Thanks for dropping by. I take your point about expanding the kinds of stories that make it into mainstream media (moving away from the "news hook" model). I take your point about giving space to voices that don't usually appear in climate stories. And I take your point about having to write to a broad audience.

It's fantastic that you're covering the nuances -- the fact that this is a debate over acceptable levels of risk rather than pure hype or inevitable catastrophe. The only thing that bothers me is framing this view as the "middle" between two extremes. It just isn't. The denialist crowd is not parallel to the "overstate the urgency" crowd. Their motivations are not the same. Their sins are not the same. They are not involved in the same kind of undertaking. I object to equating them, as your story seems implicitly to do.

Also, there's a fine line between moral urgency and overstating-the-science urgency. Seems to me it's entirely possible to understand the exact state of science and still view the task ahead of us as both morally and temporally urgent (as Hansen does). We shouldn't lump Hansen in with some obscure internet-dude who claims NYC is going to flood next week.

But anyway, we're all groping our way forward here with no maps or guidebooks. Thanks for the thoughtful work you do, and for engaging so openly with your readers and peers. Keep it up.

And a climatically stable new year to you too!

www.grist.org

Andy Revkin --

Your voice at NYT is valuable to far more people than those who read Grist, and I am very grateful for your contributions.  

As I talk about global warming I find adults mostly ask "How will this affect my children?".  They want an answer in a single sentence.  Their children listen and they want the whole story. I agree with you that this dripping problem has fallen into the laps of children, our best hope.

One other pole between the extremes is time.  The middle of the bell curve is moving as the extremes move with time.  Twenty years ago it was mostly theory that CO2 would escape from warmer soils, from faster respiration of plants, from dying forests, more heat from albedo of melting ice, acidic oceans, plankton death, and so on.  Twenty years ago we were told by media that these theories may become a problem after a hundred years and we have time.

Now, twenty years later, we are told that those assessments were too conservative, in part out the fear that industry deniers would attack and discredit scientists.  

Observations have now reduced many of these theories into facts.  The extremes moved and the middle of the bell curve moved with the extremes.  The lack of urgency is on middle ground today, not tomorrow.   I now regret finding comfort in the middle of the bell curve.  It was a lazy dangerous mistake.

I'm really appreciative of the tone of the conversation and the reinforcements of the general sense I get (admittedly spending too much time with the choir) that we are moving steadily into an era of sober awareness of the task at hand.

We want to be doing things that enable Americans to look back at us 50 year from now to say "Thank God they got their act together" rather than looking back to say "what in God's Name were they thinking."

Thanks for your excellent work, Dave and Andy.
Will
 

it can be found in the IPCC's reports.  these reports are remarkably good summaries of what we know about climate and how confidently we know it.  there's little of what I would characterize as "alarmism" in the reports.

questions about what to do ("act now?  act later? panic?") are fundamentally not scientific.  differences here represent differences in values.  

Andy Revkin's steady eye has stayed--for years-- on an issue that, albeit critical, falls on many deaf ears.  He lays out the issues so that any layman might understand how the debate is being conducted.  

Climate change, what-to-do and, how-to-help considerations for most Americans are daunting.   Framing the conversation, allowing for the middle road, and "showing me how" are what kept 'An Inconvenient Truth' from becoming a cause for mass suicide.
Those--like Al Gore and Laurie David-- who have pushed hard need to push harder.  The mass has begun to move but not fast enough.  Revkin's piece highlights that those who de-bunked the seriousness of the situation--or kept silent--  now understand we cannot underprepare.  

No action is ever fully enough, but America, for the most part, is not listening.  Revkin's piece, focusing on the scientific agreement that we need to prepare,  coupled with todays Times article on CFLs and Walmart make it clearer.  The two articles keep the issue in front of the part of the world that intensely cares, the one that knows it's an issue but, seems to say, "so what",  and the one world that knows that economics will drive any solution if one is to be found.   The energy challenge both articles highlight-- that a real solution might be found somewhere in the middle with passion driving issues, science focusing the debate and economics funding solutions--seem to be moving us forward.

I remember when cigarettes were being debated.  I guess the "extremists" were those who denied smoking was bad for health, and those who thought quitting was the answer.  Here comes Revkin again with the extremist/centrist model: he would probably advocate just smoking a little.  Sometimes the extremist is correct.

In the case of global warming: the alarmists are correct.  Climate change is going to happen a lot quicker and more severe than people think (our emissions "trigger" is going to set off a chain reaction called "runaway global warming," more severe than past episodes, because our trigger is much stronger).  Sorry if this doesn't fit in Revkin's extremist/centrist model.

Perhaps Revkin isn't familiar with the saying: you are entitled to your opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.  I can only wish Revkin lives long enough to see the product of his philosophy.  Just like the cigarette companies fuzzied the health science of smoking, the science of global warming is getting fuzzied.  Those journalists like Revkin who gives equal weight to each side in the global warming debate will eventually learn that somethings are too dangerous to play stupid with.

I don't see Revkin giving "equal weight to each side." I think he'd object to that.

