Grist and Dot Earth: Framing the Climate Challenge

By Andrew C. Revkin

Off and on for more than a year, I’ve been in a running debate with Dave Roberts, an environmental blogger for Grist, over the shape of the climate problem and the prospects of various efforts to tackle it. We held an e-chat Wednesday night to fine tune where we differ and where we agree. (You can see Dave in this Outside Magazine story on Grist.) He’s cross-posting this today as well.

(An abbreviation explanation: “S&N” below refers to Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, the co-authors of “Break Through,” one of the books I discussed here on Tuesday.)

Dave Roberts says: Thanks for doing this.

Andrew Revkin says: I’m always more eager to search for points of agreement than difference. This seems the best way to progress. So what do we agree on related to the range of voices out there in the debate over how to respond to the reality of human-forced climate change?

DR: The way I see it, there’s a wide range, that’s growing wider all the time, with a whole crazy mix of tones, positions, perspectives, etc. I think we agree that it’s a good thing that more voices are entering the discussion. And particularly that the Republican Titanic is attempting to dodge the Denial Iceberg. (If you will.)

AR: You’re right. Some of the climate experts I’ve talked to over the years predicted that more clarity on the science actually could widen the range of policy views. We may as well cut to the chase on the hottest button — the mention of the word “Lomborg.”

DR: The way I see it, Lomborg is a unique case. He doesn’t represent a school of thought — or rather, he represents a school of thought of one. He acknowledges some of the science, ignores some of it, and generally — in my view — misunderstands the big picture. But precisely because he’s unique, it seems bizarre to me to characterize him as in the “center.”

AR: I indicated in my blog post that this “center” is not necessarily right, for one thing. And you’re right, it IS shorthand to describe a midrange view (climate is a serious risk worth a carbon tax and big boost in R&D) as centrist, perhaps. But I think it’s legitimate shorthand, particularly given that he only got about 250 words out of a 1,000-word piece.

The real reason I feel it necessary to write about him (and a lot of my Dot Earth commentators and a heap of angry scientists thought I shouldn’t have) is that he’s been kind of an intellectual lifeboat for a lot of doubtful, disengaged or disinformed people out there. When this comfort-zone character says we need a carbon tax and a big technology push, that takes away the comfort zone for folks.

DR: But you’re assuming that those people will stop using him when they find out his other positions. Surely the denial/delay community has demonstrated, if nothing else, it’s opportunism. They’ll use Lomborg for FUD, and if/when he’s no longer useful, they’ll use somebody else.

AR: Sure, but as a journalist tracking the evolving game board here, I’ve got to report on when prominent pieces move, no matter what the overall state of the game is.

DR: The way I see it, you’re taking people on the right who are clearing a very, very low bar — acknowledging that there’s a problem and proposing to do something (albeit not much) about it — and showering them with attention and praise. But there’s a large, robust community of people that have accepted the science for a long time, and have interesting debates over the best way to proceed. Why not give them the attention? Why not locate the “center” among the actual debates taking place?

You’ve got to understand, there’s a totemic quality to the terms “moderate” and “centrist,” especially when applied by a national journalist. The entire Beltway punditry worships those qualities. So to apply them to these guys … it’s factually inaccurate, for one thing, but it also distorts people’s view of the real debates going on.

AR: Not being an inhabitant of the Beltway, maybe I miss the subtext definitions of words like moderate and center. Did you see my post a week ago on the youth movement? I think it was the only mainstream coverage of the huge pulse of young people who headed to D.C. to pester their elected officials. I’m not here to offer praise (that’s the turf of our opinion writers). But I am here — absolutely — to chronicle who is acting meaningfully on this issue. Same goes for the newspaper columnists I blogged on in Kansas who did the spoof ad complaining about Big Coal’s ad attacks against the governor there. I’m all for reporting on what is, and is not, meaningful.

DR: I happily acknowledge that it’s worth writing about when a famous Republican like Gingrich acknowledges climate change, or when a useful tool of the right like Lomborg proposes a carbon tax. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t write about it. But the frame you put around it, lumping those guys together with S&N and calling the resulting stew the “pragmatic center,” is just inaccurate, and as a news reporter offering an accurate view of the state of play should be the top requirement. Those guys don’t share anything in common. If I was new to the debate, and considered myself a reasonable centrist type, and wanted to know what to believe, what would I learn by reading these three? I’d get all kinds of contradictory signals. There’s no there there.

