Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Emily, you "skewered" Naomi Klein, or thought you did, but you didn't
even try to touch Richard Littlemore, the author of the other piece i
posted, and please don't tell us he's not a journalist,he's not, he's a
CLIMATE SCIENTIST. 

http://www.postcarbon.org/video/51255-mckibben-first-take-on-climate 
This is mostly Bill McKibben. I think he also has a good idea of
what's going on. 

And 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/02/copenhagen-climate-change-ja
mes-hansen

James Hansen is also not a journalist, but also knows a thing or two
about climate.
 
  

    
Jacques, the deniers had no impact I'm aware of at the talks. They do
know how to make big media splashes, don't they, though?  

Then again, Americans ought to know what our elected officials are
doing with our tax dollars, especially when it's flying thousands of
miles to do dinosaur impressions on the world stage.

My friend Kate Sheppard, lately of Mother Jones, filed a couple items
about the skeptics who showed at Copenhagen:

"GOP Reps Regale Copenhagen with Scientific Knowledge," Dec. 18
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/12/gop-delegation-regales-copenhagen-u
nderstanding-science

"Copenhagen's Skeptic Tank," Dec. 9
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/12/skeptic-tank-runs-deep-copenhagen


This was my first COP, but my understanding is that they made bigger
efforts in the past to perform their schtick. Sen. Inhofe made quite a
big noise at Bali, didn't he? This year, afaik, all he did was hold an
ad hoc press conference in a hallway.  

jstrahl, please feel free at any time to express in your own words
your agreement / disagreement with me, Klein, McKibben, Hansen et al. I
prefer to spend my time in Inkwell talking with the people who
actually show up to have conversations.
  

    
About Bill, with whom I have a passing acquaintance, though: He's
incredibly smart, and probably one of the best informed people in the
world about global warming beyond the scientific community. 

For the past two-three years he and his team at 350.org have been
doing some of the best-conceived activist work in the world on getting
climate action.  

Arguably, they deserve a lot of the credit for building a truly
grassroots climate movement, and one that's advocating positions with
real scientific merit for averting the worst impacts of climate change.
  

    
>I prefer to spend my time in Inkwell talking with the people who
actually show up to have conversations.< 
I'm presenting a perspective which raises questions about your
interpretations of the Copenhagen events. You are rating Obama highly
over this, and given that the administration's people arrived in
Copenhagen with offers which were an insult to most of the world, eg
emissions reductions of 4% from 1990 levels by 2020, when 80% is
warranted (reductions promised at Copenhagen would result in a 3C rise
in global temperatures),  i think your evaluation is questionable. If
by conversation you mean to express agreement, then the meaning of
terms is skewed.
  

    

Emily can speak for herself, but I think by conversation she meant
that she would be happy to respond to questions and arguments you
express in your own words rather than to a series of links to articles.
  

    
Same is correct. Now you're presenting a perspective.  Before you were
linking off to other people's perspectives.

The US positions were one of the major problems at these talks, true. 
But you're assuming a lot about how I might regard the US position
from moral or scientific perspectives.

And where do I rate Obama highly?

More to the point, though, my work is more about reporting what is and
what happens, and making that intelligible to readers.  

I don't think Klein's yawp makes the situation more intelligible,
because however high her moral ground, she displayed ignorance, or
willful blindness, about the actual nature of the politics involved. 
She doesn't know how to get from point A, where she stands, to point B,
getting what she wants.

McKibben's just as angry, but he knows more, and I think he also knows
how to forge a path between his particular point A (wanting 350ppm)
and point B (getting 350ppm).

It's significant that the US, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa
jointly put their names on any climate document at all, even a crappy
one.  That's all I'm trying to make clear.

Those numbers are mostly meaningful in relation to how binding they
are. They're not binding; that document isn't a treaty. 

So we're not at the end game yet, politically.  (Environmentally,
another thing entirely, alas.)  If/when the Senate acts, Obama's hand
improves, and that could weaken China's influence in the next round. In
my interpretation of the situation.
  