What I see him trying to do in this piece is the following: convince the great disinterested masses that there's something to this climate-change business by showing that the reasonable "middle" of the debate is now no longer "let's wait and see if it's really happening," but "it's bad, we need to act, let's just not panic."

In setting that up as the New Middle, he slights the strong voices of advocacy that have been working in this area for years. But I can't really hold it against him. This is how political debate seems to work these days -- you have to sacrifice your advocates, even if they are correct, in the name of creating a safe, comfy middle where the mildly interested can reside. As I said, it's less about the substance of the issues and more about perception. If the scary hippies who have been right about climate change for years have to be branded extremists to get the masses on board, I guess you could do worse.

www.grist.org

The problem though, is that you can accept that climate change is happening, and still fail to take seriously the implications. A classic case in point is the Stern Review. On the face of it, the Stern Review is an excellent thing. Climate change being taken seriously by a major goverenment right? A perfect example of bringing it into the mainstream of public debate.

Stern is proposing policy aimed at stabilising emissions at around a 550 ppm CO2 equivalent, a figure which on most projections I've seen indicates some serious risks. Particularly to people in the developing world. (According to the Hadley Centre model, 550ppm has about a 70% probability of taking us to +3C)

What he's saying is in effect `450 is not achieveable without giving up growth, let alone the 400 ppm those naive greens keep on about, so let's just forget about it.'

He's then saying (and here I'm paraphrasing something he explicitly says) If we can reduce emissions by 1-3% per year, while growth continues at rates that can satisfy investors and if some optimistic assumptions about the biosphere's ability to regulate atmospheric greenhouse gasses are and remain true while we experience the effects of the emissions that have already happened, then stabilisation at 550 ppm may be feasible.

I say `remain true', because quite likely around 550ppm several key carbon sinks stop working so it's by no means certain that his assumptions about the rate at which the biosphere can self-regulate greenhouse gases will apply if we're going to approach 550ppm. That in turn calls into serious question his assumption that by reducing emissions growth by 1-3% per annum will do the trick, even if that is possible while growth increases at a rate acceptable to investors, which I personally beg leave to doubt.

At 550ppm, we're also in with a strong chance of seeing melting ice sheets, sea level rises of several metres and possibly runaway feedback caused by things like methane release due to melting permafrost and such.

He's talking about maybe stabilising at 550ppm, if a whole lot of things come together for his approach. Meanwhile a lot of people in the poor South are in very bad trouble, which is why he mostly discusses adaptation (ie learning to live with sea level rises, fresh water shortages, ecosystem collapses etc) in connection with the developing world. It also looks like part of the growth he's so keen on is going to come from lending them the money to adapt, so they can buy seeds with adapted genetics (presumably for growing under 2m of seawater) from Monsanto etc. Ch 12 and 26 make that bit fairly clear.

What he seems to be trying to do is make a case that by doing a little bit of regulatory fiddling here, at little bit of taxing there and a tiny bit of pump-priming where there is no alternative, that reducing carbon emissions globally can be turned into an attractive investment opportunity.

Stern's report targets a threshold (assuming they could really stabilise at 550ppm CO2 equivalent in the way he proposes) where we have a russian roulette player's chance of avoiding runaway climate change, and where the impacts on the UK, US and most of at least Northern Europe, are within a range that we can probably handle, given our fairly impressive technical and financial resources. It'd be pretty horrible, but not doomsday by any means.

The impacts at the threshold he's set of 550ppm are only likely to be massively fatal and otherwise completely disastrous for a few hundred million poor people in the developing world. Of course trying to save them, by aiming for stabilisation at 400ppm, would probably be impossible while maintaining the reproduction of capital on the scale to which we, or at least the ruling class, have become accustomed.

Which is why a few hundred million poor people are a sad but necessary sacrifice in the minds of our leaders (and a potential investment opportunity, let's look on the bright side chaps!).

I think he's aiming for a level of 550ppm CO2 equivalent, that is dealable-with (at a fat profit for some) in the UK (and the nice bits of the US), irrespective of the effects elsewhere, and that he thinks is compatible with continued economic growth. If he'd aimed for what the climate scientists are mostly suggesting as 'safe' (please take a paragraph or two of qualifications about levels of certainty and what 'safe' is meant to mean as read here) which is 400ppm, then the impossibility of continued economic growth would call the whole neo-liberal economic programme, and perhaps capitalism itself, into question.

"the impossibility of continued economic growth would call the whole neo-liberal economic programme, and perhaps capitalism itself, into question."

It is impossible to understand why this attitude persists in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Mass production of the technology we already have in batteries, solar cells, solid oxide fuel cells, wind power,geothermal heating/cooling and on and on, will not only pay it's own way, but it will create a huge economic boom.

With real capitalism.  What we have now, monopoly capitalism, is the problem. Have you seen "Who Killed The Electric Car"?

And do us all a favor and try to pay attention to reality Andy.  You have a huge audience and with that comes responsibility.  Not just to your own career.  I know you probably would never be featured in the times again were you to state the obvious points I mentioned.  But that needs to change.

