"And there's the rub, as dear Hamlet would say. By claiming we can

solve the problem of climate change painlessly, environmentalists

confuse us. They offer stark and rigorous presentations terrifying us

about the near-term, dire consequences of global warming. And then

they offer generalized, almost blithe assurances about how we can

avoid these dire consequences without great sacrifice."

"Indeed, the "take action" section of Al Gore's website,

www.climatecrisis.net recommends the following steps. Put on a

sweater. Use more efficient light bulbs. Turn the thermostat down 2

degrees. Drive less.

"I'm sure Al Gore knows that even if millions of individuals were to

adopt such actions, the pace of ecological disaster would not slow one

whit."

From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #889, Jan. 11, 2007

Printer-friendly version

WHAT AL GORE HASN'T TOLD YOU ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

By David Morris

Al Gore is our generation's Paul Revere. Riding hard through the

country, he warns us of the impending arrival of climatic disaster.

He's proven an astonishingly effective messenger. An Inconvenient

Truth may receive an Oscar for Best Documentary. Overflow crowds greet

his presentations with standing ovations.

Which, come to think of it, is odd. When has someone ever delivered

such an ominous message to such tumultuous applause? (Aside from those

who insist we are in the end times and the rapture is near.)

In a recent speech to a standing-room-only audience at the New York

University School of Law, Gore declared, "We are moving closer to

several 'tipping points' that could -- within as little as 10 years --

make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the

planet's habitability for human civilization." The audience cheered

wildly. Presumably audiences are not cheered by the prospect of

imminent catastrophe. So what is going on here?

British journalist George Monbiot, author of Heat: How to Stop the

Planet from Burning (Doubleday, 2006) has a theory.

"We wish our governments to pretend to act," he writes. "We get the

moral satisfaction of saying what we know to be right, without the

discomfort of doing it. My fear is that the political parties in most

rich nations have already recognized this. They know that we want

tough targets, but that we also want those targets to be missed. They

know that we will grumble about their failure to curb climate change,

but that we will not take to the streets. They know that nobody ever

rioted for austerity."

Austerity? Hold on. Al Gore and the rest of the U.S. environmental

movement never utter the word "austerity." Their word of choice is

"opportunity." The prospect of global warming, they maintain, can

serve as a much-needed catalyst to spur us to action. A large dose of

political will may be required, but we need not anticipate economic

pain. We can stop global warming in its tracks, expand our economy and

improve our quality of life. We can, in other words, do good and do

quite well. A leading environmentalist, for whom I have a great deal

of admiration, summed up his position to an interviewer, "I can't

stand it when people say, 'Taking action on climate change is going to

be extremely difficult.'"

And there's the rub, as dear Hamlet would say. By claiming we can

solve the problem of climate change painlessly, environmentalists

confuse us. They offer stark and rigorous presentations terrifying us

about the near-term, dire consequences of global warming. And then

they offer generalized, almost blithe assurances about how we can

avoid these dire consequences without great sacrifice. We are

horrified and soothed at the same time. It's a dangerous strategy.

Many who focus on the catastrophic present-day images of An

Inconvenient Truth believe we have gone beyond the point of no return,

which leads to cynicism and passivity. Those who are spurred to action

believe that buying a hybrid car or taking an eco-vacation will

address the problem.

Indeed, the "take action" section of Al Gore's website,

www.climatecrisis.net recommends the following steps. Put on a

sweater. Use more efficient light bulbs. Turn the thermostat down 2

degrees. Drive less.

I'm sure Al Gore knows that even if millions of individuals were to

adopt such actions, the pace of ecological disaster would not slow one

whit. I presume he views these actions as a way for us to demonstrate

our willingness accept responsibility for our consumption habits. The

next, and far more important, step is to persuade us to work

collectively and aggressively for bold new policies. A recent letter

from Al Gore, emailed from MoveOn.org asked us to do just that by

signing a petition to push Congress to action.

