy plays a major role in economic success and history.
Rarely is this kind of historical vision part of the environmental story.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 5:08 am
09 Feb 2007
Yes. . . .
I like this Bright Lines concept very much. It's so frustrating to know that major transformation is needed while environmentalists are still advocating switching light bulbs. In conversations I have with people, many express fear that if we come on too strong or advocate changes that might, gulp, force lifestyle changes, then we've lost people. No one, the thinking goes, will want to make sacrifices. Well, too bad, because if we don't sacrifice today we're doomed tomorrow. So a realistic plan is needed that goes way beyond a few simple bulleted to-do items.
Re: GMOs. My biggest concern with GMOs has to do with ecological considerations, not issues of human health. There may be human health issues, but there's human health issues with eating sugar, too. (Not to minimize people's real concerns here, just making a point).
However, and with all due respect to Wiscidea, I fail to see why we need GMOs to restore spent agricultural lands or to create nitrogen-fixing crops. Legumes already do that and there are plenty of non-GMO plants capable of restoring degraded lands. Round-up Ready crops do not necessarily require fewer chemicals, and eventually crops will become resistant to Round-up and require even stronger chemicals to do the same job. If tilling the soil is a problem there are no-till practices that are completely compatible with organic agriculture, that work best with it in fact. Most of what I've read of these practices are small scale, however, but I'm sure they could be adapted to larger scale growing. Realistically speaking, I doubt we'll all become vegetarians, although we may (should) all eat much less meat. Even so, there will be plenty of manure, not to mention compost. It's amazing how much compost a family and a garden and a yard can generate. Okay Wiscidea, let me have it :)
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 9:36 pm
04 Mar 2007
The only solution is removing the CO2 from the air
I commend the farsighted article, but there is only one hope to avoid a severe runaway global warming episode like 55 million years ago (the PETM), or 250 million years ago (the "Great Dying"), and that is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.
I beg you to do the math: mankind is expected to double greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by mid-century, not cut them by much more than half.
Furthermore, nature is expected to reduce her ability to aborb CO2 by 30% by 2030.
That is on top of the warming earth starting to emit far more greenhouse gas than humans as carbon reserviors become carbon emitters.
Soon hydrates (that contain twice the carbon of all fossil fuel) will start to melt. There is an estimated 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate, and 50% of the surface permafrost is expected to melt by 2050 (90% by 2100). 30 billion tons in the atmosphere would be like doubling the CO2.
If we don't find a way to remove the CO2 from the air (it lasts hundreds of years), there will probably be less than one billion people alive on earth by the end of the century.
Permalink