The NYT needs to change, along with the conventional wisdom that renewable energy will stop economic growth in its tracks.

The NYT, and all other media at the time, ignored the Wright brothers for four years after their first flights.  They gave up flying in despair for 2 1/2 years.  They were considered crackpots.

The same effect is in operation in this stalled energy revolution.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

AmazingDrX,

If there's 'overwhelming evidence to the contrary' why is Stern dismissing the sort of target the scientists are asking for of 400ppm and even 450ppm as uneconomic and too hard to do without hurting the economy?

There are two types of denials from the fossil industrialists.  The original denial is that energy efficiency and renewables are too expensive and too limited.  The second, more recent denial is that anthropogenic global warming is not proven, just a theory.

Just as was the media in the time of the Wright brothers.

Repeating conventional wisdom that supports the status quo.  Based on propaganda supplied by the mass delusional corporate media.

Altairnano's new 10 minute charge battery costs only 2000 dollars for a 40 mile range in a plugin car.  Will it take 4 years for that to be reported in the mass media?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Yes, you're right that he's using C02e, I didn't know about the recorded talk though and I certainly don't recall him saying 'we're already at 430 CO2e' in the report, but I just went back and had a look and it's right there in one of the footnotes of Ch13. Thanks for pointing that out JMG

I think the basic point I was trying to make still stands though, ignoring the confusion I've introduced where I'm on about 400ppm (which he doesn't mention) and just asking why he's not willing to seriously consider aiming for 450ppm CO2e (which he does mention, but dismisses)

As a government economist, a representative of the 'mainstream' we were talking about above, he's constrained in such a way as to be unable to seriously consider a target that would have an unacceptable impact on growth, ie return on investment. In order to talk seriously about even 550ppm CO2e, he's got to make the strongest case he can for profitable investment opportunities.

From his perspective, no solution that calls economic growth into question is a viable one.

I agree.  If the solution does not come from political leadership then all that is left is the private sector.

If the the solution does not come from the private sector then all that is left is political leadership.

Nothing is happening.

The problem is though, that government is there to serve the needs of its political sponsors, who are by and large corporations, major investors etc.

Neither public or private sector can therefore do anything at all that would seriously impact return on investment year on year. To his credit Stern has a pretty brave try at making a case that by using the World Bank/IMF to foist climate change insurance and GM crops on the parts of the world most affected, they can get a decent ROI out of the people they'll be starving, dispacing etc at 550ppm, but it's really not a very nice picture even if he could get it adopted seriously, which I doubt.

Let us also not lose sight of the fact that David Roberts and Grist have a direct financial stake in promoting the extremist position. The level of their funding, and of Roberts' salary, depend on the financial contributions of Grist readers whom they have scared silly. That's just as big of a conflict of interest as anything on the other side paid for by the oil industry.

jjwfmme: The fact that an argument is "tired" is not proof that it is not true.

And the British papers and magazines are well known for their hyping of the science stories they cover, especially global warming.

The IPCC is not extremist.

Face it: the extremist position advocated for here by Roberts might be strongly influenced by their bottom line. They have a direct financial stake in expressing the most extreme view possible. If you criticize the right for their financial entanglements, you have to criticize the left as well.

That stresses the importance of true journalists like Andrew Revkin, who can be objective in a way that David Roberts cannot.
 

Andrew Revkin has a following.   Go figure.

This is surely the most ugly and foul contribution that I have yet read in Gristmill.  That the administration and writers of Grist should be sucking vampirically the blood of us, their readers and willing victims, whom they keep in a state of scared silliness, is just too absurdly paranoid a suggestion, on top of its being brutally offensive.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

I don't know Canis, you might be the target.

Monk Doug.

... if I wasn't shilling for my alarmist paymasters?

www.grist.org

Well you know d41295, I haven't yet seen David say that we need to abolish capitalism in order to deal with climate change. Perhaps he did but I missed it.

If you want to call someone an extremist, pick on me, because I would argue that capitalism and sustainability are fundamentally not compatible.

Lots of Love

XXX

Caractacus

In the spirit of full disclosure, I sucked in $1,100,000 from the fear of the oil industry.

As Grist knows, the big money is in 501(c)(3) non-profits.

No matter how right you were, how early you were right, and how obviously wrong your adversaries are, if you're on "the left" (enviros, peaceniks, and other suspected homosexual fronts) you can never occupy a legitimate position in the public sphere.

See re: Iraq War.

I don't attribute any malice or anything to Revkin (good on him for participating here, and for his kids' book) but it's clearly the dynamic at work.  Al Gore was right about climate change decades before any American political leader, but he's an "extreme" in Revkin's piece.

It's incredibly insulting to those of us who didn't swallow pure, uncut lies for the last twenty years.  And it's a shame that American journalism still, after everything, can't escape the straitjacket of denigrating the correct.

The fact that an argument is "tired" is not proof that it is not true.

Ha! It probably is tired because it´s so truthy.