4/30/13 – 3:06AM
I can’t sleep. It’s 3:06AM and I’m uncharacteristically sleepless in Seattle. A little aloof. Frustrated. Staring out the window at the sky. My mind is racing, running on the hundred some-odd things I give myself to worry about. Exactly zero of them are being solved right now, at 3:06AM.
The clouds and dim stars, obscured by orange city lights, do lend their perspective. But it’s not the type of perspective I’m usually soothed by. Yes…I am so small, my problems seemingly insignificant. Even the city-scarred stars tell me that. There is an element of truth in it, but it doesn’t bring the comfort of a warm blanket. Instead I see as clearly as ever that this ride is on its way to the middle of somewhere we’ve never been before, and we’re all strapped in. The perspective that should calm my racing mind with the assurance that my problems aren’t problems –that the Universe has a colossal ticking order which is unaffected by my worry –instead leaves me feeling uncomfortably fastened to the side of a rocket like Major T.J. King Kong.
Connected for better or worse. And maybe that is the key: we are all connected. No matter what, we all breathe the same air. My exhalation finds it way through the carbon cycle and turns into your inhalation. To what extreme lengths can someone insulate themself from our connectedness? How can one avoid the consequences of climate chaos? Sure, for a select few there’s always the option to hide out. Guarded by private militias, drinking filtered water and breathing filtered air. They have ceased to be connected to me and I to them. Alone on a planet full of people.
For the rest of us, we share a common destiny. Why is it that the poorest among us, with the least material wealth, grasp so easily and so intimately the looming consequences of our collective actions? My guess: community and connectedness. It’s well documented that societies which lack material wealth make up for it with rich levels of community and familial bonding. Could inter-generational cohabitation correlate with community and concurrently influence the willingness of societies to act on climate change?
People who have yet to experience the fruits of Western industrial labor are willing to cast it aside. These are communities that will simply leapfrog into the next iteration of humanity.
If nothing else, just remember that climate change is not an “environmentalist” issue. Instead, try to think of it as an “I-am-alive-and-I-live-on-this-Earth” issue.
When I rest, I will rest easier knowing that it still seems to be within the constructs of human instinct to self-preserve. This is the good news that my sleepless night brought to me. We are all beautifully connected. So say the clouds and the city-scarred stars.
On January 21st, 2013 Barack Obama will deliver his second inaugural address. Many Americans, myself included, view his second induction in a very different light than Obama’s 2008 victory over John McCain. Gone is the empty canvas on which a sweeping progressive vision of American could be painted, restoring the rule of law and ushering in a new era of prosperity. Since 2008, blank-canvas-Washington-outsider-Obama seems to have been placed under the D.C. screen printer and given an awesome shade of business as usual. How naïve was I to expect a candidate to actually deliver on their campaign rhetoric?
I don’t suspect the next four years will reveal a renewed focus on bringing America back to full employment through a robust public investment program aimed at rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Instead of taking meaningful action towards preventing another massive Wall Street meltdown by destroying the concept of “Too Big To Fail”, President Obama and the White House will continue to double down on a culture of perpetual bailouts and corporate hubris.
We will forge ahead, increasing spending on military buildups, wars, and other power-projecting interventions abroad while spending on domestic programs, social security repayments, public infrastructure, education, and job creation continue to languish at home. Fabricated political crises like the “fiscal cliff”, the debt ceiling (otherwise known as paying your bills on time), and a government shutdown will continue to be used by Congress and the White House as bargaining chips in an ongoing ideological spending battle which has exactly jackshit to do with actual economics.
Unfortunately for all of us, while these budgetary crises are largely contrived, their effect on consumer confidence and spending, which makes up 70% of our GDP, is very real. Why would a business decide to hire someone when the owner can’t rely on a stable domestic economic condition but instead expects ongoing political squabbling that has an unsettling influence on the market? And yes, all of this is President Obama’s fault just as much as it is the fault of our most do-nothing Congress of all time.
I can accept acquiesce to entrenched powers as part of President Obama’s job, an unfortunate side effect of the perennially unproductive dance in Washington D.C. Granted, it has recently become quite a bit more unproductive but that’s to be expected with our swelling electoral polarization. I surely don’t expect Obama to dramatically reverse course on this range of issues now that he doesn’t have an election to win. Hell, it might even embolden him more in his use of unmanned aerial drones and persistent refusal to enforce habeas corpus for those deemed enemies of the state. Of all people Obama, the Constitutional law professor, should be ashamed of his flagrant usurpation of our founding document. But he is not.
However there is one betrayal, one failure to act that is wholly unforgivable. All these other breakdowns of moral leadership from a supposedly progressive President are but tiny speed bumps on the road to the real cliff; the climate cliff. Four more years without significant climate change leadership from the United States makes everything else a moot point. We might as well pack it in and give up. Let me clarify. By “it” I mean the giant flaming bag of shit we’ll be handing off to future generations in the form of:
- An archaic energy and transportation infrastructure that still runs on expensive and polluting fossil fuels.
- An economy wrecked by the reality of unstable but persistently high fossil fuel energy prices.
- A climate so totally geared to deliver gigantic storms, droughts, floods, wildfires, heat waves, crop failures, ecosystem meltdowns, and mass extinctions that it makes attempting to rebuild after every blow almost laughable.
Now I’m not suggesting that all of these things will happen in the next four years, but without strong leadership it’s only a matter of time. When we get to that point, I think the Borg said it best:
Here’s another clip you might be familiar with. Think back to 2008, when we were all still very hopeful about the prospects of our newly minted poster child actually taking action on climate change. Obama delivers this soaring promise, which would be laughable in today’s political climate if it weren’t so disappointing.
