Back to Metroland's Home Page!
 Site Search
   Search Metroland.Net
   View Classified Ads
   Place a Classified Ad
   Online Personals
   Place A Print Ad
 Columns & Opinions
   Looking Up
   Rapp On This
 News & Features
   What a Week
   Loose Ends
   This Week's Review
   The Dining Guide
   Tech Life
 Cinema & Video
   Weekly Reviews
   The Movie Schedule
   Listen Here
   Art Murmur
   Night & Day
   Event Listings
 About Metroland
   Where We Are
   Who We Are
   What We Do
   Work For Us
   Place An Ad

You’re Getting Warmer

The Kyoto Accord began the race to halt global warming. On it’s 10th anniversay, why are we barely past the starting gate?

By Bill McKibben


I remember so well the final morning hours of the Kyoto conference. The negotiations had gone on long past their scheduled evening close, and the convention-center management was frantic—a trade show for children’s clothing was about to begin, and every corner of the vast hall still was littered with the carcasses of the sleeping diplomats who had gathered in Japan to draw up a first-ever global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. But when word finally came that an agreement had been reached, people roused themselves with real enthusiasm: lots of backslapping and hugs.

A long decade after the first powerful warnings had sounded, it seemed that humans were finally rising to the greatest challenge we’d ever faced.

The only long face in the hall belonged to William O’Keefe, chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, otherwise known as the American coal, oil and car lobby. He’d spent the week coordinating the resistance—working with Arab delegates and Russian industrialists to sabotage the emerging plan. And he’d failed. “It’s in free fall now,” he said, stricken. But then he straightened his shoulders and said, “I can’t wait to get back to Washington where we can get things under control.”

I thought he was whistling past the graveyard. In fact, he knew far better than the rest of us what the future would hold. He knew it would be at least another decade before anything changed.

Ten years warmer

The important physical-world reality to know about the 10 years after Kyoto is that they included the warmest years on record. All of the warmest years on record.

In that span of time, we’ve come to understand that not only is the globe warming, but also that we’d dramatically underestimated the speed and the size of that warming. By now, the data from the planet outstrips the scientific prediction on an almost daily basis. Earlier this fall, for instance, the melt of Arctic sea ice beat the old record. Beat it in mid-August, and then the ice kept melting for six more weeks, losing an area the size of California every week. “Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts,” the headline in The New York Times reported. And they were shaken by rapid changes in tundra-permafrost systems, not to mention rain-forest systems, temperate-soil carbon-sequestration systems, oceanic-acidity systems.

We’ve gone from a problem for our children to a problem for right about now, as evidenced by, oh, Hurricane Katrina, California wildfires, epic droughts in the Southeast and Southwest. And that’s just the continental United States. Go to Australia sometime: It’s gotten so dry there that native Aussie Rupert Murdoch recently announced that his News Corp. empire was going carbon-neutral.

The important political-world reality to know about the 10 years after Kyoto is that we haven’t done anything.

Oh, we’ve passed all kinds of interesting state and local laws, wonderful experiments that have begun to show just how much progress is possible. But in Washington, D.C., nothing. No laws at all. Until last year, when the GOP surrendered control of Congress, even the hearings were a joke, with “witnesses” like novelist Michael Crichton.

And as a result, our emissions have continued to increase. Worse, we’ve made not the slightest attempt to shift China and India away from using their coal. Instead of an all-out effort to provide the resources so they could go renewable, we’ve stood quietly by and watched from the sidelines as their energy trajectories shot out of control: The Chinese now are opening a new coal-fired plant every week. History will regard even the horror in Iraq as one more predictable folly next to this novel burst of irresponsibility.

A hint of a movement

If you’re looking for good news, there is some.

For one thing, we understand the technologies and the changes in habit that can help. The last 10 years have seen the advent of hybrid cars and the widespread use of compact fluorescent light bulbs. Wind power has been the fastest-growing source of electric generation throughout the period. Japan and then Germany have pioneered with great success the subsidy scheme required to put millions of solar panels up on rooftops.

Even more important, a real movement has begun to emerge in this country. It began with Katrina, which opened eyes. Al Gore gave those eyes something to look at: His movie made millions realize just what a pickle we were in. Many of those, in turn, became political activists. Earlier this year, six college students and I launched step, which has organized almost 2,000 demonstrations in all 50 states. Last month, the student climate movement drew 7,000 hardworking kids from campuses all over the country for a huge conference. We’ve launched a new grassroots coalition,, that will push both Congress and the big Washington environmental groups.

All this work has tilted public opinion: New polls actually show energy and climate change showing up high on the list of issues that voters care about, which in turn has made the candidates take notice. All the Democrats are saying more or less the right things, though none of them, save John Edwards, is saying them with much volume.

The race of all time

Now it’s a numbers game. Can we turn that political energy into change fast enough to matter?

On the domestic front, the numbers look like this: We’ve got to commit to reductions in carbon emissions of 80 percent by 2050, and we’ve got to get those cuts underway fast—10 percent in just the next few years. Markets will help—if we send them the information that carbon carries a cost. Only government can do that.

Two more numbers we’re pushing for: zero, which is how many new coal-fired power plants we can afford to open in America, and 5 million, which is how many green jobs Congress needs to provide for the country’s low-skilled workers. All that insulation isn’t going to stuff itself inside our walls, and those solar panels won’t crawl up on the roofs by themselves. You can’t send the work to China, and you can’t do it with a mouse: This is the last big chance to build an economy that works for most of us.

