Is 350 The Most Important Number on Earth?
February 17th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
A Guest Post by Michael E. Zimmerman
Director, Center for Humanities and the Arts
Professor of Philosophy
University of Colorado at Boulder
In his recent posting “The collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science” (February 7, 2009), Roger A. Pielke, Jr. argues that the political consensus about climate policy is collapsing, because policy makers are realizing that it is unrealistic to expect that CO2 can be stabilized at 450 ppm. That such expectations are already in the realm of “fiction and fantasy” does not prevent some environmentalists from calling for even more impossible attainments, while confusing the relationship between science and policy-making.
Consider Bill McKibben’s essay in Mother Jones (November 10, 2008), “The Most Important Number on Earth.” McKibben, author of The End of Nature, maintains during the past year climate scientists have demonstrated that we are facing “the oh-my-lord crisis you drop everything else to deal with…” Claiming that we may have already reached the “tipping point” in global warming that may lead to “the collapse of human society as we have known it,” McKibben cites a recent paper by James Hansen et al. which calls for reducing CO2 from its current 385ppm to 350 ppm. For McKibben, this is the most important number on Earth. Above 350ppm, he warns us, “we can’t rule out a sea level rise of 20 feet this century.” (I would add that in the overheated climate change rhetoric, almost nothing can be “ruled out.”)
It goes without saying that for the vast majority of human beings, 350 is far from the most important number; indeed, for most people global warming is not regarded as a serious issue at all, in comparison with what’s facing them here and now. For a mother whose children are dying of malaria in central Africa, or for someone whose child is starving to death, 350 is not important.
McKibben comes up with the analogy of someone who, having been told by his physician that he has entered the cholesterol “danger zone,” knows that he must “clean the cheese out of the refrigerator and go cold turkey.” Presumably, the people he has in mind are those in advanced industrial societies–-and those aspiring to be in such societies–-who use vast amounts of fossil fuels. For McKibben, the energy equivalent to going cold-turkey would include: no more new more new coal plants, a cap on the amount of carbon the USA can produce, and an international agreement that requires China, India, and everyone else to do the same thing. Oh, and a rapid switch to $10 per gallon gasoline.
McKibben freely admits that achieving these extraordinary goals in a very compressed time frame “requires a new kind of politics. It requires forging a consensus that this toughest of all changes must happen. The consensus must be broad, it must come quickly, and it must encompass the whole earth–they don’t call it global warming for nothing.” (My emphasis.) The Internet, we are blithely told, will enable us to arrive at this global consensus. McKibben adds, however, that we have only until the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Meeting to forge a global treaty that will “get it right.” As he notes, “Once the ocean really starts to rise, dike building is pretty much the only project.” In short, we are doomed.
There are good reasons why policy makers have begun to regard with jaundiced eyes such absurd counsels of despair.
Now for the good part: McKibben tells us that the global political consensus necessary to institute his draconian policies will not be reached by political debate, give and take, and messy democratic compromises, but instead because this is “what the physics and chemistry of the situation dictate.” As Pielke would say, here is a prime example of: 1) a using the post-WWII linear model of science to justify and advocate policy decisions, and 2) attempting to turn Abortion Politics into Tornado Politics. Instead of engaging in value-laden discourse regarding the best course of action in challenging circumstances, we are supposed to let nature do the talking and instructing: “Permafrost, notoriously, refuses to bargain,” McKibben intones.
McKibben does not go so far as to describe the violence to which his technocratic regime would have to go in order to win “consensus” and to enforce on the entire human population the new rules of the game. Come to think of it, this new kind of politics doesn’t look so new after all.
Popularity: 3% [?]
February 17th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Oh my! McKibben sounds a bit like Lenin in “What is to be done”. Perhaps a better analogy would be Bin Laden The west must must convert to the true religion or…
February 17th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Such attitude shows a blind faith to a relatively new science(s), after all the discovery of Co2 is a greenhouse gas was more or less 125-150 years ago
Although climate have been of concern of man kind for a very long time, only recently have some us gain the pretension that computer model can emulate reality with a minimum of uncertainties.
I figure one huge problem. First, we take an amount of data, make them into average so it becomes easier to manipulate an make trend out of them.
Second, we tweak GCM’s so they are able to represent those average data.
Third, we run these GCM’s farther in time, as if their ability to replicate the past is a guaranty of their ability to forecast the future. We get their output which, in my opinion, is averaged out to show the progression from the past.
This progression is then use to make very scary claim so people will support action proposed by the high priest of climate science.
There is a huge problem of uncertainty associated with climate science:
The quality of the data.
The quality of the statistical model.
The (as Rumfeld would put it) known unknown (what we no we don’t understand but give it a value that fit what we no), and the unknown unknown
(what we don’t know that we don’t know).
