By Myles Allen, March 8, 2019
Image courtesy of Shutterstock
The Green New Deal is presenting climate scientists such as me with a dilemma. At long last, some politicians (other than retired ones) are taking seriously both the importance and the challenge of dealing with climate change. But many of us are also uncomfortable with the rhetoric of “climate emergency,” and the implication that “the science dictates” a very specific policy response.
I was one of the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on a Global Warming of 1.5°C, widely cited as saying “We have 12 years before we reach 1.5 degrees Celsius, if we fail to act now.” (Or, on your side of the Atlantic, 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.) This is often conflated as “We have 12 years to act if a warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius is to be avoided.” Both sound bites are misleading, in potentially dangerous ways.
What our report actually said was that global warming has reached 1 degree Celsius (plus or minus two-tenths of a degree), increasing at 0.2 (plus or minus 0.1) degrees Celsius per decade, and would likely reach 1.5 degrees Celsius sometime between 2030 and around 2050 if the current rate of global warming continues. So while it would be irresponsible to discount the possibility that we are already at 1.2 degrees Celsius and warming at 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade, thus reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030, it is equally irresponsible to suggest that this figure is what the IPCC predicts. This is an important distinction; many of the critics of the Green New Deal would be all too happy to shout “IPCC doomsday forecast out by a factor of two” if global warming is still “only” around 1.25 degrees Celsius in 11 years’ time.
What about “We have only 12 years to act”? Emission scenarios that have a better-than-even chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius without resorting to massive—and potentially unfeasible—levels of carbon dioxide removal involve something like a halving of global emissions by 2030. However unlikely it sounds, this appears to be a relatively robust result (meaning that all available evidence agrees): The fastest rate at which emissions decline in all current computer models of the global economy is around 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (2 gigtons of carbon dioxide) per year per year. (Yes, you read that right: It’s a deceleration, so it’s “per year per year.”) Try to make annual carbon emissions decline any faster than that, and the models just can’t keep the lights on.
These models have been widely criticized for making too-conservative assumptions about future technologies—but most are also designed with very optimistic assumptions about future policies, such as the immediate introduction of a global carbon price. No one knows if it is really possible to hit the brakes on global emissions that hard, but it would be brave to assume we can brake any faster.
Consequently, given that current emissions are over 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year, it would take more than 20 years to reach net zero even if we start reductions immediately—longer because the pace of reductions is expected to slow once we have dealt with the easy stuff. And because carbon dioxide accumulates in the climate system like lead in the bloodstream, warming will continue at least until net global carbon dioxide emissions reach zero.
So imagine we get to 2022, mid-way through the next US presidential term: Global emissions still haven’t peaked and it is clear there is no way of halving them by 2030. Will it then be “too late to prevent climate catastrophe”? It all depends what you mean by catastrophe: It might well be too late to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by emission reductions alone, but there will be plenty of things left worth saving. The danger with the word “catastrophe” is its finality: once catastrophe is inevitable, there seems little point in doing anything about it.
This 20- to 30-year “braking time” in the IPCC scenarios means we may well already be committed to 1.5 degrees Celsius, even if we reduce emissions immediately as fast as possible. So every year in which global emissions are not reduced (and they rose last year) is another 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide that we are committing our children to scrub back out of the atmosphere if they want to return global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius sometime in the future. Given the scale of this challenge, the Green New Deal’s insistence on using only “low-tech” methods of carbon dioxide removal such as reforestation and soil restoration is worrying: It is not at all clear that measures like these can possibly remove enough carbon dioxide on the necessary global scale. Historically high historical emitters like the United States and the United Kingdom have the resources (and arguably the responsibility) to ensure that the world has other options available.