Internationally, the task is even steeper. The Kyoto Accord, which we ignored, expires in a couple of years. Negotiations begin this month in Bali to strike a new deal, and it’s likely to be the last bite at the apple we’ll get—miss this chance and the climate likely spirals out of control. We have a number here, too: 450, as in parts-per-million carbon dioxide. It’s the absolute upper limit on what we can pour into the atmosphere, and it will take a heroic effort to keep from exceeding it. This is a big change: Even 10 years ago, we thought the safe level might be 550. But the data are so clear: The Earth is far more finely balanced than we thought, and our peril much greater. Our foremost climate scientist, NASA’s James Hansen, testified under oath in a courtroom last year that if we didn’t stop short of that 450 red line, we could see the sea level rise 20 feet before the century was out. That’s civilization-challenging. That’s a carbon summer to match any nuclear winter that anyone ever dreamed about.

It’s a test, a kind of final exam for our political, economic and spiritual systems. And it’s a fair test, nothing vague or fuzzy about it. Chemistry and physics don’t bargain. They don’t compromise. They don’t meet us halfway. We’ll do it or we won’t. And 10 years from now, we’ll know which path we chose.

Bill McKibben, a scholar in residence at Middlebury College in Vermont, is an author and environmentalist who frequently writes about global warming. McKibben’s essay was commissioned by the Association of Alternative News- weeklies. More than 40 AAN member papers will be publishing the essay this week.

The California Experiment

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s green state and the mathematics of carbon

By Cosmo Garvin

If you wiped California off the face of the planet, just made it disappear—left behind no car or SUV, politician, person or cow—you’d eliminate only about 1.6 percent of the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. Keep California and lose Texas, and you’d more or less double the benefit to the planet, but you’d still be a long way short of solving the problem of global warming.

So it’s hard at first to see how California’s highly touted experiment in planet saving, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32 for short), is going to make much of a difference.

But on a human scale, on the scale of what government can do, the act is an enormous undertaking. “We’ve got only five years to develop regulations for every sector of society,” explains Stanley Young of the California Air Resources Board.

The plan was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, and its goal is to reduce California’s greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In that way, AB 32 is meant to mirror the Kyoto Protocol.

In 2007, California is expected to put about 496 million metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Most of it is carbon dioxide, but mixed in there are nitrogen oxide, methane and a whole cocktail of less common but more harmful gases produced by transportation and industry.

So, what do 496 MMT of greenhouse gases look like? CARB figures that just 1 MMT of CO2 would fill 200,000 hot-air balloons. So, all of California’s greenhouse gases for a year would fit into about 99 million hot-air balloons.

Right now, the best estimate we have for greenhouse-gas emissions for California in 1990 is somewhere around 436 MMT. Getting from 496 to 436 doesn’t sound all that impressive—just as 87 million hot-air balloons doesn’t sound any more manageable than 99 million. But take the longer view: If we do nothing to slow the steady growth of CO2 and other global-warming pollutants, we’ll reach something close to 680 MMT of the stuff by the year 2020.

Suddenly, just getting back to the pollution levels of 1990 looks pretty good.

CARB has until December 2008 to figure out how to get California there. According to the law, all of the regulations to meet the 2020 goal have to be in place, and in force, by 2012.

One of the most promising tools California has in its climate-change toolbox is called the Pavley bill, after its author, former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley. The Pavley bill requires that, by 2020, all cars and trucks sold in California emit 30 percent fewer greenhouse-gas emissions from their tailpipes. That’s about 30 MMT—a whopping 17 percent of the overall goal of AB 32.

The problem is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency won’t let California enforce the Pavley bill. Two years ago, the state asked for a waiver from the federal government to enforce the rule, because automakers argued that only the federal government, not California, could make regulations that would affect fuel efficiency. Two years later, the Bush administration still isn’t saying whether it will grant the waiver or not. In fact, California had to sue the federal government last month just to try and get an answer. If the answer turns out to be “no,” then California likely will sue again.

Setting aside the uncertain future of the Pavley bill, the next big category of greenhouse-gas reductions come in the form of CARB’s “early-action items,” some of which are supposed to go into effect by 2010, many more by 2012.

Each of these chip away at California’s total inventory of greenhouse gases. In combination, the early-action rules are supposed to move California another 24 percent closer to the overall goal of the legislation.

For example, requiring ships at California ports to get electricity from shore, rather than from their own diesel engines, could shave off about 500,000 metric tons from California’s greenhouse-gas inventory. Similar benefits are predicted for rules requiring people to keep their tires properly inflated, and for tougher regulations on the manufacture of semiconductors.

Requiring trucking companies to make their rigs more aerodynamic will net a little over 1 MMT. And capturing more methane from landfills could knock out 2 to 4 MMT of greenhouse gases.

Altogether, CARB is proposing 44 different regulations just to cobble together that 24 percent. And any one of these regulations could be a potential political fight. Each regulation affects a particular industry or a particular part of the California lifestyle.

Let’s see: 17 percent plus 24 percent . . . that leaves 59 percent of the CO2 pie still to be accounted for. CARB only has until the end of 2008 to figure out where those remaining reductions will come from.

Some of the rules are on the drawing board already. The state’s “Low Carbon Fuel Standard,” called for in an executive order from Schwarzenegger earlier this year, could reduce California’s total emissions by 10 to 20 MMT a year. California’s laws requiring the state to use more renewable energy should also contribute to the reductions.

After all that, you still end up putting just as much CO2 into the air in 2020 as you did a generation earlier. But you would also be the first generation to force the line on the graph measuring global-warming pollution to go down, instead of up. And that’s a good thing.

Cosmo Garvin is a senior staff writer at Sacramento (Calif.) News & Review.

Send A Letter to Our Editor
Back Home


Copyright © 2002 Lou Communications, Inc., 419 Madison Ave., Albany, NY 12210. All rights reserved.