Obama gave another soaring speech on election night when he proclaimed victory over Mitt Romney and secured a second term in office. His victory lap had many of the same overtones as his 2008 speech and it was at that point when he finally broke the climate change silence that had befallen his entire campaign and the whole political discourse during his first term.
We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.
Seriously? This guy did not utter the words climate change or global warming for the entire two-year election cycle, not even once. And then, on the grandest stage of all, he has the bravado to make the proclamation that now he’s going to do something after four years of inaction (or depending on how you look at it—obstructionism). Really guys…I mean it this time. You believe me, don’t you? Now that’s the audacity of hope if I’ve ever seen it.
Obama’s spectacular oratory has completely lost its effect on me and hopefully on everyone else who is demanding urgent action to confront climate change. It is the most harrowing and dangerous challenge that has ever threatened human civilization and it demands real action, not fluffy speeches. There won’t be a fiscal cliff to barrel off of or a debt ceiling to tear down if we push the Earth’s climate system into an intractable tailspin of feedback loops that will destroy the greatest natural resource of all, a livable climate. Our climate systems won’t wait for politicians to act; Mother Nature hasn’t yet embraced the usefulness of a filibuster.
If President Obama wants to signal his intention to act as a responsible steward of the United States, as a man who thinks several steps ahead, as a truly compassionate intellectual capable of leaving behind a proud legacy of a vibrant economy and a stable climate then the first thing he will do is reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. If you’ve never heard of Keystone XL, please allow me to explain. I’ll start by saying that it’s not that crappy keg beer you used to drink at college frat parties—although Obama should pass some legislation rejecting that stuff too.
The Keystone XL pipeline would carry synthetic crude and bitumen from the Athabasca tar sands of northeastern Alberta (that’s in Canada, eh) to several refinery sites in the Midwest and Gulf Coast of the United States. There are serious local and global environmental impacts from the production of tar sand, which would only be exacerbated by the completion of Keystone XL. Instead of focusing on those harrowing impacts, let’s first examine the economics of oil sand. The most important concept when evaluating the economics of energy production is EROEI, that’s energy returned on energy invested or just EROI for short(er). Back in the day when we had light crude oil literally seeping out of the ground in Pennsylvania, they could stick a pipe in the dirt and oil would gush out, hence the term gushers. There was such a small amount of human and mechanical energy required to harvest the oil that the J.D. Rockefellers of the world were enjoying 100:1 EROI in the twentieth century. Early oilmen became very, very, very, incredibly, inconceivably, filthy fucking rich.
But every oil field follows a similar depletion curve. At some point in its life cycle, the fluid dynamics of an oil reserve change in such a way that more human and mechanical energy is required to extract the same amount of resource. At some point the production level is no longer sustainable and the EROI drops to a point where it is uneconomical to continue production. So it’s not like the oil just keeps coming out at the same rate until the milkshake straw starts making that sucking noise. Fields are abandoned when the oil becomes too expensive—the EROI too low—to extract any more.
Now take that same concept and apply it to oil sand production in Alberta, where the petroleum is quite literally mixed in with subterranean sand. The whole mixture must be dug up and separated from the dirt before they can even begin refining the bitumen into usable petroleum products. It requires an ungodly amount of Earth (some 2.5 tons of sand) to produce one barrel of oil. To dig up all that sand requires an incredible amount of human and mechanical energy in the form of gigantic trucks (the biggest in the world, thousands of them), gigantic cranes with gigantic buckets (again, the biggest in the world), and gigantic egos of modern oil barons who don’t mind destroying some of our Earth’s most important geophysical features for the sake of turning a profit. Most importantly, they wouldn’t be doing any of this if cheap, abundant liquid petroleum were still available. Canadian tar sands offer an EROI of between roughly 4:1 and 6:1, a far cry from Rockefeller’s day. Widespread low-EROI production methods should sound alarm bells for us all since the entire global economy runs on fossil fuel energy. We’ve run out of the good stuff so we’re starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel. See: deep-water drilling, Arctic exploration, deep bore fracking. It’s not all that difficult to connect the dots. And before you remark how low the EROI for solar photovoltaic is, I must say two things. One: the price of solar is coming down and will only continue to fall as capacity increases. For fossil fuels, the price goes in the opposite direction (up) as the resource is depleted. Two: the energy required to install solar panels is a one-time endeavor while tar sands open pit mining is a 24/7/365 operation. Oh yeah, and solar is clean as a baby’s bottom while tar sands are about as dirty as it gets.
Words simply cannot do justice to the enormity of these tar sands operations. YOU MUST CLICK HERE TO SEE MORE PHOTOS OF TAR SANDS EXTRACTION OPERATIONS IN ACTION. It is absolutely amazing and absolutely terrifying.
There’s more! You see, in order to get at all this tar sand, the holding companies—with familiar names like Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Koch Resources LLC, and Chevron—must first clear the “overburden”, or what most of us would call the forest. High latitude boreal forest is the most important terrestrial carbon “sink” left on the planet. These vast forests of the northern hemisphere absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than the Amazonian rainforests. They’re kind of important. To dig them up for any reason is bad. To dig them up in order to pump even more carbon into the atmosphere is a little like the Tom and Jerry episode where the mouse feeds the cat his own tail.
This is all bad news and should be reason enough for President Obama and incoming Secretary of State John “Longface” Kerry to deny the permits that TransCanada, a Canadian firm, needs in order to build the Keystone XL pipeline across several state boarders in the US. The environmental consequences are unspeakable, and we didn’t even get to the potential contamination of the Ogallala Aquifer, which irrigates almost 30% of the crops in the United States and provides drinking water for untold millions of Americans. But the real crime of Keystone XL would come in the form of missed opportunities to invest in the future instead of doubling down on the past.
