Title: “it’s time for policy discussion to connect with what the science is”

Given the darkness of the Bush years on climate I sympathize with your view that you “honestly don’t know if it is politically possible to preserve a livable climate”. But consider World War II.

In the US, the generation of college kids that only days before Pearl Harbor were very isolationist rushed to join the armed forces. US Marine divisions in the Pacific suffered casualties at a rate only an elite few in history ever withstood as they let nothing stop their advance, such was their determination to defeat those who attacked their homeland. History shows that what is necessary can become politically possible.
Also, I think we should be frank in discussion as to what these targets for CO2 reductions that you’ve discussed mean, and what the relevant scientists actually think about that. As you say, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama all campaigned on cutting US emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Global population is still expanding and demographers tell us a total of at least 9 billion people by 2050 is baked in as of now. Most of this two more Chinas worth of human beings will be born in the developing world. The developing world will not be satisfied to negotiate a permanent lesser right to per capita emissions than the US. Given these two assumptions, the math isn’t that hard to do. This 80% reduction from 1990 by 2050 target for the US would mean that the global forces driving climate change would be increasing every year from now until then. At that time total global CO2 emissions would be higher than they are now. The accumulated CO2 level will be far higher, and the composition of the atmosphere would still be unstable. In other words, if we achieve this target, all we get is that civilization will be accelerating into this disastrous planetary climate disruption somewhat more slowly than it otherwise would be. We would still be accelerating into disaster. This stark reality should be at the center of policy discussion.

Again, consider the US once the decision was made as to what to do about Hitler. American planners set the target for the heart of the problem. They decided to aim to occupy Berlin, and they told Hitler his only alternative was unconditional surrender. They didn’t add up the cost beforehand, or calculate what doing nothing instead would cost. FDR told American industry to retool for all out war. They started training millions of the kids to be hurled onto battlefields to die. Imagine if the decision instead was to devote a tiny percentage of GDP spending per year for 41 years hoping that by 2050 US military power and will would be enough to confront a Nazi Germany occupied entire rest of the world?

In climate terms, a comparable decision would be to set the target for stabilization at a level scientists agree is safe. Clearly, a target by 2050 that doesn’t stabilize the composition of the atmosphere which leaves the forces driving the disruption still steadily increasing is a recipe for global disaster.

Why do we continue talking as if continuing to accelerate into global disaster is something reasonable to do, just because we believe we are not now and can’t become a new “greatest generation” that will find the way?

As James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Space Center, wrote in his recent personal appeal to President Obama: “scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth” which has caused them to come to “a stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts”. He’s not talking about emissions, as you know. He’s talking about reducing the present level of accumulated level of greenhouse gases. As he writes: “there is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands”.

In case President Obama has any doubt that this assessment is what the science is, Hansen states: “The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential request”. Hansen reminds Obama: “The NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes”.

Isn’t it time we all started to connect policy discussion with what the science demands?

Years and years of struggles with no apparent progress…then a period of more noticeable change but nowhere near enough…and finally rapid acceleration towards the goal.

At no point on an exponential curve are you headed anywhere near the target until the very end. What is important to focus on all along is that the rate of change increase continually.

That’s been the only solace so many times over the last many years on climate change.

So this rush of great talk and great appointments in the heart of the carbon beast has me hopeful we are accelerating into the curve.

Next up: actual policy that lowers ghg

This team will have to get up to speed fast, start to reach out to other countries, and begin to flesh out the US positions as the pace of the negotiations are set to pick up speed following the meeting in Poznan, Poland this past December. In just over 60 days, this team will be sitting with other countries at the negotiating table as the next international negotiations will be held the end of March in Bonn, Germany.