Gore declared, "I'm ready to push for real solutions, but I need your

help ..." The email offered no policy solutions. Nor does Al Gore's

web site or speeches, except for his recommendation that America

immediately freeze its greenhouse gas emissions and then reduce them.

George Monbiot, a reporter for the British newspaper, Guardian takes

up where Al Gore and many others leave off. Heat is a remarkable book.

For it is not written to convince the unconvinced of global warming,

but to educate the already-persuaded, those who exited the theater

after watching An Inconvenient Truth with fire in their bellies, ready

to fight the incoming menace about what must be done, and ready to

face the significant sacrifices that will have to be made along the

way.

Monbiot's assumptions differ only modestly from those of Al Gore. Both

believe the window of opportunity is short, and closing. Both believe

we must immediately freeze greenhouse gas emissions and then reduce

them by up to 60 percent below current levels by about 2030. (Gore may

use the 2050 time frame). Monbiot recommends more rapid reductions

than others, but he argues persuasively that an ounce of reduction in

the early years can avoid the need for a pound of reduction in the

later years.

A key contribution by Monbiot is that he addresses the question Al

Gore asks, but doesn't answer. "(W)hat would a responsible approach to

the climate crisis look like if we had one in America?" Monbiot asks

the question of his home country, United Kingdom.

Monbiot launches his investigation by asking a crucial question rarely

discussed by Al Gore and other U.S. environmentalists: How does the

responsibility of the world's largest polluters differ from that of

the rest of the world? The average American generates more than 10

times the greenhouse gas emissions as does the average Chinese, and

perhaps 30 times more than the average citizen of Bangladesh. (The

gluttony of the average citizen of the UK is not far below that of the

average American).

When Al Gore says he wants to free emissions, presumably he's talking

about planetary emissions, not U.S. emissions. Otherwise, he's asking

humanity to freeze the current stark disparity in resource use in

place. That's politically impossible and morally disagreeable. Since

the U.S. and UK generate a disproportionate amount of global

greenhouse gases, a responsible approach presumably would require them

to disproportionately reduce their emissions.

Monbiot argues for a global carbon emissions cap allocated on a per

capita basis. Since all of humanity shares the biosphere, which has

only a limited absorptive and cleansing capacity and all humans are

created equal, then each should have equal use of that capacity.

The implications of biospheric equity are so profound and so

disturbing, that it is understandable why American environmentalists

shy away from discussing the issue. Currently, global carbon emissions

are about 7 billion tons, roughly, 1 ton per person. But the average

American generates, directly and indirectly, some 10 tons per capita.

Thus, to save the planet and cleanse our resource sins, Americans must

go far beyond freezing greenhouse gas emissions. As a nation, we must

reduce them by more than 90 percent, taking into account the sharp

reductions in existing global emissions necessary to stabilize the

world's climate.

Suddenly we realize that addressing the global warming problem will be

very difficult, not only politically but economically and

institutionally. And it may well entail significant sacrifice.

Consider the following: California has received much well-deserved

praise for enacting legislation that establishes a statewide carbon

cap for 2020 equal to the state's 1990 emission level. Achieving this

goal would mean reducing current emissions by about 13 percent.

Another 80 percent reduction will be necessary if California is to

achieve its fair share of the global emissions reductions necessary to

stabilize climate change.

Monbiot recommends the per-capita carbon budgets be allocated

nationally. Nations would decide how to parcel out these allocations.

Ideally, these could be passed through to individuals. But Monbiot

notes the administrative costs involved in having people spend their

carbon allowances on tens of thousands of products and services, each

one denominated in carbon credits as well as currency. To simplify the

process, he recommends a strategy developed by two of his compatriots,

Mayer Hillman and David Fleming. They argue that since 40 percent of

the UK's carbon emissions result from the use of fuels and electricity

and it is relatively simple to develop a method by which individuals

pay for these energy sources with carbon credits, 40 percent of the

nation's carbon allocations should be passed through to individuals.