The Canadian tar sands are an incredible source of liquid petroleum energy. Their vast size and production potential are truly unmatched by other tar sand reserves. However if President Obama and Mr. Kerry decide to approve this project, they will be sending a strong signal that America is not yet seriously interested in investing in the energy sources of tomorrow. Production capacity for solar panels and wind turbines will continue to evaporate from the United States as we pursue business as usual, foolishly trying to suck up the last, melted little bit of the milkshake.
We can do better. Business as usual is the default position of unimaginative politicians, locked in by special interests and afraid of trying to explain new concepts to their constituents. Instead of taking a risk and acting in the best interests of their people, our elected officials assume we’re a bunch of cows would couldn’t possibly understand the intricacies of a global energy market. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline route crosses the heartland of America, a place where energy and commodity prices have a particularly important meaning. I’d be willing to bet that these “laymen” who our elected officials are so afraid to shake up understand a thing or two about global economic forces.
Many people fully appreciate the significance of Keystone XL, and they’ve been taking the fight to TransCanada. These people aren’t all “environmentalists” either. As an aside: if you live on this planet, breathe its air, and drink its water then you are an environmentalist as you implicitly rely on the health of your environment for your own physical wellbeing. Yes, even you. Moving on…the protesters are not all tree huggers. World-renowned scientists like NASA’s Chief Climatologist James Hansen has been arrested protesting Keystone XL and he’s not tapping the breaks one little bit. He’s gone so far as to say that Keystone XL would basically be “game over” in the fight to maintain a livable climate.
As of late, things are not looking good. President Obama pushed off a decision about Keystone XL in response to a massive protest orchestrated by 350.org in November of 2011. Many suggested he was simply kicking the can until after the election, at which point he would be in a position to approve the pipeline without jeopardizing his reelection. That prediction appears to be coming to fruition. Just last week the Environmental Protection Agency’s director Lisa Jackson, a strong and vocal opponent of Keystone XL, resigned quite suddenly. Speculation is rampant that her departure is in protest to an impending Obama approval of Keystone XL. Her potential successor, outgoing Washington State Governor Chris Gregoire, has a mixed record on the environment. She has a reputation for being a real climate advocate for Western Washington crowds, but changing her tune quite profoundly on the other side of the Cascade Mountains where agriculture and transportation are key electoral factors. On the one hand I’d be proud to have a former Washington State governor serving at the EPA, but if she’s simply being brought in to rubber stamp fore drawn conclusions of the Obama Administration, Gregoire should keep out of it.
If President Obama throws the White House’s weight behind getting Keystone XL approved, it will be his most grotesque moral failure to date. More so than using drones to kill American citizens or approving the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, which grants Presidents sweeping powers to detain and hold prisoners indefinitely and without charge, regardless of where they are captured. Keystone XL represents complete ambivalence about the future of our children and grandchildren. It’s not just the pipeline we need to worry about. Approving TransCanada’s plan is supporting, one final time, our absolute and total addiction to fossil fuels. An “all of the above” energy policy supports not just tar sands, but everything else. NASA’s James Hansen put it best:
If [Obama] chooses the dirty needle it is game over because it will confirm that Obama was just greenwashing, like the other well-oiled coal-fired politicians with no real intention of solving the addiction. Canada is going to sell its dope, if it can find a buyer. So if the United States is buying the dirtiest stuff, it also surely will be going after oil in the deepest ocean, the Arctic, and shale deposits; and harvesting coal via mountaintop removal and long-wall mining. Obama will have decided he is a hopeless addict.
Some day in the not too distant future, liquid fossil fuels will become uneconomical to pull out of the ground and if we haven’t begun to move in a different direction, we’ll have hell to pay. We can’t rely on our children and grandchildren to be able to make an overnight transition to non-carbon energy. It takes, on average, four decades to transition from one energy source to the next. Steam to coal: 40 years. Coal to oil: 40 years. Why would we expect our transition off of fossil fuels to take any less time, or be any less inevitable?
Our first step in a hopeful direction for future generations is rejecting this pipeline. In the aftermath of the unspeakable tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, President Obama once again delivered a powerful speech; this one seemingly from the heart. The President spoke of his horror upon hearing about the massacre of 27 innocents, including 20 six and seven year-olds. He became choked up when he talked about his own young daughters and suggested, “We’re going to have to come together to take meaningful action to prevent further tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” He looked at this horrifying event not as a politician, but as a father. Climate related policy issues demand the same metric of decision-making. It is, after all, our children’s future we’re talking about.
Want to get involved? On February 17th, 2013, 350.org is organizing another massive demonstration outside the White House. Tens of thousands of protestors will be there to express their opposition to Keystone XL and show their support for a new vision of the future. You can sign up to participate here, or simply register your support for those who will defy freezing winter temperatures and the risk of arrest for something they believe in. If nothing else, talk to someone about Keystone XL, spread the word.
If President Obama and his State Department approve Keystone XL, you can expect many more disappointing decisions over the next four years. Such a conclusion would expose Obama’s malleability at a very fundamental level. This is Obama’s chance to demonstrate true leadership in the national interest. I demand more of our President than simply rolling over for entrenched interests and anticipate that he will begin enforcing a forwarding-facing vision of the United States instead of desperately trying to hold onto the past.
Last month I gave an Ignite talk at the HUB Seattle about carbon taxation. There are many market-based ways to help us dramatically curb carbon emissions and a carbon tax is just one of them. The real goal of the plan I discuss in the video below is to raise revenue for Washington State that can be invested in new transportation infrastructure and funding business-friendly tax reform; it has the added benefit of creating a more honest cost for CO2 emissions. We can’t wait for the Federal Government to move on a major plan to cut carbon emissions. The United States has consistently been the chief obstructor to meaningful action at the UN Climate Summit and this year was no exception. Toughening up CAFE standards is a good start, but such a response has no chance of lowering emissions fast enough to help arrest the runaway climate change which is already occurring.