It seems to me what you really want to get at is this issue of tone, and framing, and whether to talk about climate change as an oncoming catastrophe. And that’s an interesting subject. But to presume, at the outset, that taking the milder view is “reasonable” is just to prejudge the case. I read the I.P.C.C. and it sounds to me a hell of a lot like a pressing, urgent problem.

AR: The pressing urgent problem is figuring out a way to engage people on a multigenerational energy quest to move away from a here-and-now fuel (mainly coal) that is cheap and abundant for the sake of a less risky climate future. As you know, the largely underplayed message of the I.P.C.C. report, which I wrote about but didn’t get much coverage elsewhere, is that the atmosphere and climate won’t notice the difference between a Gore-style immediate emissions freeze or a pedal-to-the-metal fossil-fuel party for more than 20 years. There will be no discernible diversion in climate trends for two decades.

The urgency is all about finding a tone that captivates instead of paralyzes. As you know, I wrote about the “Be Worried” message last year and talked to a lot of sociologists who said anyone who hopes that message will galvanize sustained behavior changes should be very worried. I also blogged on that last week in a piece on a study by a liberal U.K. think tank showing concerns about overheated press coverage there, which they labeled “climate porn.”

DR: I am aware that a pure message of fear paralyzes — as, I think, virtually everyone involved in this issue is aware. The environmental message around global warming is not nearly as monochromatic as you make out. Every time he opens his mouth, Gore says both: it’s a climate emergency, but we can beat it, and we will be enriched by doing so. I see stuff about green jobs, new industries, better health, greater national cohesion, etc. etc. all over the place. The positive message is out there. If you ask me, it’s not the campaigners but the media that’s addicted to “porn” of all sorts.

AR: You’re right, and I’ve written two book chapters on hurdles preventing effective media coverage of climate and related complex environmental issues — and one of the big ones is the importance of not overplaying the ‘hot’ material and forgetting the real complexities, e.g., polar bears are not going extinct. No one (not even the scientists doing the review for Endangered Species Act) says they are. They are hardy, resilient and will have refuges of ice in parts of the Arctic well into the next century, according to the latest studies. But you would never know that from the ad campaigns of environmental groups, or the coverage in many media.

DR: We need more campaigners talking about opportunities rather than danger; same with the media. We need more campaigners talking about adaptation for the global poor rather than all mitigation; same with the media. We need to talk more about the many regulatory and tax barriers to RE & EE; same with the media. I would be pleased if you wrote about all those things.

The only thing I ask is that you not try to pick, out of this wide array of different debates and perspectives, a “center” — that only serves to artificially narrow the debate and marginalize some voices that are bringing us important, and poorly heeded, messages.

We can walk and chew gum — recognize that it’s a big problem that needs urgent action, and also feel exhilarated by the opportunities ahead of us. That’s what S&N are after, I think. But Gingrich and Lomborg, it seems to me, are out to anesthetize, which is a very different thing.

AR: Read “The Climate Divide” and all of the stories my colleagues and I have been writing for two years and counting on the Energy Challenge that underlies the climate challenge.

DR: Finally bringing to mainstream attention the very stuff dirty hippies have been yelling and screaming about for over a decade. And good for you. But don’t go dismissing those very same dirty hippies as “extremists” in the next breath. They deserve credit for being ahead on this issue. And Gingrich deserves, at best, a pat on the head. “Thanks for catching up, Newt.”

AR: I cover it all, and don’t mind some yelling about one or two stories out of 500-plus pieces I’ve written on this since 2000, not including all the stories I’ve done going back to 1988 … I’ve been writing on climate almost (almost!) since before there were dirty hippies. Indeed, since before there was an I.P.C.C.

Thanks for having this chat with me…. Way more fun than dog (food) fights.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Daniel Bell, wiserearth.org/user/danielbell November 15, 2007 · 2:05 pm

David and Andrew, thank you for this discussion.

The impact of the media on this movement is monumental. The media literally has the power to decide what level of impact grassroots activists (read: democratic participants) will have on our political consciousness.

There is the stark reality of our world that the science is uncovering, and the activists are talking about. Accepting the science is the conservative, radical, and centrist position. From Bill McKibben “The problem lies in how one defines reality. Physics and chemistry demand swift and deep cuts in carbon emissions; political realism says to move slowly. In that fight, there’s really only one choice. The tax code can be amended, but the laws of nature can’t.”

The choices of the media today will shape the direction of our collective future. I hope this level of engagement between independent and mainstream journalists continues.

Jeff Huggins November 15, 2007 · 3:04 pm

Great discussion. I have just a couple thoughts and quotes to add.

