As faithful Daily Grist readers know, yesterday six western states (and two Canadian provinces) formally debuted the Western Climate Initiative, a cap-and-trade agreement aiming to lower GHG emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
Inevitably, announcements like this are met with heated debate over the target. Is it strong enough? Fast enough? Politically palatable? The 80%-by-2050 target seems to be gaining steam in political circles, though some bills propose a mere 70% or even 65%. Some enviros argue we need 90%.
The intensity with which this numerical parsing is debated has always struck me a faintly silly. For one thing, if we've reduced GHGs by, say, 55% by 2040, will our subsequent course of action really be dictated in any substantial way by whether we chose 70% or 80% as our 2050 target? We have only the vaguest notion what that state of affairs would look like and what considerations would face us at that point.
Secondly, numerical targets are, by and large, politically inert. They aren't inspiring. They aren't sticky. "80% by 2050" isn't a rallying cry, it's a gauge readout, recorded on a ledger. It's a slogan only a wonk could love.
After thinking about this a while, here's my proposed replacement:
Children born today should live to see a U.S. that produces no climate pollution.
In other words, U.S. carbon neutral by 2060 or so. Eliminate net carbon emissions.
Why no carbon emissions rather than an 80% or 90% reduction? For one thing, it's better rhetoric. It's easy to understand, easy to communicate. It's not "less bad." It's "solve the problem." It's not, "like today, but less so." It's "the future." It's a goal as ambitious as winning WWII or landing on the moon. It can inspire.
But is it practical? Can it be done? Obviously that's unknowable to some degree. Me, I believe it's possible.
It depends on what you think the toughest carbon reductions will be -- the first 20% or the last 20%. My impression is that the 80%-by-2050 target came about in part because people think there will be a hard nut of carbon-intensive activities that will be difficult to eliminate. That's the last 20%.
My guess, however, is that the first 20% will be the toughest. We're talking about changing some extremely ingrained habits, dislodging some powerful political players, and changing some long-standing rules and regulations. Once that initial work is done -- and I expect it will involve some brutal battles -- momentum will gather. Once we hit 50%, 60%, 70% reductions, the momentum will be unstoppable. All the big players will be on board. The public will have begun to view emitting GHGs as a weird, dirty relic of our past. The rest will be a mop-up operation.
We'll never stop, once we've genuinely started.
So why not say so? Why not go big? Why not have some confidence in our creativity and commitment? Why not inspire?
I want my kids to live in a country that does not pollute the atmosphere with GHGs. You don't need to know any math to understand that.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Ask Umbra on bike helmets
Comments
View as Flat
GRLCowan Posted 2:30 am
24 Aug 2007
Yes, yes, no, I also believe so.
But by zero emissions do you mean zero net, or actually emitting no carbon? It's easy enough to snatch back more than is put -- will someone repost the link or links I've posted on this before -- but not putting any is very hard and, I think, not as good as negative net emissions.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
How shall motoring gain nuclear cachet?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:39 am
24 Aug 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:40 am
24 Aug 2007
"Children born today should live to see a U.S. that uses no fossil fuels."
That makes it very clear what we have to do, whereas "no emissions" is a little vague. But I don't want to get sectarian about this, just a suggestion. And while I'm at it, how about no fuels, not just no fossil fuels?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:47 am
24 Aug 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:53 am
24 Aug 2007
It's too slow by far -- children born in the US today are, for analysis purposes, expected to live about 80 years. That's about 40 years too long for the bulk of the reductions we need.
The model of climate change politics you paint -- as if it was like moving a heavy dresser or couch (once you finally get it moving, it's got a lot of momentum) -- is attractive because it's hopeful. The problem is that it ignores the basic physics and the law of diminishing returns.
The sad fact is that it's perfectly possible to have the brutal battles early to change the direction of the supertanker, and THEN have even more brutal battles later as the sheer size of the population makes further reductions exponentially harder to attain.
3) You appear to equate the use of numbers (other than zero) with wonkery -- but significant research on human performance says that SMART goals (specific, measurable, appropriate, realistic, and timed) simply work better than end-point-only goals. (Although you've actually used a disguised endpoint an time-limit by linking the end state to the lifetime of a child born today.)
Basically, your reframe appears to be "Eat an elephant during your lifetime," You actually get more elephants eaten by saying "Eat 1 lb of elephant a day" (or whatever the appropriate amount is).
Naturally, I have an alternative to propose. I suggest that Grist adopt it and work to have it adopted as the overarching goal you're seeking. It is this:
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 9:37 am
24 Aug 2007
Also, there very likely could be a countervailing political effect -- if we really get to an 80% reduction, what urgency will be driving the last 20%? Even someone who cares about this issue a lot -- say, me -- may find other things to care about when we get to an 80% reduction.
Finally, isn't the 80% figure driven more by scientific logic than economic logic? I've never really dug into the source of the number, but I always just sort of assumed that it's roughly where we need to be in order to stabilize at ~450 ppm CO2.
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:42 pm
24 Aug 2007
But he also sort of resembles a godson of mine, back when he was that age, so he could be lots of cute kids. No matter, you make your point well enough about how the lives and health and well-being of our children can be used as markers of global health.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
racc Posted 4:27 am
25 Aug 2007
Lets do everything we can to reduce OUR emissions, set the groundwork needed to allow our children to be carbon neutral but let them make the decision.
Instead of stating it in percentage reductions, which are really confusing because the actual reductions, which is what is really important, are very unclear. It all depends on what year the reduction is from.
Instead, a better target would be say a target of one tonne of emissions per person per year by 2020 (or whatever) for everyone in the world. It is certainly a lot fairer, acknowledging that some people cause a lot more emissions than others. People in developing countries would have more room to improve their standard of living.
People living in the future could also enjoy some of the benefits of fossil fuel use that we are lucky enough to enjoy today.
As well, stating it as an amount that is allowed instead of a reduction, makes it seem more like a right that people gain rather than a reduction, which seems like people are giving up something.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:14 am
25 Aug 2007
The adaptability of the human race is such that we will evolve to live in the new CO2 rich, very hot world of the late 21st century.
The next generation may become dependent on the high CO2 released by naturogenic processes into the atmosphere.
By 2100, politicians will be crying for "Dioxinators" to spew even more CO2 into the atmosphere should "Global Oxygenation" threaten the delicate balance of high CO2.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Christine Gardner Posted 4:10 am
27 Aug 2007
Plus, I love the optimism. It's a nice break from the doom and gloom from China.
And for the record, it's not a cop out. I would stand with my children for a carbon neutral country. It's not like we were handed a pristine platter from those that came before us.
Permalink