Like I said last week, we’re all guilty of hypocrisy when it comes to the split incentive of carbon energy. We love the modern conveniences that it offers but are loathe to experience the long-term consequences of dirty, climate changing emissions. Assessing a more realistic cost —a cost simliar to what the rest of the world pays— moves us in the right direction. We’ll all be paying more to internalize the true cost of carbon energy and in the longterm, it’s one of our best chances to make a speedy transition to a carbon-free economy. True cost accounting ya’ll, that’s our first step towards a realistic long-term energy plan.
I am a hypocrite. Yes, you read that correctly and it’s true. When you break it down to the most fundamental level, everyone involved in the global fight for intergenerational justice is guilty. Unless you live off-grid in a tree house built from downed lumber, grow all your own food, sew your own clothes from local materials, ride a bicycle made from recycled metals, never travel by air, and generate your own electricity from a homemade solar panel, (and have lived that way since the day you were born) then you are part of the problem. We all are. How could it have been any other way? Structure drives behavior and our modern system drives consumption behavior in one direction. I’ll give you a hint: it’s not down.
If you’re like me, you were born into an industrialized world and began your indoctrination into the church of consumerism from your very first breath. Surrounded by toys that had traveled 10,000 miles on a cargo ship, then a train, then finally a truck to the local Babies R’ Us, I began appreciating our collective industrial prowess before I could roll over. Fed by Gerber baby food that was the product of a bloated, unnecessarily global agriculture system, and clothed in garments that had made the same journey as my toys, I was already an unwitting participant of the global economic growth engine.
My parents had two cars and a house that was much larger than practically necessary. We bought food at a supermarket and everything else at a mall. We took long road trips from Minneapolis to Chicago. We flew all over the country; for a few hundred bucks, we could sit in an airplane and do in two hours what Lewis and Clark did in two years.
It doesn’t stop there. My passion for intergenerational justice and fear of a very different world for my unborn children led me to the Bainbridge Graduate Institute, where I’m working towards an M.B.A. in Sustainable Business. I live in Seattle and have three weekend sessions on Bainbridge Island per quarter (Bainbridge Island is in the Puget Sound, 30 minutes off the Seattle shore). So once a month I get in my non-hybrid car, drive myself downtown and onto a diesel-sucking ferry boat and drive off the other side on my way to sustainable business school.
I got married this past summer. My entire family flew into Seattle from all over the country to meet us. We took our honeymoon on a cruise ship in the Mediterranean, and we didn’t exactly kayak to get there. We recently traded in one of our cars and we didn’t buy a Prius. My wife and I frequently travel by air and land to visit friends and work on projects. I eat red meat and I love it. I drive up to the mountains to go skiing and honestly have the nerve to complain when the snowpack isn’t as great as it used to be. Like I said, I am a hypocrite.
Why am I divulging all of this discrediting information? If I actually expect my words to have weight shouldn’t I be living in one of those off-grid houses, eating homegrown vegetables, and riding a stationary bike to generate electricity so I can write this post on my (brand-spanking-new Apple) laptop? Shouldn’t I turn my life into a bumper sticker and be the change I wish to see in the world? A common criticism of those working to disrupt our fossil fuel-driven economy is that we’re all dependent upon (and indulgent in) business as usual so any interference would hurt society as a whole. Proponents of this school of thought would say that I am obviously a very active participant in our fossil fuel economy; therefore I have no right to seek to disrupt it. That line of thought could not be further from the truth.
The idea that I can’t live within the current structure and honestly seek to transform it from within is offensive. Where else am I going to live? My only alternative is to live completely outside the system like the tree-people I described above, which I’m not yet interested in doing. Sure, there are things I could do personally to reduce my individual footprint, but simply by living in the United States I’m guilty by association. The notion that our past behavior somehow limits our future ability to seek change disempowers us all. It’s like saying that because there was a time when nobody knew that smoking causes cancer, it’s okay to keep smoking given what we now know. There was this point in history where we didn’t know any better, so that should justify current behavior, right? Wrong. At this point we’re just prisoners of the carbon economy, and we know it. I certainly wasn’t consulted in its design. Were you? Structure does drive behavior so we had no choice but to behave within the structure we were born into.
We need to move past the stale argument that inaction is our only possibility because the alternatives are too hazardous to the global economic system. To the contrary, every year of inaction comes with a price tag of about $1.2 trillion. That’s trillion, with a “T”. This calculation takes into account the increasing costs of superstorms — like Hurricane Sandy— that are occuring with growing frequency around the world. Sandy will cost New York and New Jersey at least $70 billion. One must also consider the costs of infrastructural adaptions that will become increasingly necessary. But one of the largest costs associated with business as usual is… business as usual.
There’s a reason Shell is spending billions to set up shop in the Arctic Ocean. Ignore for a moment the overwhelming cynicism of a fossil fuel giant seeking to harvest territory that is only recently accessible because of the direct warming impacts of their business practices. There’s something else at work (aside from actually having access to these new territories) that we must all understand.
Shell wouldn’t be attempting to engage in deep water drilling in one of the harshest areas on Earth if there were still easily accessible gushers in Pennsylvania or Texas. Those days are over. In order for fossil fuel companies to keep providing “business as usual”, they must rely on increasingly expensive exploration and drilling techniques that require much higher consumer gas prices in order to be economical. These increased expenses are also figured into the cost of inaction. Doubling down on business as usual makes our economy more vulnerable, not less vulnerable. If the current energy delivery system relies on $100/barrel oil and suddenly we find ourselves in the grips of another global recession, we all suffer the consequences.
