Physics and chemistry don’t bluff or bargain
June 3rd, 2008 by Jim JustYale Environment 360, a new online magazine dedicated to covering the global environment, is launching today at e360.yale.edu.
The leadoff article is a humdinger by Bill McKibben titled The Tipping Point. He briefly sums up the history of climate science and then lays out the policy implications of what we now know:
“Forget the plans we’ve laid so far, which see us slowly easing up on the use of coal, and ratcheting up the use of renewables, mostly by gradual shifts in the price of carbon. That might get us to 550, and it might possibly even get us somewhere near 450. But 350 — well, that means in essence that we have to leave most of the carbon underground that’s now there.”
Our dependence on oil is so deep that global reserves are likely all going to be used up. So:
“The real question, according to Jim Hansen’s calculations, is whether we’re also going to burn our planet’s coal, and whether we’re going to develop the exotic sources of petroleum, like tar sands and oil shale. If we do, then we’ll never get back to 350. If we don’t — if we stop building new coal-fired plants now and begin closing the ones we have — then the planet may retain enough carbon-cycling ability to pull us back below the line.”
Is getting back to 350 realistic?
McKibben points out that we’re used to thinking of “realistic” in a political context – what’s realistic to get through to sausage grinder of a political process. But physics and chemistry impose a reality of their own. If we’re going to have a chance, the science now has to drive the politics – not the other way round. Physics and chemistry don’t bluff and they don’t bargain. They just implacably are.
For a sorry tale of how “realism” works in today’s politics, check out Gristmill, where Kate Shepard has a summary of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill that’s now before the Senate. First, it sets a target that’s not ambitious enough, then proposes mechanisms vapid enough to have some hope of passage, then is further weakened in an attempt to garner enough votes for passage. The end result:
“It’s not as strong as most activists and climate scientists would like, but strong enough that many of them are cheering it as a big step forward.”
Or, as more “realistically” put by Friends of the Earth president Brent Blackwelder:
“The Lieberman-Warner bill comes nowhere close to doing what scientists say we must to have a shot at avoiding catastrophic outcomes.”
And even after all the eviscerating concessions, it’s not expected to pass. If Lieberman-Warner were to clear the Senate, there would be a second battle in the House, which is significantly more hostile to climate legislation. And if a bill passed both branches of Congress, it would still face the almost-certain veto of President Bush, who remains firmly opposed to a mandatory emissions cap.
That’s realism? No – that’s appeasement.