This is the Way the World Ends

Some day, a generation or two from now, when some rare archival historian seeks to answer the question, 'What were they thinking?' or 'How could they (meaning us, our generation) have let this happen?', that archivist may happen on this article from today's Guardian, or they may follow the link back to this one, from the Times last fall. And they will have unearthed a significant piece of the story.

The major players are on stage: the EU Commission, headed by craven right-winger José Manuel Barroso, and supported by largely center-right parties with a working majority in the EU Parliament; the renewable energy lobby, led by the photovoltaic manufacturers and supported by a generation of environmental advocates; the nuclear power mega-corporations, responding to Germany's moratorium by trying to advance their 'clean' carbon-free technologies into the breach; and the European petroleum companies, now increasingly natural gas, i.e. fracking and Russian import companies, led by Shell apparently, and using the powerfully skeptic UK Tory government as its stalking horse.

At issue was the design of the EU's proposal for the UN's Paris conference this December, which many regard as the last-gasp hope for an international agreement to limit greenhouse gas this side of a catastrophic tipping point. The EU's proposal was regarded with more than interest by all parties, first because in the aggregate the EU is the world's largest economy, and also because, of the three large economies--the US and China are its only 'peers'--only the EU offers even modest support for the environmentalist view. That EU proposal was submitted to the UNFCCC in draft form this February, but its shape was largely determined last October (just before the Barroso Commission left office). In today's Guardian we read--courtesy of documents obtained by a freedom-of-information request--just how that agreement was shaped.

Setting aside many technicalities, the large question was: will the proposal set energy requirements for each of the 28 member states, mandating 28 initiatives to reduce carbon emissions and thus urge a massive shift over 15 years to renewables (or nuclear, or conservation, or some combination of these)? Or would it set an EU-wide goal without specifying any particular national responsibilities, thus urging ... inertia, finger-pointing, and a continuation of the status quo. Led by Shell and the oil lobby, the latter interests won, and did so with a two-pronged communications strategy: on the one hand, Shell declares itself to be wholly in favor of carbon transfer markets and other mechanisms to advance the renewable agenda (while it continues to open up arctic drilling sites, encourage fracking, and plans to enlarge the natural gas infrastructure). On the other, it promotes the flexibility of individual national sovereignties, as the UK insists, so that carbon-prone economies will be able to fend off any external pressures any time soon.

So that, my children, is how the world's largest economy, the 'progressive' one, managed to avoid taking the bold step that would have set a benchmark for the Paris conference. That is how other, less high-minded nations like Australia and Canada will be able to see themselves in line with international standards. That is how no-nothing politicians like Senator Imhofe will be able to argue that serious energy conversion in the US will put us at a disadvantage in global competition--and when he says it, the Chinese and Indian policy-makers smile and nod in agreement. In short, there are many players, many moments in this drama, many reasons for the impending failure in Paris, but the scene in Brussels last October, now laid out in documentary splendor by our tenacious friends at The Guardian, should be seen as a decisive one.

France Steps Up

Just a few quick notes about the op-ed in yesterday's Times by French foreign minister Laurent Fabius:

1) First point of note: it appeared. The Times has not been front-and-center on the Climate Change issue, but that was Fabius's topic, and the editors gave him a major forum.

2) Fabius was speaking as Chair of the UN Climate Change conference in Paris, that is, he is treating what could be a nominal role as a major responsibility, and putting France forward as a leader in this international effort--a position that may increase the weight of the conference, or at least increase the diplomatic stakes.

3) More substantively, he opens the discussion to adaptation, a touchy subject in that it accepts the premise that 'it's already too late--change is here and we have to deal with it.' Many agree with that premise, though, and adaptation should and will take its place, alongside  abatement and mitigation, as the international conversation advances. I'll come back to those useful terms in a forthcoming post, as I examine philosopher Dale Jamieson's take on the status of this discussion.

No Room in the Lifeboats

In view of the catastrophe in the Mediterranean, where more than 800 trafficked African migrants died in shipwreck, I report the following statistics and prognoses, from the UN's 2013 IPCC assessment report, culled by French Left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon on his blog today:

• Climate change will indirectly increase the risk of violent conflicts such as civil wars and inter-group confrontation while intensifying underlying causes of conflict such as poverty;
• 40% of the earth will experience desertification, affecting 2 billion people;
• Global production will decrease by a net 2% per decade, despite all the offsetting technical advances, and in the face of a need for increases in food production of 14% per decade;
• In 2013 22 million people were displaced from their homes by climate change, a small harbinger of the climate migrations to come.

As the EU prepares to strengthen its border controls while reducing by 2/3 its rescue funding, as Americans in the southwest and elsewhere clamor for stronger fences and border patrols, and Australia deploys its navy to turn back all migrants from its territorial waters, we have to wonder what it would be like to live in a world where disasters like the one off the coast of Libya are an everyday occurrence.

Might the World's Governments Flunk the Climate Exam?

Anyone who thinks that international regulation is our best hope for containing climate change should be noticing as various nations submit the first drafts of their proposed policy initiatives (called INDCs--don't ask) to the UN's FCCC, in advance of the December conference in Paris. And any non-expert (like me) who wants to evaluate these proposals has a friend in the Climate Action Tracker website, which attempts to align these proposals on a common 'fairness' scale, where fairness tries to account for both the net proposed greenhouse gas reduction and the particular capabilities of each nation. In that way the CAT website mirrors and anticipates the evaluation the UNFCCC will itself be making later this year, as it tries to measure and align the full set of 195 national INDCs.

