Stefanie Penn Spear
I’ve know for days that Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, wrote a new feature piece for Rolling Stone Magazine, but it wasn’t until this morning that I took the time to read it.
Once again McKibben, in Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, outlines the daunting reality of climate change and global warming. I’m not going to rehash the article, as I think it’s vital you read it yourself, but I do want to point out one insight from the piece that I found critically important.
In a piece I wrote last week about a petition EcoWatch launched telling Congress to expedite renewable energy, I mentioned that it’s money in politics that’s preventing our democratic society from moving beyond fossil fuels. Though that’s true, McKibben points out an even more obvious problem preventing the world from reducing its carbon emissions. He writes,
“We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We’d have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been likely. Now, barring some massive intervention, it seems certain.
Yes, this coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it’s already economically aboveground – it’s figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony. It explains why the big fossil-fuel companies have fought so hard to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide – those reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their value. It’s why they’ve worked so hard these past years to figure out how to unlock the oil in Canada’s tar sands, or how to drill miles beneath the sea, or how to frack the Appalachians.”
I know reading this stuff is hard. Hard because you see little hope of turning it around. But we can’t give up and we need to keep fighting as science tells us it’s our only way out.
McKibben does an excellent job summing up his own article by writing,
“The three numbers I’ve described are daunting – they may define an essentially impossible future. But at least they provide intellectual clarity about the greatest challenge humans have ever faced. We know how much we can burn, and we know who’s planning to burn more. Climate change operates on a geological scale and time frame, but it’s not an impersonal force of nature; the more carefully you do the math, the more thoroughly you realize that this is, at bottom, a moral issue…”
I encourage you to take the time to read in whole McKibben’s Rolling Stone reckoning and consider joining the fight of our lifetime.
Definitely a must read…. So discouraging though, just what can we do.
Someone ought to write a story though, about what has been done. For example, since the seventies, cities general plans have been including global warming and sea level into their planning. Cities have been working at that level for decades now and the culture of corporate America is changing too. Even Al Gore reported recently that the oil companies now address global warming on their websites. I know, but its a start. They have fired the pr firm that put the dreadful denials and conflagrations of environmental activists with Charles Manson. Do not be discouraged. But of course, keep working. We have found at our institution that when you begin talking about the acidification of the ocean data that not only can the right wingers cannot deny, but will jump on board in humility and service. Also, rather than the word ‘global warming’ focus on the data and ask them given Earth is the only planet in the universe that supports an atmosphere we could readily live in, whether we ought not to monitor and track the fragile mix of gases that comprise it. Address their questions with kindness and respect. They will come around. The Inhofe’s will be in horror when they see their mistake, like Greenspan, when he realized the principles he had devoted his life to were a lie.
who is going to lead us out of this impending 6 degree scenario? Unfortunately we are all going to have to do all that we can no matter what other lives we planned on having.
Humanity deserves what is coming. Too bad other species have to suffer as a consequence of our stupidity. Seems to me only a devastating plague, natural disaster, or world war that drastically reduces the global population will prevent what seems so certain. Too bad, also, that the wealthy, who did all they could to block all attempts to curb carbon emissions, will no doubt save themselves while the rest of us burn.
West Coast drivers are thinking about the permafrost more than their eastern counterparts, here’s why:
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-to-get-your-message-out.html
It’d take about a dozen of us to reach half the nation.
Emission fees on industry in San Diego could add carbon fee—need to have EPA establish it now for the nation!
Here- the NRDC just came out with this, though i am not easily seeing where author is taking his data http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/closer_than_you_think_downward.html
“So discouraging though, just what can we do.”
Here’s what nature is doing. Monthly mean CO2 level in the atmosphere for May, 396.77 ppm. June’s level is 395.77 ppm, a 1 ppm drop in a month! See what nature can do!! It reduces CO2!! Maybe it’s time for a rethink. The fact that nature can drop CO2 levels should tell us something. Can we work with nature on this one?
McKibben is all about reducing fossil emissions. Bill didn’t mention another number. “It’s the number that may define our future.” Read his article “Remember This: 350 Parts Per Million”, The Washington Post, Dec. 28, 2007. The current CO2 trend level is just above 393 ppm. We are 43 ppm above the limit. How do we reduce emissions to get below 350 when we are above it? We can’t. We need more of what nature is doing!
I am hopeful that the world will find a way to reduce emissions, and support McKibben and others, and participate in that effort. That doesn’t solve the extinction problem, deforestation, desertification. It won’t stop the flooding, droughts, melting ice. They are already happening at 393 ppm. Reducing emissions is important, but it will take something else to reverse the existing problems.
“You want a big number? In the course of this month, a quadrillion kernels of corn need to pollinate across the grain belt, something they can’t do if temperatures remain off the charts.” This won’t happen by just reducing emissions.
I do want a big number — 200 gigatons. That’s the amount of extra carbon in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times. That’s the amount of equivalent life in the biosphere and soil needed to get us back where we need to be.
What can we do? Use that extra CO2 to make more life! Nature does it every year. Let’s commit to doing our part.
Global warming is a reality already on the doorstep. Why doesn’t the scientific community, who can take practical steps for sure, join hands and form a team to tackle the situation. If the unseen “God partcle” can be visualised this problem also can be jointly handled with a workforce around the globe joining their brains and efforts. In addition to the afforts of reducing GHGs, a direct attack for reduction of green house gases (from atmosphere) should also be looked into. This seems to be the earnest call of the day. The environmental impact around the globe is enough testimony of the fact that GHG has gone much beyond control.
“Why doesn’t the scientific community, who can take practical steps for sure, join hands and form a team to tackle the situation”?
1) Scientists can’t take steps. They gather the data and report the science. It’s up to governments to take steps to address the situation.
2) Do you suggest that scientists do this in their “free time”? They have jobs that they are paid to do, which is primarily research. If governments said, “We need to fund a team to tackle the situation,” then you might see some action undertaken. Unfortunately, countries like the US, Canada, and Australia have gutted their funding of climate research.
3) Notwithstanding the above, scientists around the world have recommended practical steps that could be taken — over and over again. Governments aren’t listening.
“It’s up to governments to take steps to address the situation.”
And if they don’t? I’m mot one to sit idly by and allow future generations to suffer. At my age, I figure that I have caused about 1000 tons of CO2 emissions. I am now working to account for that equivalent in growing more life, and since there are very few who will do likewise, my intent is to continue well beyond 1k and demonstrate how it can be done to anyone who is motivated to get more life growing. It’s not just reducing emissions. Legacy carbon has to be photosynthesized … quickly!