The limit of computers which can’t handle the sum of what we think we know.
etc.
This list is far from exhaustive and lead to the question, why is climate so damn important that I should worry more about it than the millions of people suffering in the third world? Of course, these people who are already suffering are the poster child for the incoming doom.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
“Once the ocean really starts to rise, dike building is pretty much the only project.”
Whenever someone says something is “the only” action possible, it’s a very good clue that person isn’t an engineer. Here are just a few of the things that could be done if the ocean “really starts to rise”:
1) Plug the moulins that are draining water and lubricating the bases of glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland. Without water to lubricate the bases of the glaciers, they would probably slow down significantly in their march to the ocean.
2) Cover glaciers in Antartica and Greenland with reflective coverings (in the summer). Melting would be significantly reduced.
3) Capture melted fresh water from Antartica and Greenland in the summer, and pump the water upwards to refreeze in the winter.
4) Capture melted fresh water (or icebergs) from Antartica and Greenland, and bring the water to recharge groundwater supplies (e.g. the Ogallala Aquifer).
5) Don’t build dikes on land, but instead build inflatable dams at sea.
There are probably literally dozens of other actions that could be taken if the “ocean really starts to rise.” Dike building isn’t “pretty much the only project.”
February 17th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Hansen’s study that got McKibben up on this was a paleoclimate study, Sylvain.
Just FYI.
And McKibben is planning on putting his money (well, life) where his mouth is shortly with the civil disobedience action planned in DC for 3/2, right after the PowerShift conference.
It’s pretty obvious that politically 350 won’t happen given the current political climate. Given policy theory, I think the best thing we’ll see is coalition building and symbolic action taken, which is a shame. Probably not to most people posting here recently though.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
The most infuriating thing about McKibben’s piece is that it envisages a series of actions that would make almost no impression on the alleged problem! The conclusion one is driven to is that these people’s main aim is to continue haranguing while doing nothing at all about the problem. Another locus classicus for this stuff is on Worldwatch.
What they must be challenged to do is, advocate action which in the terms of the problem will demonstrably be effective. That means, list the top ten sources of the 8 billion tons we are now putting out, and state how much each main source is to be reduced and by when. If 350 really is the most important number, then surely they could manage to write down at least a sketch of how to get to it?
Then we can at least get an idea what is involved in taking effective action. But that is a lot less fun than endlessly prophesying doom.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
When you make false attributions of means, ‘McKibben does not go so far as to describe the violence to which his technocratic regime would have to go in order to win “consensus”,’ you might as well go ahead and call him a Nazi, so we can invoke Godwin’s Law and be done with this thread, which oversimplifies McKibbens position at least as much as McKibben oversimplifies the problem.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“false attributions of means”
What other means could be applied to reach such a goal?
February 17th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
This world-saving lark is very competitive and 350 ppm is already old hat. The world’s most important number is now 300, as target300.org explains:
‘Unfortunately people have already begun to misinterpret Hansen’s call for an interim target and are confusing this with a “safe” target. Please don’t do the same, as 350 ppm CO2 is as much of a death sentence for the planet as 400, 450, 550, 650 etc.’*
Target 300, like 350.org, bases its campaign on ‘Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?’, Hansen and others, 2008. How come the two campaigns don’t agree? Target 300 explains:
‘Remarkably, given the significance that the 350.org campaign now attaches to the 350 number, the Target CO2 paper doesn’t say why 350 was chosen! Nowhere in the paper is *any* argument presented to justify the precise magnitude of the proposed initial target. It is simply asserted and no scientific, or logical or numerical reasoning is offered to justify the specific number. James Hansen is deservedly a world respected scientist so, even if he and his co-authors omitted to explain in the Target CO2 paper where the 350 initial target came from, he undoubtedly would have had a private rationale for the number.’
The Target 300 campaign then fills this alleged scientific, logical and numerical lacuna with thoughts of its own about Dr Hansen’s private rationale, which rationale of course point to a target of 300 ppm.
Hot off the press: uploaded down under since last night: ‘Recent climate science: the case for a 300 ppm target’:
(If that link doesn’t load, google with Climate Action Summit Canberra Spratt.)
*Or indeed 300 ppm, as I will show when I launch my 250 ppm campaign later in the year. (I’m currently a celebrity short of the full Pol Pot picnic but am expecting to hear from Sir Bonobob shortly.)
February 17th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
[...] tip: Roger Pielke Jr. Written by: lucia « Monckton: Bullet list [...]
February 17th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Tomfd
Did you read Bill McKibben’s article? Goodwin’s Law was involved the moment someone pressed the “publish”.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Re “What other means could be applied to reach such a goal?”