    
>It's significant that the US, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa
jointly put their names on any climate document at all, even a crappy
one.  That's all I'm trying to make clear.< 
Emily, this is the "something is better than nothing" argument, and i
think it's absurd. When the "something" is total pretense, it is worse
than nothing, as it's intended to make it look like something is being
done when in reality it isn't. The Senate's grand action is nothing
more than what Obama brought to the table,ie an absolutely worthless 4%
reduction in emissions relative to 1990 by 2020, when the reality
calls for FAR, FAR bigger cuts. The US and China are just two power
interests who were using the climate talks as an arena in which to make
each other look bad, neither one is in the least actually interested
in doing what is necessary, no doubt in big part because what is
actually necessary is absolutely incompatible with the continuation of
the existing global economic system.  That is the real politics
involved.  
Hansen's article, by the way, is his attack on the whole notion of cap
n' trade, which is also a core part of what the Senate is proceeding
with, by the time the likes of Bill Nelsen and co, get finished, it
will be even more meaningless than what exists. This is yet another
illustration of how politics as usual are not gonna rescue us from
disaster. 
  

    
Emily, were the liabilities of cap-and-trade discussed much in
Copenhagen? Or was that perceived as the only game in town?
  

    

Emily,

I was very interested to read Thomas Friedman's essay on Copenhagen and
Denmark. I wonder if the other delegates there paid any attention to that
example or what you heard about it there, if anything.

 Denmark is the most energy efficient country in the E.U.; due to carbon
 pricing, through energy taxes, carbon taxes, the cap and trade system,
 strict building codes and energy labeling programs.
 ...
 Its why Denmark, with only five million people, boasts some of the
 leading wind, biofuel and heating, cooling and efficiency companies in
 the world. Energy technologies are now 11 percent of Denmarks exports.
 ...
 Where do Danish politicians get the courage to do the right things  even
 if painful?
 ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/opinion/23friedman.html
  

    

slip - note that cap and trade is one of the pieces that makes
Denmark's system work.
  

    
Sundog asked above:

> Were you able to get out among the people in the streets. I had the
feeling there were some interesting things going on out there. 

I didn't get to just chill with Copenhageners very much, if that's
what you mean.  If I do something like this again in the future,
though, I will try to take more time early in the doings to get out and
about a little, since week one was pretty slow, and week two was
frenetic.   

But I was there to work, you know?  Touristing came second.

> As well
as some heavy handed reaction by the police based on reports read and
the number of arrests. 

Unfortunately, I think some media really played up the police
incidents inordinately -- which is typical of how activism is covered.
There were some rough confrontations (I didn't witness much w/my own
eyes, but heard from several reliable directions that the cops
definitely did go overboard sometimes -- gave me flashbacks to NYC
during the RNC in 2004.) But the demonstrations were overwhelmingly
peaceful, orderly, and even fun.

Here's my audio slideshow from the big Saturday march:

http://actionhub.oxfamamerica.org/index.php/blog/comments/sights-and-sounds-as
-thousands-march-for-climate-action-in-copenhagen/


>Also, do you feel like NGOs made a significant
impact on the process or were they merely in the way?

I'll have to pick this one up at an earlier hour!
  

    
jstrahl, I think it was significant because it might be very important
to getting climate and energy policy reform through the Senate, not
because "something was better than nothing."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be interpreting my
observations and analysis as *approval* of what happened, because I am
not flat out declaring that Copenhagen was a failure on the whole
"fair, ambitious, binding" scale of achievement.  

C&t vs. carbon tax: Based on everything I've heard from experts in
business and economics and reported since around 2005, the crucial
thing to catalyzing the de-carbonization of our market economy is
getting the price set on carbon.  If a tax were to do it, fine, but
there isn't going to be a tax. It's political kryptonite.

Hansen is an excellent climate scientist.

I actually do think Obama's about as willing to tackle climate change
as a guy bound up in the "politically possible" can be. He's certainly
not expending a ton of political capital on it so far, and he's leaving
the well-articulated visionary stuff to his green team, particularly
Stephen Chu at Energy.  

Will that change if/when the health care bill is on his desk?

The EPA is steamrolling toward regulating GHGs under the Clean Air
Act.  This is something the Bush administration blocked by every means
available for several years.  Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, has
gotten nearly there in less than 12 months.