Again, structure drives behavior. It’s no surprise that we’re all so reliant on the current system since key players are spending vast sums to keep us all on the roller coaster just a little while longer. We all depend on this system right now and to expect that we’ll all be able to somehow move beyond it without a fundamental structural shift is foolish. But having benefited from the advantages our industrial economic system in the past doesn’t disqualify you from working to prevent the profound consequences of that same system from gaining irreversible traction.
Things are beginning to turn in a progressive direction and the structure is subtly shifting beneath our feet. Check out this collection of reports from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, which clearly outline threats to business as usual from climate disruption. Of note are the collections on Corporate Governance, Corporate Strategies, Insurance, Finance, Investor Resources, Clean Technology, and other sector-specific resources. These aren’t exactly fringe business concerns. Taken together, these issues make up the core of our current economic system.
I have lived and acted in concert with the system in which I exist. My hypocrisy serves to highlight our great challenge. How can I turn my back on something that has provided so much comfort, so many opportunities, such a rich quality of life? This is the model that I was given, so of course I use it. Fortunately, I’ve awoken to a new realm of possibility. I now see that there is a viable alternative to business as usual and I’ve chosen to commit my life to helping us all get there. There are millions more like me out there; bounded by the system as it exists, yet aspiring to recreate the system as it could be. Paul Hawken would call it our Blessed Unrest.
My hypocrisy is only visible in the light of the many alternatives that now exist. When I was young my parents didn’t know any better. It’s not as if they bought four tickets to the Carbon Economy Express, knowing that it would end in economic, social, and environmental devastation. They were simply living the lives that system constraints dictated. But now, finally, we know better. I know better.
Contextual hypocrisy is no excuse. And we are reaching beyond the boundaries of business as usual, whether we know it or not. Our one precious Earth has curated an autoimmune response to the disease that we humans have spread. We have no choice but to evolve as a species. My participation in business as usual up until this point does not disqualify me from recognizing the susceptibility of the way things are, and endeavoring to make them more resilient for future generations. I can’t change my past behavior, but I can look towards the future.
As with any self-destructive addiction, the first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. So here it goes: My name is Mark, and I’m a carbon-aholic. Whew, I feel better. Now you try.
It’s not as if I had much of a choice in the matter either. I was like a baby born to a drug-addicted mother; the child that has no say in their dependency. The very first moments of my life were spent surrounded by the comforts of a carbon-enhanced world. Check out this Carbonaholics Anonymous website for recovery information. I just found this CA site as I was writing and it’s half funny, half sad, but all true. It will take an act of a Higher Power to remove humans from the perpetual drip of our carbon habit. The pull is too intoxicating. If we could commit to practicing the 12 steps of carbon recovery it would help us all.
In the problem, lies the solution. Our collective addiction is the most powerful reason to demand change. We don’t want to be addicted to the dirty needle of fossil fuels any longer. But there are myriad powerful lobbies that have a strong interest in keeping things just the way they are. Fortunately, as I noted above, it’s becoming harder and harder for them to perpetuate their antiquated business models.
I don’t want to be an addict any longer. All of the comforts I enjoy as a result of the current system will change dramatically as our economy moves away from dirty carbon energy. I’ll eat food that was grown closer to home, vacation regionally instead of nationally or globally, buy baby clothes from second-hand stores, live in a more reasonably-sized home, and rely much more heavily on transit systems or a bicycle for daily commuting. I would happily trade in my carbon-addicted life for this new vision of the future if it means snow in the mountains for my grandchildren.
I’m willing to make all of these changes, but I can’t do it as long as our economic apparatus still reinforces old behavior. This is the last time I’ll remind you that structure drives behavior, so if the system only supports a carbon economy then we’ll all remain carbon addicts until the last cubic meter of bitumen is extracted from the Canadian Tar Sands. Is this the world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren? As long as the system requires it, I’ll be living in one world and working towards another. I’ll be a hypocrite until a new structure allows something else.
The first step is acceptance. My name is Mark, and I’m a carbon-aholic. Are you?
Last week I wrote about the World Bank’s recent climate report, which concluded we’re on track for a 4° C temperature increase before the end of the century. We’ve already raised the temperature of our one precious Earth more than 1° C and we have begun to experience the consequences: profound melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets; escalating sea level rise; prolonged droughts and wildfires; crop failures and food shortages; frequent huge rain and snow storms; an elongated hurricane season; ecosystem collapses; massive migrations due to food and water shortages; disease outbreaks in the aftermath of megastorms; and plummeting air quality, especially in the developing world. This is just a short list of consequences from a 1° C temperature increase. Still we do nothing.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference is wrapping up in Doha, Qatar this week. The COP18 Conference is ironically located, being that Qatar has the highest per-capita emissions of any county on Earth and they basically operate a one sector economy. A door prize to the first person who can guess which sector I’m referring to! The eighteenth UN conference on climate change comes on the heels of another wonderful report, this time from the Global Carbon Project (a joint venture of the Department of Energy and the Norwegian Research Council), which has measured a 3% increase in heat-trapping emissions in 2012. Almost all the attendee-nations in Doha agree that this number should be going down, not up. Yet, nobody is seriously expecting any forward progress to come out of COP18; the reasoning behind that collective apathy is beyond me to understand. Have we just given up? How could participants announce such a surrender, or worse, how could the United States actively work against a collective agreement? Disruptive climate change has never been more obvious to the naked eye. For decades scientists told us it was some far-off event that will impact future generations. But right now, today, we are beginning to experience our Earth’s wrath in real-time.