Did you read McKibben’s piece? Does he mention violence or coercion? No, he’s talking about grassroots diffusion of an idea. I’m not arguing that it will work, just that the implication of violence above is the Zimmerman’s, not McKibben’s. Perhaps Z is merely suggesting that, without violence, it can’t work, given the current state of public opinion and short time horizon, but it doesn’t come off that way.
Similarly, Z says, ‘McKibben tells us that the global political consensus necessary to institute his draconian policies will not be reached by political debate, give and take, and messy democratic compromises, but instead because this is “what the physics and chemistry of the situation dictate.”’ That conflates McKibben’s statement about ends with another attribution of means.
Other aspects of this polemic also strike me as a little disingenuous. For example, there’s the false dichotomy of concern for the poor today vs. future climate impacts. And what are we to make of the whiff of sarcasm about $10 gasoline; is this economic alarmism – a carbon tax will destroy the world?
Z criticizes McKibben’s emissions reduction mandate, with “value-laden discourse” as a counterpoint. But those are apples vs. oranges (or prescription vs. process). If you buy McKibben’s premise (somewhere above 350 lies severe impacts) and some auxiliaries (severe impacts exceed our adaptive capacity, no good geoengineering solutions) then the linear model conclusion makes sense. Sure, you can still have messy democratic compromises over whether it’s better to lay off the cheese or let the arteries clog, but would we fault the doctor for suggesting the former?
I think there are some things in McKibben’s piece that are worthy of critique. Options are more nuanced and outcomes more uncertain than it suggests. The statements about sea level are a little over the top. Unfortunately, this piece doesn’t shed much light on the problem.
I was wrong about one thing – McKibben makes a Hitler analogy, so we can already invoke Godwin’s Law and go back to our real work.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Mark- I shall cherish your quote:
“Whenever someone says something is “the only” action possible, it’s a very good clue that person isn’t an engineer.”
Especially appropriate to celebrate Engineer’s Week- here’s a letter from the President
http://www.eweek.org/NewsStory.aspx?ContentID=167.
Climate scientists can be prophets about climate change, but the folks who are going to fix the problem are engineers. Happy Engineer’s Week!
February 17th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“. . . am expecting to hear from Sir Bonobob shortly.”
That’s Saint Bonobob to you, bub.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
It’s true that I was not as charitable to McKibben’s piece as I might have been. His appeal to the transformative power of the Internet may in fact be read as encouraging a grass-roots movement, although it is worth keeping in mind that billions of people around the world lack access to the Internet; hence, their views would not be as readily consulted as would those of Greens living in Europe and North America. Given the dubitable prospect of humankind rising as one to renounce fossil fuels, especially when viable alternatives are not now in place and won’t be for some time to come, I suggested that McKibben’s political transformation would have to be authoritarian, if in fact he was serious about carrying out his own recommendations. I myself favor high gasoline taxes, high MPG standards for automobiles, and many similar policies designed to reduce petroleum consumption. But, I also recognize the need to gain public support for such measures, and I do not look kindly on the prospect of swapping democratic principles for dictates delivered on high from technical experts.
Recent remarks by the leader of the campaign against global warming, Jim Hansen, are worth pointing out in this context. He has offered more than hints of how he thinks the current situation should be handled. In June, 2008, he proclaimed that chief executives of large fossil fuel should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature. (With Hansen in charge, we wouldn’t need to spend time cultivating a time-consuming grass-roots movement!) Moreover, on February 15, 2009, he published an op-ed piece (carried in The Guardian), in which he stated: “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” (My emphasis.) Power plants are crematoria. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions about such statements, but I for one am deeply troubled by them. I will have more to say about this on another occasion.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
“Does he mention violence or coercion?”
The statement you were criticizing begins “McKibben does not go so far as to describe the violence,” yet you seem to be interpreting that as meaning exactly the opposite of what it says. It’s not what’s being advocated, but rather what would be necessary to achieve it that matters. I take it you are confident that everyone will be perfectly willing to give up everything they would need to in order to accomplish this reduction without any use of force?
February 17th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Ah, nevermind, I see you already covered that, so suffice it to say that it may not have read that way to you but it did to me.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Here is a real simple question. There are currently 62 million registered internal combustion vehicles active in the US. Of which one third are trucks. There are probably over half a trillion worldwide.
If the aim is 350ppm, or is to get down to 1850 levels by 2050, or whatever target you pick, just say, how many should there be in 2020 in the US? In 2030? And worldwide? In order to be on track for achieving that target.
This is such a basic obvious question, why does it seem so difficult to answer? It is after all only 4 numbers.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Parse error – I see your point, but consider the language: “his regime” – so McKibben is a dictator, not a guy writing a letter; “consensus” in quotes, implying that it’s not real but imposed; “does not go so far as to describe the violence” – so he’s keeping that part of his evil plan for world domination secret, eh? Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Mr. McKibben?
