In the course of an unrelated post, Tim Lambert makes a point dear to my heart. Like so:
And what of environmental activist-author Dr Tim Flannery, who believes climate change to be "the greatest threat facing humanity", yet who is able to put aside his worries about human-driven ecological destruction long enough to conduct a 20-city US tour promoting his latest book about climate change?I used a calculator linked from Flannery's site and found that Flannery's tour would release about 6,000 kg of CO2. Flannery says that we'll have to reduce our emissions of CO2 by about 70% to stabilize the climate. That's 17,000,000,000,000 kg less CO2 per year. This is somewhat more than 6,000, so if Flannery did not go on the trip it would not solve the global warming problem. If Flannery on his tour is able to persuade a few people to reduce their emissions the reduction will be much more than 6,000 kg.
Lambert is more concise and artful than me, as usual, but I keep making the same basic point: The constant charge of "hypocrisy" against anyone who a) advocates against global warming and b) contributes to it by driving/flying/owning a house/having a child/whatever is dumb. It's a game best left to the rightwingers and climate contrarians who so fervently love it.
The collection of public figures -- scientists, celebrities, environmentalists -- publicly advocating for action on global warming is, in relative terms, tiny. A generous estimate would put it in the thousands. There are, in contrast, billions of people driving/flying/owning a house/having a child/whatever. If every single person who spoke out publicly on climate change stopped driving/flying/owning a house/having a child/whatever, it would make no appreciable difference on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It would, however, massively curtail those folks' ability to spread the word and create change. Is that what we want?
I won't say that the personal habits of environmentalists have no symbolic value, but it's only a little bit -- and it's meaningless in substantive terms. It's a weapon used to bludgeon socially and environmentally concerned public figures into silence. The last thing greens should do is join in.
(This is also relevant to George Monbiot's latest, "Flying Is Dying." He's right, of course, about this:
In researching my book about how we might achieve a 90 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030, I have been discovering, greatly to my surprise, that every other source of global warming can be reduced or replaced to that degree without a serious reduction in our freedoms. But there is no means of sustaining long-distance, high-speed travel.
But I think he's also right about this:
Flying kills. We all know it, and we all do it. And we won't stop doing it until the government reverses its policy and starts closing the runways.
It would be nice if we could convince the affluent to stop flying for moral reasons. But I find that extraordinarily unlikely. What has hope of working is a change in the incentive structure, both for airlines and their customers: systemic change. If enviros opted out of flying unilaterally, they would simply surrender effectiveness for negligible tangible benefits.
(See also Tim Haab on this subject.)
Comments
View as Flat
odograph Posted 9:51 pm
03 Mar 2006
Again, why did (you and) Detroit have to run a Hybrid Hype campaign?
Was it becaue the personal habits and decisions of a small group of Americans threatened to change broader attitudes?
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:13 pm
03 Mar 2006
All someone needs to do, especially an environmental author on a 20 city promotional tour, is plant a few trees, or subsidize a few acres of rainforest preservation.
For a book tour it would certainly be positive reinforcement for the book itself (mention it at every stop) and might even plausibly be a promotional expense (ask your accountant).
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:26 pm
03 Mar 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:39 am
28 Apr 2006
Flying as a mode of transport CAN be more efficient than driving (think of all the energy spent on overcoming friction of the road), but currently is not.
Two: while planting trees MAY offset GHGs and preserving forest WILL prevent release of GHGs, it is incredibly important to see that the tree a) survives and b) is not easily decomposable. And preservation of rain forests should be done on its own merit, rather than "off-setting" GHG release by our transportation, since a preserved rainforest does not take up or give off any carbon. Now if the money would be going into restoring rainforest, then we are talking.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:41 am
28 Apr 2006
on a balance. Clearly it gives off and takes it up, but the carbon balance is 0.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:29 am
28 Apr 2006
David is right that we should not waste our time eating our own. Looking for absolute purity is a waste of time. There is a reason Walmart doesn't carry hair shirts.
As for air travel, it is going to increase. All the signs are there. So, what can be done? Investment in high speed trains able to compete on short and medium distances would be nice.
Investment in better or different kinds of engines for airplanes might help.
I believe we have the ability to solve these problems, we lack the will.
We also need to look at institutional practices (corporations, military, universities, churches, unions, NGO's, government) for change.
It is a mistake to put all the blame for our problems on individuals. Nor will individual decisions solve the problems.
Patrick
Permalink