I agree that, in addition to raising honest awareness of the issue, the media (and others) should point out the positives of working very hard to address climate change. Addressing climate change is both a challenge and a huge opportunity. Many of the people who don’t see it that way are not really defending opportunity, they are defending “status quo.” If one understands human history, this should come as no big surprise. But, people who want to address climate change, leave a decent world for future generations, and give birth to (or enjoy) new opportunities, usually can see problems with the “status quo”. The future can be positive, if we are wise and take action.

Also, many people have a way of reforming small things but leaving the big problems unaddressed, and many people also have a way of going to church on Sunday and then doing “whatever” on the other six days of the week. As we address climate change, we can’t overlook population and consumption. Can the world support 7, 8, 9, or 10 billion people? Does anyone really need three 10,000 square foot homes?

On these points, it is interesting to consider two great quotes, one from Emerson and one from Montaigne, that one of the points mentioned in the post brought to my mind:

In his classic essay “Self-Reliance,” Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote,

“Virtues, are, in the popular estimate, rather the exception than the rule. There is the man and [with the word ‘and’ italicized] his virtues. Men do what is called a good action, as some piece of courage or charity, much as they would pay a fine in expiation of daily non-appearance on parade. Their works are done as an apology or extenuation of their living in the world,—as invalids and the insane pay a high board. Their virtues are penances.”

(From “Emerson’s Essays”, Harper & Row.)

Keeping in mind that Emerson’s choice of terms reflects his time, this is perhaps one of the best summaries of one aspect of human nature that has considerable implications for the climate change issue.

Montaigne somewhat similarly observed, over four hundred years ago, that people often focus on reforming the less important things (or perhaps things that don’t need reform at all?) while leaving deeper problems unreformed and sometimes making them worse. He wrote,

“They who in my time have attempted to correct the manners of the world by new opinions, reform seeming vices; but the essential vices they leave as they were, if indeed they do not augment them, and augmentation is therein to be feared; we defer all other well doing upon the account of these external reformations, of less cost and greater show, and thereby expiate good cheap, for the other natural, consubstantial, and intestine vices.”

(From Michel de Montaigne, “Selected Essays” (“Of Repentance”), translated by Charles Cotton, Borders Classics and Ann Arbor Media Group.)

– Jeff Huggins

Michael Shellenberger November 15, 2007 · 3:05 pm

The new debate over climate goes far beyond message and framing. It goes to our policy priorities.

For years, the first, second, and third priorities of the environmental lobby have been regulation, regulation, and regulation. And yet, virtually every energy and climate expert in the world –- including the U.N.’s IPCC and the British Stern Review — says we need a three-legged stool consisting of regulation, investment and preparedness (“adaptation.”)

There’s been some confusion about this point. By “environmental lobby” I’m referring to the big groups — Environmental Defense, NRDC, Sierra Club, UCS, NET — that have clout in Washington, write the climate legislation, and have budgets in the hundreds of millions to run ads, mobilize members, and lobby.

Revkin understands this, which is why he wrote:

You do need an energy revolution to empower something like 9 billion people by mid-century, all of whom want out of poverty. That has not been a forefront message of any environmental group I know of.

In 2007, human beings consumed roughly 15 terawatts (trillion watts) of energy. Humans will need to produce and consume roughly 60 terawatts of energy annually by 2100 if every human on earth is reach the level of prosperity enjoyed today by the world’s wealthiest one billion people. Even were economies to become 30 percent more efficient, the total terawatts needed to bring all of humankind out of poverty would still need to roughly triple by century’s end.

The framing of the Times blog is spot-on in this regard: “9 billion people. One planet.” The bottom line is that we’re not going to meet the energy and development needs of 9 million people through the old politics of limits focused on regulation, conservation, and efficiency. We need a new politics focused on economic opportunity, investment, and innovation.

Global warming is widely viewed at the policy level as a pollution problem like acid rain, smog, or the ozone hole. But whereas dealing with the ozone hole required a simple and inexpensive chemical substitute, global warming demands a totally different way of producing energy. We were able to fight smog without replacing oil. We dealt with acid rain without dismantling our power plants. And we will phase out ozone-depleting chemicals without affecting any of our energy sources.

But to deal with global warming, we will need an entirely new energy infrastructure. Creating a new energy infrastructure is more comparable to the creation of the railroads, the inter-state highway system, personal computers, the Internet, and the space program than it is to installing catalytic converters, installing scrubbers, or phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. Adding scrubbers to smokestacks to deal with acid rain, and adding catalytic converters to vehicles, are best understood as inexpensive technical fixes — not wholesale technological revolutions.