For more on the World Bank Report, please watch the following interview with the report’s chief author Bill Hare. Brought to you by Democracy Now:
Wen Stephenson is my new hero.
Seriously, Wen Stephenson is the man. For those of you who don’t have a feed of the local NPR broadcast going directly into your prefrontal cortex, Wen Stephenson was most recently the senior producer of NPR’s On Point, as well as an editor at The Atlantic and The Boston Globe.
Mr. Stephenson is also a former member of what he calls the MSM (main stream media) turned full-time climate activist. He recently wrote a piece that all but assured his role as a “former” MSM contributor will be a permanent one. The piece entitled A Convenient Excuse, WHICH YOU ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY MUST READ, is the story of one man’s desperate pleas for sanity falling on deaf ears. His desperation and sadness at the dimming prospects of a bright future should feel deeply personal to all of us, but they don’t. Wen thinks the mainstream media is complicit in our misconstruction. Wen is right.
Stephenson correctly understands how well positioned the mainstream media is to affect the urgency of our response to climate change. However, urgency has been all but absent from the tone taken by all of our major news outlets, including the “liberal lame stream media elite” at The New York Times, NPR, and PBS. To be clear, they have certainly covered climate change and global warming. Much more so than the folks at The Wall Street Journal or the National Review, but the coverage is topical instead of systemic. The MSM handling of climate change typically hones in on individual pieces of evidence like melting ice sheets, regional devastation from drought, or massive storms. This micro-journalistic view is completely inadequate; what we need is macro-journalistic coverage. We need cogent explanations of the systemic challenges our human civilization is currently up against. And we needed it like…yesterday.
If there’s one thing our modern media knows how to do, it’s sensationalize a crisis. That’s the type of coverage Wen is insistent upon and he won’t rest until he has convinced his former colleagues to oblige. Why? Well…the dispatches from sources of scientific consensus are becoming increasingly apocalyptic. Take this November 2012 release from the World Bank entitled Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4° C Warmer World Must Be Avoided as the most recent example. The World Bank is not exactly a bastion of liberal environmentalism, but they clearly recognize the magnitude of the crisis at hand. They conclude that, “[We’re] on track for a 4°C warmer world marked by extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise.” Now that’s a headline!
“A planetwide temperature rise of 4 degrees C—and the report notes that the tepidness of the emission pledges and commitments of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will make such an increase almost inevitable—will cause a precipitous drop in crop yields, along with the loss of many fish species, resulting in widespread hunger and starvation. Hundreds of millions of people will be forced to abandon their homes in coastal areas and on islands that will be submerged as the sea rises. There will be an explosion in diseases such as malaria, cholera and dengue fever. Devastating heat waves and droughts, as well as floods, especially in the tropics, will render parts of the Earth uninhabitable. The rain forest covering the Amazon basin will disappear. Coral reefs will vanish. Numerous animal and plant species, many of which are vital to sustaining human populations, will become extinct. Monstrous storms will eradicate biodiversity, along with whole cities and communities. And as these extreme events begin to occur simultaneously in different regions of the world, the report finds, there will be ‘unprecedented stresses on human systems.’ Global agricultural production will eventually not be able to compensate. Health and emergency systems, as well as institutions designed to maintain social cohesion and law and order, will crumble. The world’s poor, at first, will suffer the most. But we all will succumb in the end to the folly and hubris of the Industrial Age. And yet, we do nothing.”
Can you imagine the ensuing controversy if The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times printed something like that? We need crisis-level coverage, because we’re up against the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced. The World Bank (and virtually every other credible scientific institution) is telling us that we’re on track to completely wreck our atmosphere by doing nothing else but more of what we’re already doing. Business as usual is more than enough to ruin the greatest non-renewable resource of all: a livable climate.
So why isn’t this on the front-page every single day? Why is Hedges’ analysis the exception to the climate coverage rule? Is it too grim? If we believe the best minds the scientific community has to offer, Hurricane Sandy is but a harbinger of the world we’re creating for our children. Super storms like Sandy will be a common occurrence that will wash up on our shores more precipitously every year. Yet, for the most part reporting on global climate change stays focused on symptoms and not causes, on individual events and not systemic planetary shifts. Non-scientific reporters have a bad habit of pretending to be wonks. What the hell is 4° C anyways? It really doesn’t sound that bad. How could 4° C create the type of apocalypse I’m talking about? After all, here in the Pacific Northwest an extra 4° C would make for a pretty nice summer, right?
Let’s think about it another way in order to illustrate how truly horrifying 4° C is. The current global consensus, agreed to in the Copenhagen Accord and signed by countries responsible for 80% of global emissions, is that human civilization must not allow the global temperature to rise more than 2° C. Beyond two degrees, the climate scientists say, global physical/social/economic systems start to break down. Bill McKibben has more on 2° C in this landmark Rolling Stone article, where he explains the frightening math behind the challenge to keep warming to that level. So if 2° is the upper limit we’ve all agreed to, and we’re actually on track to double that by the end of this century, what exactly does it mean?
A healthy human body has a resting temperature of about 98.6° F or 37° C. The Copenhagen Accord allows a two degree Celsius increase; in other words we’ve all agreed that we’re comfortable with the climactic equivalent of a 102.2° F fever. It’s bad, but not life-threatening. You wouldn’t want to walk around with a 102° fever for more than a couple days but you’ll probably recover. Four degrees is a whole different story. At 4° C, it’s the same as trying to survive a protracted 105.8° F fever. A fever of 106° F requires immediate medical attention and left untreated can cause brain damage or death. Four degrees kills people, and it kills civilizations too. Your body and the Earth that gave it life are similarly complex, and similarly sensitive to small changes in average temperature. The amount of disruption caused by 4° C of warming would render our planet unrecognizable to generations of very recent history. The world my grandmother grew up in will be nonexistent if we continue with business as usual.
