[Vision2020] Bill McKibben's Recent Rolling Stone Article "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math"

[Ted Moffett]

First page of multiple page article pasted in from the Rolling Stone
website:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
Global Warming's Terrifying New MathThree simple numbers that add up to
global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is
By Bill McKibben <http://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/bill-mckibben>
July 19, 2012 9:35 AM ET

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced
you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers
about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records
across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the
Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature
of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which
occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger
than the number of stars in the universe.

Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for
our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it
represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season
on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in
Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the
planet's history.

Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the world's nations,
meeting in Rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992
environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who
flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn't even attend. It was "a
ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago," the British journalist
George Monbiot wrote; no one paid it much attention, footsteps echoing
through the halls "once thronged by multitudes." Since I wrote one of the
first books for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989,
and since I've spent the intervening decades working ineffectively to slow
that warming, I can say with some confidence that we're losing the fight,
badly and quickly – losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial
about the peril that human civilization is in.

When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be
ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our
predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy
and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial
analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental
conferences and journals, but it hasn't yet broken through to the larger
public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking
about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious – our
almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless – position with three simple numbers.

*The First Number: 2° Celsius*

If the movie had ended in Hollywood fashion, the Copenhagen climate
conference in 2009 would have marked the culmination of the global fight to
slow a changing climate. The world's nations had gathered in the December
gloom of the Danish capital for what a leading climate economist, Sir
Nicholas Stern of Britain, called the "most important gathering since the
Second World War, given what is at stake." As Danish energy minister Connie
Hedegaard, who presided over the conference, declared at the time: "This is
our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we get a new and
better one. If ever."

In the event, of course, we missed it. Copenhagen failed spectacularly.
Neither China nor the United States, which between them are responsible for
40 percent of global carbon emissions, was prepared to offer dramatic
concessions, and so the conference drifted aimlessly for two weeks until
world leaders jetted in for the final day. Amid considerable chaos,
President Obama took the lead in drafting a face-saving "Copenhagen Accord"
that fooled very few. Its purely voluntary agreements committed no one to
anything, and even if countries signaled their intentions to cut carbon
emissions, there was no enforcement mechanism. "Copenhagen is a crime scene
tonight," an angry Greenpeace official declared, "with the guilty men and
women fleeing to the airport." Headline writers were equally brutal:
COPENHAGEN: THE MUNICH OF OUR TIMES? asked one.

The accord did contain one important number, however. In Paragraph 1, it
formally recognized "the scientific view that the increase in global
temperature should be below two degrees Celsius." And in the very next
paragraph, it declared that "we agree that deep cuts in global emissions
are required... so as to hold the increase in global temperature below two
degrees Celsius." By insisting on two degrees – about 3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit – the accord ratified positions taken earlier in 2009 by the G8,
and the so-called Major Economies Forum. It was as conventional as
conventional wisdom gets. The number first gained prominence, in fact, at a
1995 climate conference chaired by Angela Merkel, then the German minister
of the environment and now the center-right chancellor of the nation.

Some context: So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet
just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than
most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone,
the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water
vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent
wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in
fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too
lenient a target. "Any number much above one degree involves a gamble,"
writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the
odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up." Thomas
Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like
this: "If we're seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two
degrees is simply too much." NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet's most
prominent climatologist, is even blunter: "The target that has been talked
about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually
a prescription for long-term disaster." At the Copenhagen summit, a
spokesman for small island nations warned that many would not survive a
two-degree rise: "Some countries will flat-out disappear." When delegates
from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a
"suicide pact" for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting,
"One degree, one Africa."

Despite such well-founded misgivings, political realism bested scientific
data, and the world settled on the two-degree target – indeed, it's fair to
say that it's the only thing about climate change the world has settled on.
All told, 167 countries responsible for more than 87 percent of the world's
carbon emissions have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, endorsing the
two-degree target. Only a few dozen countries have rejected it, including
Kuwait, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Even the United Arab Emirates, which makes
most of its money exporting oil and gas, signed on. The official position
of planet Earth at the moment is that we can't raise the temperature more
than two degrees Celsius – it's become the bottomest of bottom lines. Two
degrees.

---------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120730/826f3428/attachment.html>