What’s required in the case of global warming is that we free energy consumption from greenhouse gas emissions. Environmentalists have been so focused on making clean energy relatively cheaper (by making dirty energy expensive) that they overlook the possibility of making clean energy absolutely cheaper through major investments in technology innovation and infrastructure. Experts say that if we bought $50 to $200 billion worth of solar panels over the next 10 – 20 years, the price of solar could come to down to the price of natural gas and even coal, not just in the U.S. but even in developing countries like China, where coal is especially cheap.

The good news is that the regulation-centered approach to global warming has the potential to become an investment-centered approach. The dominant proposals to deal with global warming being debated in the U.S. Congress and by presidential candidates would require that pollution permits be auctioned to U.S. companies. Depending on how the auction is structured, the sale of pollution permits could generate between $30 and $250 billion per year for clean energy. This money would come from higher energy prices, however, and in order for the American public to agree to such a project they be inspired by its potential to free the U.S. from oil and create jobs through technology innovation.

In the debate over our book, i>Break Through, prominent environmental leaders from the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope (he’s quoted in the Wired magazine profile about us) to the NRDC’s David Hawkins ( see his blog) have insisted that they support big investment.

The time has come for them to put their money where their mouths are. They need to publicly commit to making sure that Lieberman-Warner and all other climate legislation generates at least $30 billion for clean energy investments every year. A mechanism should be created to insure that the money is well-invested in R&D, demonstration, deployment, and outright procurement and not frittered away into a million little pork projects.

There is a golden opportunity before us. But to seize it, we have to make the case to the American people that these new investments are what’s required to free us from oil, restore our economic competitiveness, and deal with global warming. A better world is possible – achieving it will require that we invest and invent it.

The environmental community has had two different and contradictory discourses on global warming. The first is, “There is a fire-breathing global warming dragon coming to incinerate you and all the other villagers –- now here, take this fluorescent light bulb and cap and trade system!” The public knows that those solutions are too small to deal with such a big problem, and so many end up skeptical of either the problem or the solution or both.

The second discourse is, “There is a fire-breathing global warming dragon coming to incinerate you and all the other villagers –- we will have to sacrifice the quality of our lives to deal with it.” Well, that doesn’t really appeal to Americans. And it’s also not true.

There is a different way of thinking about this, one that entails investment and preparedness, not just regulation. It goes something like this: “There is a very serious climate challenge facing us, and dealing with it gives us a chance to create a new kind of prosperity and economic growth –– for Americans and Chinese alike — through investments in technology and infrastructure. It will be hard, not easy, expensive, not cheap. But in taking on this challenge we will become stronger, safer, wealthier, and freer. We’ve overcome other major challenges in the past — we can overcome global warming.

marguerite manteau-rao November 15, 2007 · 4:17 pm

Andrew,

Thanks again, for drawing all these brilliant minds into this discussion. The issue that was raised of what kind of information eventually filters through to the people, is of utmost importance.

I just wrote a post in my blog, calling attention to the New York Times / CBS News latest poll, featured in yesterday’s New York Times. Environment is way at the bottom in terms of deciding factor for choosing our next leader, way behind national security threat and immigration . . . In those few numbers, lie the challenge ahead. How to communicate effectively the reality of the challenge, and also the opportunities embedded in climate change. Because of the confusion and misinformation that permeates much of the communication around environmental issues, the huge majority of America is ill equipped to take the right kind of action as voters, citizens and consumers.

May this blog be a forum where some concrete solutions to this problem can be formulated . . .

marguerite manteau-rao
//lamarguerite.wordpress.com
‘It’s All About Green Psychology’

Stephen Slade November 15, 2007 · 6:16 pm

Thank you both for this discussion. I’m new to this blog and to Grist and am attracted by both the intelligence and the tone of your conversation. As a regular reader of the UK press I was struck by the “climate porn” comment and will read that next. On the other hand, it is nice to see lots of stories on things the US press ignores, buries, or just gives less space to that the latest superficial campaign story.

E. Johnston November 15, 2007 · 7:17 pm

Hallelujah, Dave. The Times’s (and particularly Revkin’s) climate change & other environmental coverage have been making me crazy for a long time now. The notion that people who are alarmed are alarmists and that anyone “in between” those people and the deniers is by definition a centrist is truly surreal.