Here’s a question. How do you stay informed on local and global happenings? If you have figured out some sort of metaphysical trick to be everywhere on the planet in order to witness everything that happens, please don’t answer that question. If you’re like the rest of us, you get your information from the information givers. The news! Granted, there’s a lot more of them out there today; with online papers, magazines, independent broadcasts like Democracy Now! and blogs, our options are more stratified than ever. It’s wonderful because new media has given dissidents like Chris Hedges and Wen Stephenson a platform from which to broadcast. However the vast majority of Americans still get their news from television broadcasts or widely distributed newspapers. And television newscasts and newspapers aren’t willing to print the kind of real shit that Hedges and Stephenson are onto. They can’t or won’t tell you the truth about the climate disaster which as already begun to unfold.
Do you follow? It won’t be possible to catalyze a global movement to confront our greatest of challenges without a mainstream media that takes its journalistic responsibility to the public seriously.
Climate change is not a niche “environmentalist” issue to be covered in some below-the-fold ad hoc fashion. Just the contrary: it’s a headline, in your face, we’re all fucked unless we do something right now kind of story that is barely making Section A. What’s worse, the MSM journalists who are willing to “go there” are setting the pace and tone of climate change coverage going forward, and guess what, it’s a pretty tepid response.
If climate change were getting the type of coverage the non-scandal in Benghazi has had heaped on it, people might begin waking up and asking some very important questions. Perhaps they could see through the myth that disruptive climate change is some far off event. It’s here now; 2011 was the hottest year on record and 2012 is shaping up to be even hotter. Perhaps they wouldn’t be satisfied with the Associated Press’ brilliant conclusion that over half the United States remains in serious drought conditions, simply because it didn’t rain. No, it’s got nothing to do with climate change. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. This is just the new normal, and why wouldn’t it be? It turns out, if you’re 27 years of age or younger, you’ve never lived on a planet which has recorded a colder than average month. These are not new trends.
I beg of you, please read Wen Stephenson’s article A Convenient Excuse in The Phoenix. It’s too bad that the MSM doesn’t have the journalistic integrity to report in any meaningful way on climate change, or to take their responsibility one step further and advocate for a higher choice on behalf of all of humanity. If you’re a MSM journalist and you understand the high stakes of the Climate Craps game we’re all currently embroiled in, why aren’t you piping up? Why aren’t you advocating? Why aren’t you confronting your editors like Mr. Stephenson did? How can you look at your children or grandchildren and not feel as though you’re failing them on a very deep level?
Hear us loud and clear MSM: at this decisive moment in human history we don’t need your objectivity, we need your integrity. Give us the news, not the weather.
Hurricane Sandy v. Denialism (AUDIO)
As Hurricane Sandy barrels into the Mid-Atlantic seaboard, we’re being treated to a sunny fall morning in the Pacific Northwest. Out here it’s the sound of silence that prevails, something I desperately wish I could share with the folks in Sandy’s path. There is another type of silence that is as damaging to people here in Seattle as it is to those on the East Coast. This insidious silence affects families all around the world and generations yet unborn. I’m talking about climate silence.
Last week I wrote about the complete absence of a discussion on global climate change in our Presidential debates up until that point. Well, we had the final debate last Tuesday and once again neither candidate felt compelled to go off-script. They swept the debates like the Giants swept the Tigers. This is the first time since 1984 that climate change or global warming was not discussed as a major policy issue in the debate process. This week, Sandy is providing a reality check for both party platforms.
Hurricane Sandy is a hybrid super storm born out of an Arctic front, which made a mutant storm baby with a tropical storm that had proceeded across the Atlantic in the usual fashion. It is the largest storm ever to hit the eastern seaboard, and while it’s not as powerful as Hurricane Katrina it could easily be as significant. The storm stretches an unprecedented 525 miles from its eye, giving it a reach Muhammad Ali would covet. It has gathered historic volume over a record-warm Atlantic Ocean and amid the lowest pressures ever recorded north of Cape Hatteras. Don’t let “Category 1” fool you. It is, quite simply, a monster.
“But wait!” you say, “Climate change doesn’t cause hurricanes. This whole argument is bunk.” I concede. Climate change does not, in itself, cause hurricanes; tropical storm systems are naturally occurring events that would happen regardless of our atmospheric tinkering. What climate change does do is provide the conditions ripe for more frequent extreme weather events. Seems to me they should really rethink the name “hundred year” flood, drought, hurricane, or storm when they are happening every single year. This morning 350.org founder Bill McKibben warned Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman:
Well, look, I mean, global warming doesn’t cause hurricanes. We’ve always had hurricanes. […] But we’re producing conditions like record warm temperatures in seawater that make it easier for this sort of thing to get, in this case, you know, up the Atlantic with a head of steam. We’re making—we’re raising the sea levels. And when that happens, it means that whatever storm surge comes in comes in from a higher level than it would have before. […] What really is different is that there is more moisture and more energy in this narrow envelope of atmosphere. And that energy expresses itself in all kind of ways. That’s why we get these record rainfalls now, time after time. I mean, last year, it was Irene and then Lee directly after that. This year, this storm, they’re saying, could be a thousand-year rainfall event across the mid-Atlantic. I think that means more rain than you’d expect to see in a thousand years. But I could pretty much—I’d be willing to bet that it won’t be long before we see another one of them, because we’re changing the odds. By changing the earth, we change the odds.
