THE VINE APRIL 17, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In recent months, climate gurus like James Hansen and Bill McKibben have done some boat-rocking in the environmental world by proposing a new goal for stabilizing atmospheric carbon concentrations. They now say the mark should be 350 parts per million (as opposed to the IPCC-backed goal of 450 ppm)—a more than 10 percent reduction from the current level of 390 ppm. Keith Johnson of The Wall Street Journal's enviro blog is skeptical:
Bill McKibben—who describes himself as "scholar in residence in environmental studies at Middlebury College"—admitted it's a daunting task...
The group [350.org] suggests enthusiasts donate $350 of their tax rebates to the organization to spread the good word. The mission would be easier if the group settled on the IPCC's more-moderate target of 450 ppm. Come to think of it, the fundraising checks would be bigger too.
And there's something to all of this: 450 is a bigger number than 350, and Bill McKibben does describe himself as "scholar in resdidence in environmental studies at Middlebury College"... because that's what he is.
At any rate, 350 ppm is, I'd guess, an impossible goal. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the "goal." After all, 450 is all but an upper threshold for carbon concentrations, and since we're likely to overshoot whatever mark we set for ourselves, lower seems fine to me. Here's another idea: Instead of 80 percent emissions reductions over the next 40 years, why not aim for carbon-neutrality by mid-century? May be hard. May be impossible. But the closer we get to "zero" net emissions the better, and "carbon neutrality" is a much more resonant and colorful concept than is a such-and-so percent reduction of whathaveyou.
--Brian Beutler
5 comments
I'll instead spend my 350(00) on this BMW:
www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9921402-54.html
Schwarzenegger may be right, cleaning up the environment could be painless.
- jet
April 17, 2008 at 10:32pm
Shit. 350, 450, 550... We aren't going to get anywhere close.
There are currently about 700 million automobiles in the world. Let's suppose we placed a cap on new cars and allowed for replacement only, so that 700 million number stays fixed. Let's also suppose that starting today, the owners of every single one of those 700 million automobiles agree to reduce their miles driven by half and that they continue to drive 50% as much as they do now indefinitely.
Of course, such sweeping reform is impossible. But even if it were, it would still go only about a tenth of the way to stabilizing CO2 at under 500ppm by 2050. In other words, stock up on bikinis and suntan lotion, 'cause its gonna get hot, hot, hot.
- aeromonas
April 17, 2008 at 10:55pm
re you hydro beamer, jet
Tho I think you were probably joking, its worth discussing the merits of H2 power in general.
Yes it's a potential way for us to have our internal combustion cake and eat it too, but only on the condition that the hydrogen we burn is generated from water through electrolysis using carbon-free electricity such as nukes or wind. Right now, as it happens, the hands down cheapest way to produce H2 is to "crack" it from hydrocarbons. But this, in effect, amounts to the slow-motion combustion of said hydrocarbons, simply delaying the 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O step for a while, and it generates exactly as much CO2 as if you'd just burned the hydrocarbon in your engine.
- aeromonas
April 18, 2008 at 10:10am
aero -
Here's a question: if 350 or 450 ppm is that hard to reach, are we better off with a) what Brian said, shooting for the moon and taking what we get; b) pushing for baby steps we can actually attain; or c) saying screw it to cutting back, because you'll never get enough people on board, and instead busting ass to develop some radical leap in energy technology that will require less sacrifice to achieve the same ends?
I think the reason most pols are slow to embrace energy-conservation policy is because they have an inkling of just how much sacrifice would be required just to make a dent. Would they be more likely to embrace a tech-focused solution, esp. to the point of dumping a lot of money into it? That is, instead of pushing for policy to make the current forms of solar and wind (and, yes, nuclear) power more cost-competitive, would we get a better response pushing for a gung-ho, 1960s-race-to-the-moon style program to develop a tech solution that could legitimately face off against oil and coal on its own? Would America be more likely to get behind that? I think the technology is out there, we just aren't pushing towards it hard enough.
What do you think?
- dhauck
April 18, 2008 at 1:23pm
Good points everyone. I'd agree with aero that hydrogen production shouldn't cancel the benefits the car's engine itself delivers. So, if we simply end up delaying the production of CO2, the benefits the Beemer engine might deliver are marginal. However, if either good inexpensive underground sources are found, or a non-CO2 producing process is found, engines like this could be wide spread. Imagine if such an engine could be used on jet airplanes too. That would be a nicer future than what we're looking at.
- jet
April 18, 2008 at 2:40pm