So what would I do? As Benjamin Franklin put it: “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.” I would like to see politicians debate something much more clearly focused on climate change—while the Green New Deal packages climate action with a host of other initiatives, like universal health care and employment. While these are worthy causes (and may be good politics), their presence makes it all too easy for its detractors to oppose the Green New Deal without addressing the fundamental climate issue—which, after all, is supposed to be its very reason for being. I’m not the only one calling for a much more focused Deal, such as the Washington Post’s proposal for an economy-wide carbon price. But again, this anchors climate action to a specific policy with a very mixed record thus far (as the Postacknowledges). I wonder what would happen if a much shorter and more policy-neutral bill were introduced, like the following:
Whereas the global temperature has reached 1 degree Celsius above its preindustrial level; that temperatures will continue to rise as long as global carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere continue; and that US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion remain over 5 billion tons per year; therefore be it resolved that the Federal Government will take all measures necessary to ensure that US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are reduced, on average, by 1 billion tons per year for every tenth of a degree of global warming from now on.
You don’t need to be a mathematical genius to work out that this means that US fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions would reach zero by the time global warming reaches 1.5 degrees Celsius. So opponents of such a measure would have to either argue that global warming has not actually reached 1 degree Celsius yet, or that fossil carbon dioxide emissions do not have a cumulative warming impact, or that US carbon dioxide is somehow special in not causing global warming. These are not points I hear very often, even from the most strident critics of climate action.
Alternatively, opponents would have to argue that they are comfortable with the United States continuing to cause global warming past 1.5 degrees Celsius, which would no doubt open some interesting conversations with farmers, fishermen, owners of coastal property, and others hit with the consequences. And the Chinese Hoax brigade would have no reason to oppose such a measure, because according to them global warming stopped in 1998 anyway. (Or was it 2016?)
Environmentalists might worry that this only addresses fossil fuel emissions: What about emissions from agriculture, refrigerants, and so on? I accept that this wouldn’t solve all aspects of global environmental change, and it certainly wouldn’t address healthcare or inequality. But if the United States was to lead on this and the rest of the world were to follow, this would “only” solve the problem of climate change caused by fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions.
I’ll take that.
One final point, from a fractious country on the far side of the pond: The United States did not get to the moon by starting with a 14-page plan. Kennedy set out the destination and the deadline, and left it to the collective genius of American enterprise and public servants to work out how to get there.
You can do it again.
The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent, nonprofit media organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.
View Comments
Climate is but a small part of the problems were running into. How about tying the climate increase to insect decline, or biodiversity loss, or soil loss? Their presence dumps all the neoliberal economic arguments, even though that fact is not palatable for a certain class of people. I can't see how you solve the climate problem without addressing inequality. At it's core, these are class issues. Imagine where we would be without the lower classes demanding change.
Sorry I write this fast so not a tidy argument, but perhaps you get where I'm trying to go.
“ The level of fossil fuel consumption globally is now roughly five times higher than in the 1950s, and one-and-half times higher than in the 1980s, when the science of global warming was confirmed and governments accepted the need to act on it. This is a central feature of the “great acceleration” of human impacts on the natural world. . . .
CO2 emissions are 55% higher today than in 1990. Despite 20 international conferences on fossil fuel use reduction and an international treaty that entered into force in 1994, man made greenhouse gases have risen inexorably.”
https://piraniarchive.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/pirani-helsinki-wern2018-paper.pdf
I feel Allen makes the same mistakes climate scientists have made since I saw Dr. Hansen's congressional testimony as a high schooler in 1988. Now the scientists are quibbling over what 'catastrophe' means. How the American right doesn't love these bones the scientists throw them. It's easy to confuse and enrage their base with them: see, the rich eggheads don't know what they're talking about, and they want you to give up your pickup truck to please the hippies.
The GND represents a quantum leap in US politics because the country has been held back and dragged backwards for the past 40 years. The majority of its infrastructure is falling apart; tens of millions live in shacks, tens of millions on the street. We are now a third world country, but with nukes. The GND is something to break many logjams at once. It's already vague and aspirational, and, importantly, it doesn't rely on magic technology that doesn't exist to claw back emissions. I'd be more interested in Allen following up with biochar as a solid, non-destructive way to get the carbon back in the ground.
Maybe Allen's confused about what 'catastrophe' is because one is already unfolding, and will continue to unfold, no matter what we do. Our options are now limited to how bad things will be. As David Wallace Wells points out, it will be worse than we imagine, even if we go all out, and we won't do that, because it's too hard.
Like the other commenters, I apologize for the rambling, but is this a crisis or not?