If this is praise of Obama, well, it's praise based on the political
situation at hand.  By the standards of the Bush or Clinton
administrations, it's a lot of progress.

That's not the same thing as saying *enough* progress, enough action
to stave off the worst of global warming.  
  

    
(emilyg), thanks for the slide and audio show. Looks like a nice
party. Wish I could have been there. I'll look forward to reading your
thoughts on NGO's. This morning I am reading Bill McKibben, writing at
E360. He begins by faulting the U.S.

"From the beginning, the most important nations chose not to go the
route of truth-telling. The Obama administration decided not long after
taking office that they would barely mention 'global warming', instead
confining themselves to talking about 'green jobs' and 'energy
security'. Perhaps they had no choice, and it was the only way to reach
the U.S. Senate — we’ll never know, because they clung to their
strategy tightly. On Oct. 24, when there were world leaders from around
the globe joining demonstrations, they refused to send even minor
officials to take part. Instead, they continued to insist on something
that scientists kept saying was untrue: The safe level of carbon in the
atmosphere was 450 ppm, and their plans would keep temperature from
rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) and thus avoid 'catastrophic
consequences'. (Though since 0.8 degrees C had melted the Arctic, it
wasn’t clear how they defined catastrophe)."

He went on to basically blame China for turning down one reasonable
alternative after another in refusing to limit burning coal. Then we
have near the end the basic insider agreement made that gave the rest
of the countries little alternative but to sign on. Do you really think
Copenhagen was a 'crime scene' as Kumi Naidoo from Green Peace
International suggests or there is some hope there still.
  

    
I too wondered if the arrests and turmoil during the early demonstrations
was overplayed.  But there was also coverage of the tens of thousands of
demonstrators who managed not to cause an issue (or to become the targets of
cops causing issues), and the "unrest" meme seemed a one-day story.  In the
end, did you think the press overreacted to street stuff?
  

    


>Instead, they continued to insist on something that scientists kept saying
was untrue: The safe level of carbon in the atmosphere was 450 ppm, and
their plans would keep temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius
(3.6 F) and thus avoid 'catastrophic consequences'. (Though since 0.8
degrees C had melted the Arctic, it wasnt clear how they defined
catastrophe)."

I think that the 450/2 degrees language came out of one of the big Group of
* or economic minister confabs of 2009; maybe the summer meeting of the G8.

The communiques issued at the end of the G-meetings are consensus documents.
 So if that's where those numbers became THE numbers, it's safe to assume
that it's because they were the lowest common denominator of acceptable
terms for everyone at the table.

I feel compelled to note that *some* scientists think 450ppm is too
dangerous.  It's not de facto the dominant position among climatologists.

It makes sense: at 380-390ppm, as Bill notes, we're already setting  off a
positive feedback loop of melting in the Arctic.

But there's still tons of research and debate going on about just this sort
of phenomenon; there's a lot we don't know.

Most journalists feel compelled to make this qualification, because most
scientists make this qualification.  (This in a nutshell is the bane of
climate change reporting.)

Even so, we're conducting a planet-sized geo-engineering experiment. We're
far from being able to predict all of the outcomes.  And nearly all the
outcomes we can predict with some degree of assurance are disastrous.

Not taking effective action is akin to thinking: There's a 90% chance my
house will catch on fire.  But I'm not getting homeowners insurance, because
there's a 10% chance it won't.

>The Obama administration decided not long after
taking office that they would barely mention 'global warming', instead
confining themselves to talking about 'green jobs' and 'energy
security'. Perhaps they had no choice, and it was the only way to reach
the U.S. Senate — we’ll never know, because they clung to their
strategy tightly.

Not just the Obama administration, but the Democratic leadership of the
House and Senate, believe in taking the green-jobs-and-energy-security line
over the moral / ecological imperative line.

Are they all wrong, and Bill McKibben is right?  He might be.  But also,
it's the role of a person in Bill's position to push the edges of the
discussion outwards, in order to reposition the middle.

It's important to remember that the green-jobs-and-energy-security line did
get the bill through the House.