To my satisfaction, the Times published my letter to the editor on this (responding to the “Eco-tecture” issue of the Magazine); to my dismay, they retained my criticism of one particularly egregious sentence (Mark Svenvold’s “By installing a solar-hydrogen system, almost any house, it seems, could go seriously green — and without a whiff of the sacrifice or changes in lifestyle that sometimes come from the more puritanical quarters of the environmental movement”) while removing my broader complaint about their coverage (which regularly implies that even a “whiff” of sacrifice is indeed puritanical, by definition).

But what can you expect from a paper so timid of naming alarming truths that they put the assessment of reputable scientists that the ocean’s fisheries will experience a global collapse in approximately forty-two years…on page sixteen?

Thanks for persistently insisting on reality.

Wang Suya November 15, 2007 · 7:38 pm

How to arrange global warming is a complex problem.I agree to Dave Robert’s some view that we should not only action to reduce greenhouse gas even it is most important issue. Because there are now already global poor, it need us to arrange and fight,too. For there place, global warming already happened, we need adaptation to save the people are living on there. As Revkin introduced one webpage said, UN depress the money for adaptation, it is not right thing. Adaptation is one part of fighting with global warming, because it is the consequence of global warming. Like some people are fall down the water, we have to pull them from the water. Both reduction and adaptation are important.

Siladium November 15, 2007 · 9:40 pm

Fait accompli – I think not. One could quote John R. Christy just as readily as Bill McKibben. The science is not nearly as tidy as the global warming advocates would lead us to believe.
//www.siladiumblog.com/

Anyguy Usa November 15, 2007 · 9:47 pm

Andrew,

I am glad to see the meeting of the minds. This shows a middle ground is a good place to start. I would like to point out a few hypothetical examples of what I am talking about.

1st example. Say you have an eating issue you will have people who over eat and become overweight. You will have people who under eat and become emaciated and are malnourished. Then you have the middle ground, people who are healthy with an approach that is moderate and sensible towards eating. If one of the unhealthy parties wants assistance with the dietary issues, who will they turn to for the informed recommendations of how to get back on track, the people who lead by example are the people who are sought out for solving the problem.

2nd example. Someone has a mode of transportation issue they don’t know what type of vehicle they want to buy for practicality and ownership. Some people own bicycles, some own little 2 seater sports cars, some own environmentally friendly vehicles, some own 4 door sedans, some own Monster Trucks, some own Multi-million dollar gas guzzling R.V.’s.. Regarding the spectrum of modes of travel listed the person has a lot of choices to choose from a lot more than are listed here but the middle ground seems to be a good starting place. I don’t find a lot of bikes in traffic, which is an extreme choice at one end of the spectrum on the list of choices and I also don’t find a lot of Multi Million Dollar R.V.’s in traffic which is at the other end of the spectrum along with Monster Trucks this isn’t to say they aren’t on the road. They just don’t populate the road like a middle ground car populates it. The middle ground car being a common 4 door sedan.

I could go on and on with the hypothetical expressions and I won’t because I believe your readers are cerebral enough to get it without me continuing.

Incidentally these examples are not a swipe at anybody just to quell any concerns that I am judging anyone because believe me I am not. These were merely expression for the sole purpose of an analogy and nothing more. If anyone is offended please understand it isn’t anything directed at anyone just an expression to make a point.

The reason I present these analogies is I feel when it comes right down to it Logical, Sound, Comprehensive, approaches toward any problem will break down the barriers making the choices evident to the problem solvers involved.

Regarding computer models for a solution to the problem. I have read the model is only as good as the programming put into the model. I could be wrong but the computer programmers who are Experts in the field can provide comprehensive exposition on this I am certain. I have read a little in the past regarding this topic and it feels as if the software is really nothing more than a really fancy calculator equating 2+2=4 because ultimately the data you feed into the equation is all that you can get out of it. The model can be manipulated to get the result you want to get with a tweak in the program here and there and voila you have the desired result. Don’t get me wrong I know the data entered into the model is intense and has to bear a lot of scrutiny but with hackers and binary knowledge of computers there is no way I could be convinced that a model couldn’t be manipulated by an Expert Programmer. Just a hunch.

One other thing is how everything in the world is connected due to the fact that everything we can come in contact with is either on our planet or in our skies. So it goes without saying that anyone who doesn’t like how something is going environmentally can easily blame it all on Global Warming for that matter just blame it all on man why not he’s in the environment too. It is just all too easy to blame it on whatever you want because we all share the same Planet. Something to think about when someone wants to play the blame game.

By the way I really appreciate your desire to present all sides of a story. Please keep up the comprehensive approach it’s great. You have such a diverse crowd of readers and it really is good to see you don’t let anyone bully you into pasteurizing your articles to conform to their own flavor of reporting. Its nice to have a choice of what you want to read.

