George Bush is behaving like a furious defaulter whose home is about to be repossessed. Smashing the porcelain, ripping the doors off their hinges, he is determined that there will be nothing worth owning by the time the bastards kick him out. His midnight regulations, opening the United States’s wilderness to logging and mining, trashing pollution controls, tearing up conservation laws, will do almost as much damage in the last 60 days of his presidency as he achieved in the foregoing 3 000.
If it is too late to prevent runaway climate change, the Bush team must carry much of the blame. His wilful trashing of the Middle Climate – the interlude of benign temperatures that allowed human civilisation to flourish – makes the mass murder he engineered in Iraq only the second of his crimes against humanity.
Is it too late? Even a resolute optimist like me finds hope ever harder to summon. A new summary of the science suggests that – almost a century ahead of schedule – the critical climate processes might have begun.
Just a year ago the Intergovernmental Panel warned that the Arctic’s “late-summer sea ice is projected to disappear almost completely towards the end of the 21st century … in some models”. But, as the new report by the Public Interest Research Centre (Pirc) shows, scientists are now predicting the end of late-summer sea ice within three to seven years.
Forget the sodding polar bears: this is about all of us. As the ice disappears, the region becomes darker, which means that it absorbs more heat. A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters shows that the extra warming caused by disappearing sea ice penetrates 1 600km inland, covering almost the entire region with continuous permafrost. Arctic permafrost contains twice as much carbon as the entire global atmosphere.
It remains safe for as long as the ground stays frozen. But the melting has begun. Methane gushers are now gassing out of some places with such force that they keep the water open in Arctic lakes through the winter.
The effects of melting permafrost are not incorporated in any global climate models. Runaway warming in the Arctic alone could flip the planet into a new climatic state. The Middle Climate could collapse faster and sooner than the grimmest forecasts proposed.
Barack Obama’s speech to the US climate summit last week shows that there really is a prospect of profound political change in the US. But while he described a workable plan for dealing with the problem, the measures he proposes are hopelessly out of date.
The science has moved on. The events the Earth Summit and the Kyoto process were supposed to have prevented are beginning. As the Pirc report suggests, the years of sabotage and procrastination have left us with only one remaining shot: a crash programme of total energy replacement.
A paper by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in England shows that if we are to give ourselves a roughly even chance of preventing more than two degrees of warming, global emissions from energy must peak by 2015 and decline by between 6% and 8% a year from 2020 to 2040, leading to a complete decarbonisation of the global economy soon after 2050. Delivering a high chance of preventing two degrees of warming would mean cutting global emissions by more than 8% a year.
Is this possible? Is this acceptable?
You can answer these questions only by considering the alternatives. The trajectory both Obama and Gordon Brown have proposed – an 80% cut by 2050 – means reducing emissions by 2% a year. This programme, the figures in the Tyndall paper suggest, is likely to commit the world to at least four or five degrees of warming, which means the likely collapse of human civilisation across much of the planet. Is this acceptable?
The costs of a total energy replacement would be astronomical, the speed improbable. But the governments of the rich nations have already deployed a scheme like this for another purpose. A survey by CNBC suggests that the US federal government has now spent $4,2-trillion in response to the financial crisis. Do we want to be remembered as the generation that saved the banks and let the biosphere collapse?
This approach is challenged by the American thinker Sharon Astyk. In an essay she points out that replacing the world’s energy infrastructure involves “an enormous front-load of fossil fuels”, which are required to manufacture wind turbines, electric cars, new grid connections, insulation and all the rest. This could push us past the climate tipping point. Instead, she proposes, we ask people “to make short-term, radical sacrifices”, cutting our energy consumption by 50%, with little technological assistance, in five years.
There are two problems: the first is that all previous attempts show that relying on voluntary abstinence does not work. The second is that a 10% annual cut in energy consumption while the infrastructure remains mostly unchanged means a 10% annual cut in total consumption: a deeper depression than the modern world has ever experienced. No political system could survive an economic collapse of this scale.
She is right about the risks of a technological green new deal, but these are risks we have to take. Astyk’s proposals travel far into the realm of wishful thinking. Even the technological new deal I favour inhabits the distant margins of possibility.
Can we do it? Reviewing the new evidence, I must admit that we might have left it too late. But there is another question I can answer more easily. Can we afford not to try? No, we can’t. —