Visit the TCOE discussion board

December 28, 2007

A new magic number: 350 by at 11:34 AM on December 28, 2007.

Remember This: 350 Parts Per Million (emphasis added):

This month may have been the most important yet in the two-decade history of the fight against global warming. Al Gore got his Nobel in Stockholm; international negotiators made real progress on a treaty in Bali; and in Washington, Congress actually worked up the nerve to raise gas mileage standards for cars.

But what may turn out to be the most crucial development went largely unnoticed. It happened at an academic conclave in San Francisco. A NASA scientist named James Hansen offered a simple, straightforward and mind-blowing bottom line for the planet: 350, as in parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s a number that may make what happened in Washington and Bali seem quaint and nearly irrelevant. It’s the number that may define our future.



In the past five years, though, scientists began to worry that the planet was reacting more quickly than they had expected to the relatively small temperature increases we’ve already seen. The rapid melt of most glacial systems, for instance, convinced many that 450 parts per million was a more prudent target [compared to the prior estimate of 550 ppm]. That’s what the European Union and many of the big environmental groups have been proposing in recent years, and the economic modeling makes clear that achieving it is still possible, though the chances diminish with every new coal-fired power plant.

But the data just keep getting worse. The news this fall that Arctic sea ice was melting at an off-the-charts pace and data from Greenland suggesting that its giant ice sheet was starting to slide into the ocean make even 450 look too high. Consider: We’re already at 383 parts per million, and it’s knocking the planet off kilter in substantial ways. So, what does that mean?

It means, Hansen says, that we’ve gone too far. “The evidence indicates we’ve aimed too high — that the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2is no more than 350 ppm,” he said after his presentation. Hansen has reams of paleo-climatic data to support his statements (as do other scientists who presented papers at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco this month). The last time the Earth warmed two or three degrees Celsius — which is what 450 parts per million implies — sea levels rose by tens of meters, something that would shake the foundations of the human enterprise should it happen again.

And we’re already past 350. Does that mean we’re doomed? Not quite. Not any more than your doctor telling you that your cholesterol is way too high means the game is over. Much like the way your body will thin its blood if you give up cheese fries, so the Earth naturally gets rid of some of its CO2each year. We just need to stop putting more in and, over time, the number will fall, perhaps fast enough to avert the worst damage.

That “just,” of course, hides the biggest political and economic task we’ve ever faced: weaning ourselves from coal, gas and oil. The difference between 550 and 350 is that the weaning has to happen now, and everywhere. No more passing the buck. The gentle measures bandied about at Bali, themselves way too much for the Bush administration, don’t come close. Hansen called for an immediate ban on new coal-fired power plants that don’t capture carbon, the phaseout of old coal-fired generators, and a tax on carbon high enough to make sure that we leave tar sands and oil shale in the ground. To use the medical analogy, we’re not talking statins to drop your cholesterol; we’re talking huge changes in every aspect of your daily life.

Maybe too huge. The problems of global equity alone may be too much — the Chinese aren’t going to stop burning coal unless we give them some other way to pull people out of poverty. And we simply may have waited too long.

But at least we’re homing in on the right number. Three hundred and fifty is the number every person needs to know.

The author is Bill McKibben, a long-time writer on the topic of global warming, and one of the people featured in the excellent movie Everything’s Cool. He’s also on my short list of people I wish everyone would listen to more closely.

Speaking as someone who is on statins and has had to make those huge changes to every aspect of my life, I think the metaphor McKibben uses understates the situation. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time–the number I hear quoted frequently is that it’s about a century, on average. That means we would have to cut our emissions a lot, and right now, and hope that all those signs of accelerating climate change we’re seeing, from Arctic sea ice extent to growing drought conditions to a rise in freakish weather patterns, will somehow take a time out until we bring down CO2 levels. There is no climate equivalent of a heart stent, another thing I know a thing or three about, a brute force way to buy yourself a lot of time while the diet (consumption) and life style (efficiency, economic organization) changes are put into practice.

Or is there? Isn’t geoengineering, with all its uncertainties about effectiveness and side effects, and the growing likelihood that we’ll resort to it out of desperation, very much like an emergency angioplasty and stent insertion? It’s not an analogy I’m entirely comfortable making, but it increasingly seems to be accurate.

Leaving imagery aside, the real problem, as McKibben points out, is China. Depending on which set of numbers you believe, China is either the leading emitter of CO2 in the world or just barely behind the US and ready to overtake us soon. With 1.3 billion people, many of whom are just beginning to move into a Western-style consumer economy (and another 1.1 billion, and growing, in India making a similar transition, lest we forget), nothing can be done about global warming without their (and India’s) full cooperation.

How do we get there from here? Honestly, I have no freakin’ idea.

2 Responses to “A new magic number: 350”

  1. disdaniel Says:

    “nothing can be done about global warming without their…full cooperation”

    I completely and totally reject this notion. It represents an extreme negotiating posture, not a rational search for solutions.

    Lots can be done and should be done, indeed MUST be done.
    Can we solve global warming without their co-operation? No, but we can certainly get started.

    And the benefits of getting started now far outweigh any short-term economic costs (which are never as large as those with a major vested interest claim). Most experts looking at our energy problems point to numerous steps we can take (explointing greater energy efficiencies) that would generate a positive return (or as economists like to say a negative cost).

    My analogy is like a pair of roommates thinking about quiting smoking but worried about losing a $5 bet about who can smoke the longest. (one is a lifelong smoker and the other is a more recent addict) It is in both of their (health) interests to quit, and it would probably be easiest if they both do it together. As long as the roommates are focused solely on the $5 bet (the incidental and illusory gain–they both have to BUY the cigarettes after all!) they are liable to smoke each other to death.

    We need to get them to focus on the bigger picture, beyond this $5 bet, and see the larger gains each one can achieve by going smoke/carbon free.

  2. Woodchuck Says:

    DisDaniel, I agree with each of you and Lou. If you can find it, look at Lou’s definition of personal activism - it is the same as what you are advocating. Yet, Lou is correct. China as a country is generating as much CO2 emissions and other pollutants as the US. The worse news? Their emissions are increasing as they strive to raise their standard of living.

    The main thing is that we have already exceeded the 350 number Hansen says is the limit. I’ll work to reduce my own emissions if you will work to reduce yours. Now, if we can get about 4,999,999,000 others to go along with us, we can reduce that 383 (PPM) number to 350 in about a century or so, if we reduce our personal numbers enough. But, for the US and every other major society, this will only happen if controls are imposed. Here in the US, we have speed limits. We are not allowed to smoke in certain areas. The use of certain toxic substances, like DDT, are banned by law. ETC. Why can we not accept that we are generating toxins in the form of CO2?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisers


blog advertising is good for you


Search

Archives

Other

Site links

Recent posts

Categories

Blogroll