Sincerely

Agnes Witter November 16, 2007 · 5:35 am

In the world of politics we often see the term, “carrots and sticks” used when determining how to encourage behavioral changes in “rogue” nations.
In the global warming, climate change debate, we have been presented with all of the sticks. The result has been less than stellar, dividing us into two camps, believers and deniers, with negligable progress made in arriving at solutions.
Presenting the carrots seems to be the logical next step if the “do nothing” gridlock is ever to be broken.
If the impact of the books by Newt Gingrich and Mr. Lomborg serves to move a majority of deniers into the “lets do something now” camp, they will have accomplished more than all the sticks weve had thrown at us.

Steve Bolger November 16, 2007 · 9:46 am

Those who control depleting energy resources want to exhaust them before diverting capital to capturing free energy.

We’re obviously going to see whether the atmosphere can provide enough oxidant for all they want to burn whether we want to or not.

Charles Wilkins November 16, 2007 · 9:57 am

(Note: I just posted this on another Dot-Earth discussion strand, but it’s worth noting here as well)

It’s worth noting a point that Dave Roberts makes in his exchange with Andy Revkin, that’s also borne out in the discussion here:

There is a world of difference between where Nordhaus and Shellenberger are coming from and Lomborg & Gingrich. It seems clear that S&N are committed, thoughtful and well-intentioned whereas Lomborg and Gingrich’s aims seem much more questionable.

It’s also notable that Shellenberger has jumped into the fray on several strands of this discussion unlike those other characters. From my vantage point it just reinforces the point that Shellenberger & Nordhaus are earnest in their aims.

I understand why Revkin wanted to place the three parties (Gingrich, Lomborg, S&N) in a conceptual middle to note that they were voices taking more centrist stances and speaking to the Left (S&N)and Right respectively. I accept that. At the same time the quality of both their commitment and value of their critique seems qualitatively different.

I’m sure I’m biased having just read Break Through, having heard S&N speak, and thinking that they’re making a great deal of sense.

Skip Wenz November 17, 2007 · 3:08 am

This is a thoghtful dialogue followed by thoughtful comments. I thank Mr. Revkin for initiating it, though I must say that I’m more on the side of Mr. Roberts. The “center” is not half-way between Al Gore and Newt Gingrich. Gore himself is much closer to the center. Serious people — though not people who were taken seriously — were writing about global warming long before Gore started his campaign. He wants business to do something about global warming. It won’t.

What’s missing in this discussion is the connection between global warming and all of the other peak resource problems that are about to crash down on us like a huge wave. And the situation is far worse than one of “we are beginning to experience the effects of global warming AND peak oil AND fishery colapse, and so on.” That would be bad enough, but in reality is far worse. We are beginning to experience the effects of global warming TIMES peak oil TIMES fishery collapse TIMES water scaricity TIMES arable land depletion TIMES despeciation — all right now.

So the idea that we will soon reach a population of nine billion and that investment can bring that population to the present level of over consumption and waste of resources committed in the U.S. is sheer fantasy. Since we have pretty much already overshot our carrying capacity, we’re more likely to see population crashes and a reduction in available resources for everyone, not just the unfortunate poor. Resource wars, including those of the nuclear variety, become increasingly likely with each passing year.

So while Mr. Revkin and commentator Shellenberger seem to think that continued growth toward a planet of nine billion ultra-consumers is inevitable and that investment is the the path to such glory, I believe the opposite is true — if we don’t reverse our current expansionist trends we will do ourselves in.

There is a path to survival — it begins with conservation. There are a number of crash programs we can inaguarate immediately — beginning with super-insulating all of our buildings.

At the same time we can begin to reverse the wrong-headed notion that a growth economy is the only possible mode of existence or, indeed, is sustainable under any circumstances.

Philip S. Wenz

Bill Henderson November 18, 2007 · 11:43 am

Andrew and Dave,

Read and disagreed with your review of ‘Centrist’ messaging Andrew and am now replying to your interesting and insightful shared dialogue with Dave about framing the climate change debate:

It’s useful to consider the very wide spectrum of those that do recognize anthropogenic climate change. A much more robust scientific and then public consensus about possible risk is arguably needed in order to insure that climate change is the main 08 issue and that the winner has a mandate for the appropriate scale of mitigation for the degree of risk found in this consensus.