As a founder of a small local group, the Pollution Tax Association (.org.uk) in 1992, I welcome almost any suggestion of a carbon price. It needs to be high. It would be good to see the proceeds spent on multiple lines of innovation - as well as supporting those that are not polluting the Earth very much i.e. the poor.
However, I worry about a 'more focused Deal' because a focusing implies rejecting some approaches to concentrate on approaches that a 'focus' will reject. Anyway who is doing the focusing?
A very high carbon price would be an excellent move but there are structural barriers to innovation. For example, the patents held by George Stephenson held up the development of steam engines for decades. A new approach to encouraging innovation may be needed.
If a carbon price were big enough to severely inhibit the use of our polluting cars, we'd get gilets jaunes - unless there was good preparation. That needs town planning, which must begin to create car free living. Regulatory changes to the nature of cars (make them lighter and slower) would help.
P.S. I'm a bit obsessed about the role of private car at the moment. I've just been looking at the carbon footprints of selected brands and comparing these with remaining carbon budgets. It's frightening. See "Carbon emissions and the lifetimes of cars".
http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/carbon-emissions-in-the-lifetimes-of-cars/
I completely agree with Myles Allen's position regarding the complexity and breadth of "The Green New Deal" and the imperative to focus on climate change separate from all the other social policies.
This strikes me as the height of arrogance. What does Myles Allen know about political strategy for success in the US Congress? That's way outside his field of competence. If Allen wants to call the shots, let him enter the ring and prove himself -- as Andrew Weaver has done out here in BC -- rather than sniping from left field about the supposed failings of the Green New Deal.
Based on the results to date, I'd say it's high time to try something new, and for the Myles Allens of the world to make some space for the AOCs.
Here's a piece I wrote about climatologist-turned-politician Andrew Weaver, in case you missed the reference... https://www.nature.com/articles/550S59a
I believe the author clearly explains that we don't have the time or resources to "throw in" all the social inequality stuff into any REAL excess CO2 removal solution. Why should we do that, unless we don't really care about global warming solutions?
Also, other legislation should address those problems, such as free health care, or if we have enough money to build a trillion dollars worth of super cool trains, etc.
It is arrogant to think we can "do it all" and remove a trillion tons of excess CO2 at the same time!
Only solar, wind, batteries AND nuclear will save the biosphere (and yes, I'll be arrogant about that)!
Inequality is relevant, but the line of argument may seem stretched to some.
Authors of The Spirit Level and The Inner Level have documented extensively how social inequality leads to poor psychological outcomes across the social-economic spectrum. These outcomes are a key driver of conspicuous consumption, and overconsumption by Western nations is a key problem to tackle.
I very much like Myles' humor and intent to cull down the problem and solution to their essence. Reference to the moonshot goal illuminates. On the other hand, the mathematical goal lacks gears. Just what type of "do everything possible" should and can limited government do? I hope that he and others will see the wisdom of endorsing the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019--H.R. 763 in the U.S House of Representatives now--as the gears. Placing a fee per ton of CO2 equivalent that rises in a sharply upward-tilting line (until it works, or is proven not to work), then distributing the revenue evenly to all is the tool that engages the economy, with fairness, which will stimulate innovation and a million choices in favor of lowering carbon-intensive footprints everywhere. This is the effective, powerful, efficient and healthy solution, which already has very strong endorsements from economists, business, and an array of folks from all sides of the political spectrum.
We can not expect a carbon tax to work if we do not have reliable clean energy to transition with. Instead, we need a war effort to make better batteries, cheaper wind and solar and cheaper (and meltdown proof) nuclear.
Imagine the opposition!
Once the people on the "right" see that solar, wind, batteries and nuclear are exponentially increasing, then they might trust a carbon tax (and not cause civil war).
There is a narrowly defined bill before the U.S. House of Representatives that would put a price on carbon emissions. H.R. 763: the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act would charge an upstream fee of $15 per ton of CO2 emissions on fossil fuels and increase it $10 per year (or $15 per year if emissions reductions targets aren't met). All of the revenue would be returned to American households in monthly dividend checks. It is expected that this woud reduce emission by 40% by 2030 and 90% by 2050 from 2016 emission levels. To learn more about the bill, see https://energyinnovationact.org/.