The remaining 60 percent would belong to the government, which might

auction them off to generate revenue.

The bulk of Heat is an exhaustive sector-by-sector, hardheaded

examination of the near-term technical and economic capacity for

wealthy, industrialized nations to achieve the necessary reductions.

The examination relies on an immense volume of technical studies and

primary research. Monbiot concludes that the UK can indeed achieve

sufficient reductions within the time frame, but just barely, and at a

high cost.

Although none of the reductions will be easily achieved, Monbiot's

analysis concludes that those related to transportation may be the

hardest of all. To reduce ground transportation emissions

sufficiently, he suggests the need to severely lessen individual

shopping trips. To accomplish this, he proposes that goods be

delivered. He cites a UK Department of Transportation study that

notes, "a number of modeling exercises and other surveys suggest that

the substitution of private cars by delivery vehicles could reduce

traffic by 70 percent or more." Every van the stores dispatch, in

other words, takes three cars off the road. Monbiot also proposes to

transform out of town superstores into warehouses, to be visited only

by vehicles that pick up supplies. That will save even more energy,

because warehouses use only 35 percent as much heat and 29 percent as

much electricity as do stores.

In only one sector does Monbiot fail to identify a technical solution

at any cost: air travel. Flying generates about the same volume of

greenhouse gases per passenger mile as a car. But, of course, flights

are many miles longer than drives. Fly from New York to California and

back and you will generate as much greenhouse gas emissions as you

will by driving your Prius all year.

Monbiot reluctantly concludes, "(T)here is simply no way of tackling

this issue other than reducing the number, length and speed of the

journeys we make." Knowing the audience for whom the book is intended,

he acerbically adds, this will mean the end of "shopping trips to New

York, political meetings in Porto Alegre, long distance vacations."

He urges his readers "to remember that these privations affect a tiny

proportion of the world's people. The reason they seem so harsh is

that this tiny proportion almost certainly includes you."

Monbiot sums up his findings, "I have sought to demonstrate that the

necessary reduction in carbon emissions is -- if difficult --

technically and economically possible. I have not demonstrated that it

is politically possible."

Is it politically possible? The last paragraph of Heat is not hopeful.

"(T)he campaign against climate change is an odd one. Unlike almost

all the public protests which have preceded it, it is a campaign not

for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom

but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against

other people, but also against ourselves."

Which may be why we hear so much talk about the problem but so little

talk about sacrifice.

For those who favor aggressively expanding renewable energy,

dramatically improving efficiency and abandoning our dependence on

imported oil, but remain unconvinced about the timing and severity of

climate change, the disconnect between rhetoric and reality doesn't

matter. They can view the threat of global warming as a means to an

end, a rhetorical device to stimulate people and governments to

aggressively embrace these objectives. If we do get 25 percent of our

expanded energy consumption from renewables by 2025, they will be

satisfied. Indeed, they will be ecstatic.

But for those who truly believe that widespread and perhaps

irreversible ecological disaster is imminent, for those who believe we

have only a 10-year window of opportunity before disaster becomes

inevitable, expanding renewable energy and improving efficiency is not

sufficient unless it is done at a scale and on a pace that

dramatically reduces global carbon emissions by 2030, with emissions

by nations like the United States and United Kingdom being reduced by

upwards of 90 percent.

By not sugar coating the means, Heat provides an important public

service. By clearly presenting his data, Monbiot lets us decide where

we agree and where we disagree. He invites a conversation. I look

forward to it. And I hope to soon see a U.S. environmentalist take up

the Monbiot challenge and put together an equally thorough and

rigorous examination of our own ability to tackle global warming.

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for

Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its

New Rules project.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Environmental Research Foundation

P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

dhn@rachel.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

--

Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers

Working at the Crossroads of Environmental and Human Rights since 1990

PO Box 7941

Missoula Montana 59807

(406)728-0867

posted to ClimateConcern