How wide is the spectrum? Here’s a picture from two articles from the first week of Oct:

In a widely distributed blog commentary conservation biologist Glen Barry summed up the case for those who are admittedly extremely concerned about crossing thresholds by exceeding 450ppm / 2 degreesC:

“Climate change is not about on average being 2C warmer. It is about whole countries and regions not having food and water, about an end to ecosystems and agriculture, about enormous and continuous floods and droughts, and so much more. Climate change is about death, destruction and mayhem for billions, maybe for all…

(T)his is the core of my sadness — this beautiful magnificent Earth and all its bright and brilliant creatures including human good works are going to needlessly end because of greed, vanity and intransigence.”

Conversely, in my Guardian Weekly was this nugget : ‘a source in a position to know insists that the president, in private, is not yet persuaded {about climate change} and his attitude remains “there’s too much fuss about all this”.’ Wash diary Guardian Weekly 05 Oct

I think that a substantial percentage of America’s movers and shakers share Mr. Bush’s perception of climate change danger. So what is centrist?

Furthermore, the politically active are clustered on this spectrum in the following groups telling differing climate change stories:
Profligacy. This is the story that sees prevailing structural inequalities, particularly between countries, as having led to increasingly unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. In this story, urgent fundamental reform of political institutions and unsustainable lifestyles is required. Decision-making needs to be decentralised down to the grass roots level and citizens need to dramatically simplify their lifestyles to conserve the earth’s resources. The onus is on advanced capitalist states to take action.
Lack of global planning. This story sees the underlying problem as the lack of global governance and planning that would rein in global markets and factor into prices the costs to the environment. It makes no sense for any household, firm or country to unilaterally reduce its emissions, as each individual contribution is too small to make a difference. Remedying climate change would require all governments and parliaments to formally agree on the extent to which future emissions should be cut, and how and when. States would then impose these formal intergovernmental agreements on the multitude of undiscerning consumers and producers within their borders.
Much ado about nothing. This story sees much of the debate as scaremongering by naïve idealists who erroneously believe the world can be made a better place (profligacy story), or by international bureaucrats looking to expand their budgets and influence (lack of global planning). Some with this view are sceptical about the diagnosis of climate change itself, while others are convinced that, even if correct, the consequences will be neither catastrophic nor uniformly negative. Technological progress, adaptation and dynamic markets are the solution to the negative effects of climate change. //www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/wickedproblems2.htm
Given Freidman’s golden straightjacket after decades of erosion of gov’t power, and path dependence in our complex service sector dominated economies, and the general control of culture by The Church of Business, the much ado about nothing crowd will make sure nothing is done for quite a while yet. ‘Cept maybe depopulating Asia.

But for those of us who follow Hansen, Spratt, Monbiot, and many others in the tail of a much more serious climate change story: non-linear, with positive feedbacks, tipping points, time lags and thresholds, we need a much more robust and focused scientific consensus now, without waiting years for the next IPCC reports, in time to win the crucial 08 election because the solution must be now, global and America must be a leader.

What if new digital technology could greatly speed up, enhance and focus the peer-review climate change scientific process?

In EVERYTHING IS MISCELLANEOUS , his wonderfully erudite, prescient and highly informative book on how digital technology changes information sorting, processing and decision making, David Weinberger describes “how we’re pulling ourselves together now that we’ve blown ourselves to bits”. Wiki building and Web2.0 could can turbocharge democracy and maybe even get a majority of Americans on the same page about climate change in time for 08.

Americans have no trouble reaching consensus on who won the last Super Bowl or who’s still in contention for the World Series. There are no deniers claiming that ManU is really the best baseball team in the world. Put up the bleachers on an electronic highway 61 for a science-based competition and get everybody on the same page about just how serious climate change really is.

I’ve written it up somewhat naively as A Climate Change Wiki and more usefully as a competition, as the Climate Change Challenge Cup for sports crazy Australians.

Of course, if your playing the FUD game on not only climate change but peak everything you laugh and pay no attention at all.

Much thanks to you both for your leadership and good luck,

Bill Gibsons, B.C.

jerry brown November 18, 2007 · 7:18 pm

Unless I am missing something, you are framing this issue in a way that seriously understates the gravity of impending climate change. Your moderate and rather detached journalistic stance may fit some contemporary news ethic but it also breeds complacency. The world cannot affort that. The IPCC spells urgency. The truth is that the known risks call out for dramatic action now.

Steve Bolger November 19, 2007 · 9:13 am

When you’re being funded by a “charitable foundation” that is integrated into America’s interlocked directorship, you listen to them when they tell you what is “middle of the road”.

Steve Salmony November 22, 2007 · 1:03 pm

We have been fighting about pernicious effects of human-forced climate change since the time of Dr. Rachel Carson. From that time until now, powerful interests located in the political economy have relentless sought to denigrate the virtual mountains of scientific evidence relating to environmental degradation and resource dissipation.

