In my latest DeSmogBlog item, I try to explain the gap between what science says we need to do to stabilize the climate system, and what U.S. politics is currently capable of:
On the one hand, we've now got people like Bill McKibben and James Hansen talking as if 350 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 was the actual tipping climatic point. Which means we've already passed it, and completely radical changes will be necessary if we're to save the planet.
But over in the U.S. Congress, right now we can't even pass Lieberman-Warner, a cap-and-trade bill that would reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by 70 percent by 2050, but which many environmentalists consider far too weak--certainly much weaker than what scientists like Hansen would prescribe.
Somewhere in between Lieberman-Warner and McKibben-Hansen, meanwhile, we find many of the Democratic candidates who take global warming very seriously, including Barack Obama. In their policy plans, these Democrats have outlined positions that cannot, at least at the present moment, get through Congress, like the following: 80 percent carbon dioxide reductions by 2050, 100 percent auctions of the initial cap-and-trade permits, etcetera.
In other words: There's a big gap between what science says the climate needs, and what politics can presently deliver. Some Democrats are promising big--far beyond what's currently possible politically--and yet even they may not be aiming high enough in a scientific sense. And so of course the Democrats, to say nothing of the Republicans, have some weak spots on the issue.
So what should we do in this situation? Well, we definitely shouldn't attack candidates from the left for not going far enough, so long as they're candidates who take the issue seriously. Rather, these are the candidates we ought to be trying to get elected--and attacking them makes little sense. Get them in office--and then let the horse trading begin over what climate bill becomes law in 2009. But for now, forget the fine details of climate proposals, and pick a candidate who's electable and will actually start the arduous process of saving the planet.
That's my $ .02, anyway.
- Log in to post comments
Agreed, as far as criticizing the candidates goes. But it is equally important to continue reminding everyone else who's listening of what the science does say, the better to prime the public for the challenge of closing the gap between what must be done and what is considered politically feasible.
I am depressed about this. I have about lost faith in the ability of governments to get off their asses on global warming. They are willing to phase out incandescent light bulbs, starting with the larger sizes, over a period of 'x' years. Oh, be still, my heart! Is there any reason it couldn't be done tomorrow?
And raising the fleet average to 35 whole miles to the gallon of gasoline. Wow! Our 1968 Fiat 124g 4-door got 35 mpg, and that was back when the speed limit was 75 mph (and we all drove 80).
Because you know, you wouldn't want to hurt the economy or anything... Aw Xrist. Right now I can only hope that new technologies will burst on the market and just beat down carbon-based energy by being cheaper. That's the only thing that will get people moving. If it gets to the point where you'd be considered just stupid to keep doing it the old, expensive way...
It may be time to change the narrative. At DeSmogBlog you also said
If JFK had thought in this manner, would we have gone to the moon? What is wrong with challenging the conventional wisdom of politics, of challenging the science and engineering talent of this country? Germany's Kassel University has figured out how to manage the combined power plant, a distributed grid of renewable resources to meet their energy demand. They forecast being able to provide 100% of Germany's requirements from renewable sources by 2050. Where is the pain?
Maybe we set out goals too low. Nordhaus and Schellenberger would have us innovate our way out of trouble. Their answer is more giant scale power plants, especially nuclear... which may help solve one problem at the cost of creating many others. Maybe we are too enamored with bigness to see that it is the network (grid) that is important.
While I agree that every one of the Democrats would have taken actions that no Republican candidate thinks about, I don't agree that we should not criticize them. When their solutions lead us to the wrong conclusions, then we still need to point that out.
I am not rich, but if we had companies investing in developing a combined power plant in the US, as did Kassel's partners in Germany, I would buy $10K of their stock. People were less than enthusiastic about Nanosolar's printed thin film solar cell was announced. The first ones have shipped, to Germany, of course.
The only pain I feel is in my lower posterior when I have to listen to what passes for intelligent discussion about energy in these presidential debates. I can just wonder what will be the result of the petroleum industry sponsored Presidential Summit on America's Energy Future in Houston, Feb. 28th. I don't know if I will need a laugh meter or a barf bag.
I'll throw in my $.02 for adaptive policies. Get us started in the right direction, in a few years the science and perceptions of the effects will be that much greater. Committing to a fourty-year plan that is not up to the task -and I think politics will make anything passed considerably less ambitious then the proposals you are talking about here, might just lock in the meme "problem solved".
I think any of the three Democratic frontrunners will do something substantial. Substantial enough is a different question. But it's hard to blame them too much. If you "unilaterally disarm," so to speak, and propose to do everything that needs to be done, this will probably leave you vulnerable, and then you might not be able to do anything.
Here's Hillary Clinton a few months ago:
There's also a big gap between what science says the climate needs, and what the public can deliver. We need national and international policies. We also need the public willingness to change energy use and means of transportation. Stablizing at 500-550 ppm, let alone 350 ppm, will require some real action by all of us.
Very minor complaint: we also need to represent things accurately. Surely Lieberman Warner aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, not "to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by 70 percent by 2050" (which would trigger an ice age and massive die off of C3 plants, etc.) I know it's just a slip, but there is a prevalent belief among the not-fully-up-to-speed that cutting emissions in and of itself cuts levels -- indeed this confusion is one of the reasons that people are able to think that something meaningful is being done even when its not. Probably best not to reinforce that mistake.
Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but there's a relevant story up on Alternet on this subject--looks like a roundtable with Newt Gingrich, Matt Stoller, David Orr, and Michael Bocian:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/72999/
Thanks Jon for posting that speech excerpt from Clinton. Impressive.
The one point I would add is that this analysis assumes the public can only be motivated/prodded/incentivized by government fiat. As Clinton points out, effective leadership can at least take advantage of "major events" to affect change. I guess we have to assume that a president can do nothing on his or her own to further the same ends, but there is evidence (California and recycling, for example) that the combination of legislation and leadership can be more effective surprisingly quickly.
If only reducing carbon emissions was as easy as diverting recylcable waste from landfills.
Chris,
In your above post you say
So let me get this straight the earth's climate system is so delicately "balanced" that a mere 70 parts per MILLION of CO2 has launched us past a "tipping point" from which it will take "radical changes" in the way we live to "save the planet"?
By God we had better march on the Washington and demand an immediate end to all fossil fuel usuage.
Ah, but I think I see where this silliness is really going. Your concluding sentence is quite telling.
Oh, forget that none of your obviously favorite, read democratic, candidates actually talk about doing anything approaching these "radical changes". Your priority is clearly getting them elected.
That whole "save the earth" thing can be worked out later.
The planet does not need saving. It will be just fine. But even if it did need saving, it won't be people that do it. We can't take care of ourselves...but we can save the planet?
--with a nod to George Carlin
People, read some facts from dissenting scientists that aren't getting paid to push this man made G.W. crap. The "movement" is all about taxes and govt.control,it has nothing to do with saving the planet.Man is nothing more than a pimple on the planets butt,we contribute at most 1/2 of 1% of the total co2 on the earth, but with these numbers you are willing to tax us into the stone age to save us from ourselves?CO2 does not cause heating, it is a result of it. Guess what heats the earth? Come on you really know, yes its the sun. Temps go up, temps go down, related to sun activity.We have actually cooled over the last 10 years, and the warmest years are hundreds if not thousands of years ago.Go to "junkscience.com" read some real science not political power grab science.
I've been away from this blog for a while and will probably spend less time online for some time so I can focus on a middle-grade book project based on my school visit presentation "Our Next Planet" (click my name).
Anyway, I've dropped in and I need to comment on one of your sentences, Chris. It's similar to Eric the Leaf's comment, I suppose.
"There's a big gap between what science says the climate needs, and what politics can presently deliver."
Science doesn't tell us what the climate needs. It only gives us scenarios of the way climate is likely to change and the impact that might have on various locations around the world.
At that point, it is time to turn the discussion over to policy-makers to provide suggestions about what we need to do to respond to the changes and, if possible, to mitigate any detrimental effects they are likely to cause.
Based on those needs, they will propose policies, and then the politicians need to implement the policies that the ruling elite (in many countries) with guidance from the people (in democracies--theoretically at least) determine are the ones to enact.
Predicting the climate seems easier than predicting human responses to it.
Lance, hullo again!
It bears pointing out that Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and even Huckabee have positions, statements and records in favor of mitigating anthropogenic global warming. This is not a clear-cut Republican/Democrat issue. It ultimately comes down to whether or not you think any candidate's plan will work, and will be able to be implemented.
Yo AA,
If you have followed this blog you are well aware of the political biases of the authors, Chris and Sheril, or did you miss "Hillary Week"? Oh, and if you did you might look off to the left to see the promo for Chris' book "The Republican War on Science".
Now that "global warming" is part of popular culture it gets lip service from various players on all sides of the political spectrum. My point was that none of them are proposing the kind of schemes that would be requird to bring the atmospheric CO2 level back to, or even near, the pre-industrial level.
These doomsday claims are just a vehicle to advance a particular political agenda. If people really believed that we had just crossed a "tipping point" that required radical changes in our lifestyles they would hammer even their favorite politcal candidates into those actions rather than saying "for now, forget the fine details of climate proposals..."
Well, of course the authors have a political bias! How the hell do you expect them not to? They like some policies better than others, and candidates who spouse (or look like the spouse) those policies better than candidates who don't. Just what kind of mental ward do you have to live in to find that surprising?
Or maybe what you mean is that anything different from what you beleive is unacceptable; you know, you could just come out say it outright!
Val,
People obviously have innate biases, which is fine. If a person purports to be a "science journalist" they should be held to the standards of journalism and scientific analysis.
Lance, you write:
The implication of this thread is that you don't think Chris meets those standards. I disagree.
All reviewers of his books, even those who disagree with him, consider him a credible, serious journalist who understands the science about which he writes.
I among those reviewers who agree with his theses. Click my name for my review of Storm World, which I think was an outstanding piece of science/political writing. Then follow the link there to my review of The Republican War on Science, where I needed to be persuaded before accepting his main thrust.
I don't mind your disagreement with Chris' arguments, but every now and then you get carried away and impugn Chris' professionalism. This seems to be one of those times.
Fred,
The remark wasn't meant to impugn anyone's credibility. The blog world seems to be a quasi-publishing realm where personal musings intermingle with other writings. I try to cut Chris, and others, slack in that regard.
But people can't have it both ways in the same writing space. Chris seems to drift between worlds occasionally. I was just pointing out that his remarks on this subject should be viewed as personal and not science journalism per se.