I’m not at all confident that people will be willing to do what needs to be done, but you can’t fault McKibben for hoping and even exhorting.
I think the concepts of scientific authoritarianism and the linear model are useful. But when you use them to beat on anyone who proposes anything specific, they become rather meaningless.
Michel – More like 250m in the US, and over half a billion worldwide. There are plenty of bottom-up energy models that can answer such questions, though to my knowledge not many 350 scenarios have been run. Looking into the specific transport implications is useful, but I think your question is too specific, because it doesn’t leave room for sectoral tradeoffs and contingencies. Getting to 2050 takes a strategy, not a plan.
You don’t need a model to realize that it’s a lot easier to reduce at rates compatible with natural capital turnover (2-6%/yr) rather than the faster rates a 350 target would likely require.
Dr. Zimmerman – “I also recognize the need to gain public support for such measures, and I do not look kindly on the prospect of swapping democratic principles for dictates delivered on high from technical experts.” Me too, but you haven’t presented any evidence that McKibben has left the democratic path. Looks to me like he’s running a grassroots campaign, not a putsch. Your rhetorical excess here is not much more helpful than Hansen’s.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:27 am
“If the aim is 350ppm, or is to get down to 1850 levels by 2050, or whatever target you pick, just say, how many should there be in 2020 in the US? In 2030? And worldwide? In order to be on track for achieving that target.”
I’m not sure what the “1850 levels” means. Does it mean the CO2 emissions in 1850 (close to zero) or the CO2 concentration (about 280 ppm)?
But regardless which one you mean, there is essentially no chance of getting down to 350 ppm 2050. And there is also essentially no chance of getting down to 1850 emission levels, and there is even less chance of getting down to 280 ppm.
*Right now,* the worldwide ambient concentration is approximately 385 ppm. So to get to 350 ppm or 280 ppm, we would need to suck vast amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere (not just reduce emissions to zero).
So the 4 answers to your questions are zero trucks in the U.S. and worldwide burning fossil fuels in 2020 and 2030. Plus some measure that’s concurrently scrubbing tremendous amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. (And more CO2 must be scrubbed than is being emitted…including not just emissions from transportation, but also from electricity production.)
February 18th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Tomfid may be right about my original rhetorical excess! I will be more careful in posting future comments to be more charitable in describing an author’s views.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Dr Zimmerman – Looking forward to more thoughts. It seems to me that there is an interesting question here. If you’re right, that nothing short of coercion would produce the kind of drastic emissions trajectory needed to reach 350, what should we do about that? If the 350 folks are wrong in a technical sense, and climate sensitivity is low or there are many viable options for geoengineering and adaptation, then it might not be a big worry. But what if you’re both right, and societies stink at doing what they need to do in the face of not-so-imminent catastrophe?
February 18th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Indeed, tomfid, when all considered together I do not think I would wish to wear the shoe on my own foot. It is frustrating, though, to hear people talk about giving money to developing nations while ignoring the adverse effects this is bound to have on our own working poor. I realize that isn’t their intent, but one does have to be realistic and understand that because of all the parties looking out for their own self-interests as they take a proposal through the various stages toward implementation, those who wind up carrying the greatest burden from the end result are the ones least able to bear it, simply because they are unable to exert any considerable influence to ensure that their own needs are met as well.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
If it keeps getting colder, we will be down to 350 in no time
February 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Parse error – Even attempts to do the right thing through revenue recycling, as with the BC carbon tax, don’t always work out quite right:
http://blog.metasd.com/2008/10/31/is-the-bc-carbon-tax-fair/
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2009/02/18/happy-birthday-carbon-tax/
It would get a lot messier with global allocation and trading of property rights. An ideal system, with flat per capita allocation and trading among individuals, would be good for the poor. But somehow I doubt that the Chinese government is going to let citizens receive direct payments, and Americans aren’t going to have much enthusiasm for payments to the Chinese treasury.
I think we’re more likely to find a solution where nations mostly keep their own money, with developed world mitigation efforts seen as a kind of foreign aid that can’t be squandered by developing world despots.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
tomfid asks a good question: What if we really do need to get down to 350 to avoid calamity, and what if persuasion/democratic processes won’t work? Would coercion be justified in such a case? My initial response is this: Such coercion might work to some extent in a bounded domain, such as a middle sized country with some centralization. But even here there would be enormous resistance, unless people were visible dying from consequences of climate change undeniably attributable to human activity. I don’t see how one could hope to bring around the entire planet on this issue, however. Even if this could somehow be accomplished, I suspect that the violence would be so great that the dead and wounded (and damaged land) might rival the bad consequences of warming. Incidentally, I’m not yet persuaded that those consequences would be so awful, especially if they’re in the 1-2 degree C range, as some IPCC forecasts suggest.