In light of the hard-won scientific consensus developed by the IPCC, has the time not yet come to “center” our discussion on what we know of climate change, based upon good science, and talk about what we are going to do in order to address the human-driven predicament in which humanity finds itself in these early years of Century XXI?

After years of careful and skillful research by the IPCC, it seems to me that the time has come to examine whether many too many government officials are behaving malevolently and acting in bad faith by continuing to disseminate disinformation that debunks the established evidence on global warming.

With the establishment of the scientific consensus on climate change, is it reasonable and sensible to ask of government officials who remain obstructive and in denial of such overwhelming scientific data if they are perfidiously engaged in a violation of public trust and, therefore, malfeasant in office?

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
//sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Steven Earl Salmony November 24, 2007 · 2:02 pm

My field is psychology. A term of art among psychologists is “reframing.” Perhaps some “reframing” of the effort “to frame” the current discussion on climate change is helpful.

Please find in the following link a remarkable article by a colleague-in-psychology of mine.

//www.energybulletin.net/37091.html

Thank you,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001

Hank Roberts November 25, 2007 · 11:30 am

(no relation to David Roberts, to be clear)

When I read that Lomborg represents
“an intellectual lifeboat for a lot of doubtful”

I thought immediately of Poe’s story “A Descent into the Maelstrom” — where the boat is exactly the most dangerous place to go, a false refuge.

In the maelstrom, clinging to the boat takes you down _faster_ and you die.

Good description of the false hope that people find attractive in Lomborg, seen in that light.

Steven Earl Salmony November 26, 2007 · 1:13 pm

Dear Hank Roberts,

It is a remarkably incisive point that you are making. I have heard many “lifeboat” strategies promoted as ways to “weather the coming storms.”

What worries me is this: if we keep doing ever more and more of what we are doing now by overconsuming, overproducing and overpopulating on the surface of this small, finite, noticeably frangible planet God blesses us to inhabit, then it could be that the coming, human-induced storms will become so large and ferocious as to sink all our carefully designed, techno-equipped lifeboats. Yes, I agree that the lifeboats in the potentially huge storms to come could provide little else but a false sense of refuge.

Now that the scientific consensus on climate change has been established by the IPCC, perhaps the time has come to reasonably and sensibly address the ominously looming threats to human wellbeing, biodiversity and environmental health that are posed by global warming.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
//sustainabilitysouteast.org/

Eric November 26, 2007 · 1:42 pm

With regard to the ongoing ‘debate’ about whether GW is happening or not; and it seems that there are those who are sincerely unconvinced.

To those who are not convinced that human activity contributes to climate change, I have a question. Consider the concept of fire insurance; people don’t purchase insurance because they know there home will burn down, but because it is possible that it might. It is the prudent choice. The entire insurance industry worldwide is based on this real-world business model. As a society, we are faced with a similar choice, whether to purchase fire insurance for our home or not. The prudent choice is to purchase the insurance: we as a global society need to move from a fossil fuel based economy to a carbon neutral economy through a variety of strategies such as investment in new technologies, tax policy changes, and conservation, to name a few.

Or say you are very sick, and don’t know why. You consult a team of doctors, who after doing extensive tests, come to you and say ‘we as a group are 90% sure about what is going on, but we can’t be absolutely certain, but we recommend that you take this course’. Would you take their medical advice knowing it is based on their consensus based on current medical science? Many of us have had to make decisions based on less than absolute information and decide to go with the doctors’ recommendations and the percentages; it’s the prudent choice.

Climate science is analogous to these scenarios; 2,500 of the world’s leading climatology scientists and atmospheric chemists from universities and national agencies all over the world have come to a consensus view based on careful peer-reviewed examination of the actual instrument data available (not computer models) that “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change.”

Their prognosis, “There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialized in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.” Rajendra Pachauri, the scientist and economist who leads the I.P.C.C., noted: “What we do in the next two or three years will define our future.”

Our civilization and all of its technologies and infrastructure are built on the rational application of scientific discoveries. Science is science. The same scientific methods that have allowed us to go to the moon and achieved amazing medical advances have produced the climate science and data being disputed. Why would we decide to pick and choose which scientific findings we will accept? Science is science.

The prudent choice is to take the prudent actions as an insurance policy that our house won’t burn up.

[ANDY REVKIN comments: This post echoes some themes explored in my Energy Challenge story from January on the quieter voices in the climate debate.]