Here's a segment of an interview I did with Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) during
the G20 in September, about which line of argument would be more effective
with Americans:

Q: Some climate activists are arguing that the ethical dimension to climate
change is getting lost in the economic cost-benefit analyses.  Is that a
case that would resonate with your voters, or voters in general?

A: The ethical argument verses the economic?  You know, I don’t think so.
Because people aren’t sure whether [climate change is] real or not.  I
think if they were sure, then the ethical argument would be a no-brainer; of
course we have to do something.  But since they are uncertain, the economic
argument is really the only way to approach them.

It makes a compelling argument.  I told a lot of my colleagues—and some of
them are in tougher situations than I’m in—that I really think you can
go back home, and this is something that people will understand, if you take
the time to sit down and explain it to them.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-29-pa-rep-doyle-on-getting-blue-collar-
support-for-climate-bill/
  

    

Just a note to non-WELL-members:  email your questions to <inkwell@well.com>
  

    


>The Senate's grand action is nothing more than what Obama brought to the
table,ie an absolutely worthless 4% reduction in emissions relative to 1990
by 2020, when the reality calls for FAR, FAR bigger cuts.

It was the reverse: Obama brought the Congressional position to the table.
  

    
Great discussion, Emily.   Thanks.
  

    
Given the disinterest of a good portion of the American public about
climate change (and the outright denialism of another portion), my
suspicion is that it's going to take some more Katrina-magnitude
disasters to move public opinion here. One can argue that calamaties
like that are unfolding every day at the poles, but they seem too
remote to have any impact on most Americans.
  

    
Interesting interview with Congressman Doyle. I enjoyed that he told
the CEO of US Steel "that he could either be at the table or on the
menu." I spent a few years as a controller in steel, minimills, and I
know green was not something anyone ever talked about in the early
2000's even though we were already facing electricity cutbacks during
peak periods of usage. Price drove that at the time. Also, it certainly
does seem reasonable to have building standards for energy. Looking
towards the future and taking responsibility is a good start. Like your
interview points out, Pittsburg can build green just as well as
anything else. So can most other manufacturing centers in the U.S. I am
pleased they might be starting to think that way.
  

    

> Not just the Obama administration, but the Democratic leadership of the
> House and Senate, believe in taking the green-jobs-and-energy-security line
> over the moral / ecological imperative line.

That works for me.
  

    
First of all, the emissions cuts offered at Copenhagen would lead to a
3C rise, not a 2C rise, which is already unacceptable.
http://www.guardian,co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/un-leaked-report-copenhagen-
3c/


Second, the reality is even worse:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48791
Climate Change; Four Degrees of Devastation, Stephen Leahy, 10/9/09.
*["Two degrees C is already gone as a target," said Chris West of the
University of Oxford's UK Climate Impacts Programme.
"Four degrees C is definitely possible...This is the biggest challenge
in our history," West told participants at the "4 Degrees and Beyond,
International Climate Science Conference" at the University of Oxford
last week. ..
Four degrees of warming would be hotter than any time in the last 30
million years, and it could happen as soon as 2060 to 2070.
"Political reality must be grounded in physical reality or it's
completely useless," John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research, told the conference.
Schellnhuber recently briefed U.S. officials from the Barack Obama
administration, but he says they chided him that his findings were "not
grounded in political reality" and that "the [U.S.] Senate will never
agree to this".
He had told them that the U.S. must reduce its emissions from its
current 20 tonnes of carbon per person average to zero tonnes per
person by 2020 to have an even chance of stabilising the climate around
two degrees C.

Thus, the so-called "political reality" amounts to acquiescence to
suicide. This is what climate scientists think. The notion that there
is no solid agreement on 450ppm is dangerous is totally out of synch
with everything i've seen coming out of actual scientists (aside from
the small group of industry-paid shills like Lindzen and Michaels). And
i don't count Tom Friedman as a climate scientist:-)
  

    
Well, it won't be suicide, but it will surely be a really big problem,
and an interesting lesson.
  

    
For lots of the world, <mcdee>, it will be suicide, or rather, murder,
since it will be done by a small minority of the world's population
while affecting the majority. 
  

    
Oh any portion of the world's population would have done it if given
half a chance.  I think the human record is pretty clear at this point.