So no, climate change doesn’t explicitly create new hurricanes. What it does do is juice up the ones that do form; it makes them bigger, stronger, more persistent, and more dangerous. Shortly before Mayor Bloomberg issued an evacuation order for almost 400,000 New Yorkers yesterday, there was a demonstration in Times Square that urged people to connect the dots and “End Climate Silence.”
It’s not just protesters urging anyone who will listen to take seriously the connection between anthropogenic ocean warming and freak storm systems. Two weeks ago the National Academy of Sciences —not exactly an activist organization—published a study that concluded that North Atlantic hurricanes are, “more of a danger when ocean temperatures are higher. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years.” Convenient findings since we’re currently nearing the end of the warmest year on record.
Does everyone remember the hydrologic cycle from elementary school science class? Water evaporates more quickly in warm environments than cold ones. It’s that simple. I have no professional scientific training, but it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to understand what is happening. When we warm the earth with heat-trapping industrial emissions, there’s more water evaporating into the atmosphere, therefore it’s more likely we will experience the consequences of that energy-saturated atmosphere in the form of extreme weather events. Every year we continue down the same path, we’re loading the dice even more.
Let’s pause and check my assumptions. 1.) Global climate change is happening. 2.) Humans emissions and impacts are largely responsible. 3.) Climate change increases the likelihood of a whole host of extreme weather events including hurricanes, droughts and floods. If all of these are true, it leads to the same obvious and enormous question that has been completely absent from our electoral process. Why isn’t the United States doing anything about it?
The percentage of U.S. citizens who believe in human-caused climate change has actually declined significantly from four years ago. In 2008 both major political parties devoted time to outlining their different plans to deal with global climate change. At the national level there was no debate over the importance of addressing this monumental issue. On the contrary, McCain and Obama sparred about who would deal with it more forcefully. This year the number of Americans who agree that humans are responsible for climate change has dropped to about 50%. We were not treated to a discussion of climate change mitigation strategies in the debates, even though a realistic discussion of our economy is impossible without acknowledging the reality we will soon have to confront one way or another.
Emergent confusion about climate change is the result of a highly orchestrated and well-funded misinformation campaign by organizations like the Heartland Institute, Americans for Prosperity, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. These “think tanks” (think is a very generous word) have one goal, create uncertainties in the scientific validity of climate science. They don’t even need to “win” the argument. Partly because it’s impossible for them to legitimately win with their bunk science, but mainly because the creation of doubt is their raison d’être. Introducing doubt where there previously was none is enough to slow down the response and keep things moving along nice and steady for their boosters. Speaking of funding, the financial support for these organizations and their kin is intentionally muddy; suffice it to say they are financed largely by fossil fuel lobbies, industry groups, and fabulously wealthy executives who benefit from the status quo.
The doubt they have sewed into the American consciousness is holding up progress in the rest of the world. The United States has the power to tip the scales in the response to global climate change, but as long as the political process remains beholden to fossil fuel lobbies and the Chamber of Commerce little can be done. Compared to the rest of the world the United States near the top of the list in terms of citizens who know about climate change, but is near the bottom of the list in terms of acceptance of human causation. Shame on us.
Please don’t take my word for it. I strongly suggest you watch this fantastic Frontline report entitled “Climate of Doubt” about the misinformation campaign currently being waged in an effort to keep us trapped in a fossil fuel circus. You’ll have to watch it soon; who knows how much longer the folks at PBS will last.
Contrary to what the Heartland Institute would have you believe, the science is settled. Their efforts on behalf of the fossil fuel industry have bordered on offensive. Check out this priceless billboard they put up in Chicago last year.
It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. The fact remains that over 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is real and is accelerating. Both the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA have issued numerous startling reports saying virtually the same thing. Don’t want to believe the scientists? Okay, that’s fine. How about the insurance industry? In early 2012 representatives from The Reinsurance Association of America met with members of the U.S. Senate to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change and plead for some sort of legislative action. It’s very possible the insurance industry as we know it will not survive the accelerating pace of “hundred year” weather events.
I can’t underscore the seriousness of our collective failure to act strongly enough. This blog is in part a chance for me to get on the record. It’s an opportunity to be on the right side of history. If we don’t confront this challenge I’ll have to explain to my children and grandchildren what was going on in the other Washington and why they didn’t act until it was too late. Check out this clip of Fmr. Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC). In 2010 he lost his reelection bid in a landslide to a Tea Party candidate. His crime? He admitted that he agreed with 97% of climate scientists about the validity of climate change and that humans were likely responsible. Imagine that, a ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment listening to climate scientists.
Instead of addressing this issue head on, our elected leaders are putting their heads in the sand. Perhaps it more accurate to say that industry lobbies have dug the holes to make the head-putting easier, but ultimately it’s a failure of leadership. This failure to act is extremely significant. As Noam Chomsky recently observed, “Our response demonstrates an extraordinary willingness to sacrifice the lives of our children and grandchildren for short-term gain. Or equally remarkable, a willingness to shut our eyes so as not to see impending peril.”
I really hope that Hurricane Sandy spares everyone in her path. We used to live in Miami. I have been through hurricanes and let me tell you, they’re no fun. I earnestly pray that no lives are lost at Sandy’s behest. Being in the middle of that kind of storm is a humbling demonstration of the awesome power of nature. A hurricane does not negotiate and it does not respond to opinion polls. At the same time, sometimes the only way to encourage wholesale policy change is through widespread discomfort. Famed economist Milton Freidman said it best:
Only a crisis —actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.
The increasing frequency of extreme weather is an apt reminder of who is in charge. We are all subject to the whims of Mother Nature and if we continue to abuse her, she will continue to respond in ways we humans have no control over.
Want to get involved? Come to 350.org’s Do the Math Tour. They’re coming to a city near you. Get informed. Join the movement!!