But with 6 or so nations already responding (including the EU, Russia, and Japan--major players--as well as Switzerland, Norway and Mexico), how does it look? Well, not so great. The CAT's ratings system includes categories of 'sufficient' (i.e. if all nations met this standard, the odds of holding temperature rise at 2C would be strong); 'medium' (not good enough for 2C, but might combine with more 'sufficient' plans to meet that goal); and 'inadequate' (if that's the best these nations are willing to do, then we'll all cook with increases of 3-4 degrees C or worse).

So how are we doing? The various Europeans are hovering at sub-par levels rated 'medium,' while the Russians and Japanese are 'inadequate,' for a variety of reasons explained on the website. Both of course claim to do better, but dubious counting strategies fail to meet CAT's standards.

Is this analysis the last word in official scorekeeping on this issue? Surely not--there are too many variables and interests, and no doubt many other evaluations will be forthcoming. Is CAT a good start? I think so, especially where at this relatively early date there is still time for international 'peer pressure' to weigh in on the 'inadequate' plans and bump these governments up to higher, more promising standards. Of the most urgent candidates for such pressure, India and  China rank highest, closely followed by ... US.

How Green is Green?

Who's that lady all dressed in green? Is this the next President of the United States, who will preside over the implementation of Paris Climate Conference agreements to reduce greenhouse gas for good? Or is she the accomodationist Secretary of State whose cozy relationship with fossil fuel corporations and sovereign state producers will carry over into the White House? It's a complicated story for sure, but this article in today's Guardian offers some useful background in sorting out the Candidate's probable stance. A good sign: her leading advisor, John Podesta, has already made gestures to put the climate issue high on her agenda. A sure bet: she will be preferable on this issue to whichever of the climate change-denying, anti-science Republicans runs against her--but at this late stage in the gathering climate crisis, is being more sensible than Ted Cruz or Rand Paul good enough?

Good News/Bad News

Recents events suggest we are finally getting a handle on this climate thing. Current data suggests this climate thing is spinning further and further out of control. Take your pick.

Good news: the US's officially measured greenhouse gas emissions declined slightly in the past year.

Bad news: a major reason was conversion of power plants to natural gas, but the fracking that lowers gas prices and drives the conversion is probably causing considerable (but unmeasured) methane leakage, offsetting the gains.

Good news: Obama's use of EPA regulations to close coal-burning power plants will help the US meet its (modest) UNFCCC emission reduction goals for 2025.

Bad news: Led by the attorney general of West Virginia, numerous states have brought suit to challenge the EPA's jurisdiction. That suit will be heard in the DC federal court of appeals--one of the most conservative in the nation--with the likely outcome to be decided in the highly politicized US Supreme Court. Even the threat of overturning the EPA regs will have a serious dampening effect on the ongoing UNFCCC process.

Good news: Russia, a recalcitrant state with respect to climate issues, has filed its proposal for emission reductions with the UNFCCC, and it's in line with expected standards: a 20-30% reduction over 1990 levels by 2030.

Bad news: much of Russia's 'plan' includes counting its already existing forest reserves as carbon sinks, thus inflating its claims and doing very little to add to decarbonization going forward.

And so on. There are so many fronts to the climate change issue, so many factors and data points and disputed data points and different ways of seeing both the problem and the solutions that it is almost impossible to get a clear fix on where we stand. That's one reason I am so invested in the Paris conference: after the 195 states have submitted their individual plans, and before the conference itself, UN officials plan to evaluate the aggregate effect of all these somewhat asymmetric and inherently confusing plans. That should bring some clarity on public-sector response (assuming governments comply with their own plans, which given the vagaries of politics is far from evident). Independent market factors--such as the financial collapse of 2008, which did more than any government to reduce emissions--represent another crucial, unpredictable variable. And imperfectly understood climate causation is another. In short, we are swimming in data of many sorts, with some clear directionals in mind, but where the tides will take us is anybody's guess.

On Loss and Gain in the Climate Struggle

I have spent many hours over the last few days at the Harvard divestment protest rallies, and the experience has been an intense one, at times almost too much to bear. On the one hand it is inspiriting to stand with a sizable group of people, listening to speakers, all of whom share an understanding of the magnitude of the crisis we face. So often, among other people, even highly educated and informed ones, this simply isn't the case. On the other hand, though, the sense that this awareness is shared by a small and ineffectual minority is hard to ignore while a powerful university and its self-important members carry on their business as usual, hardly slowing down to notice the ragtag assembly that has kept a few administrators from their offices, but has apparently made no difference at all to the University's plans for investing its immense wealth. To engage with this issue is to immerse oneself in loss--of which more later in this post.

But first, a few vignettes from the protest:

On Wednesday the speakers represented faith communities--Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, seminarians and ministers, visionaries. The most singular speaker was a Pacific Islander, one of the Pacific Climate Warriors who last November used their traditional canoes to blockade the coal port of Newcastle, Australia. This woman related how she had at the age of 40 suddenly found the opportunity to become a mother, agreeing to adopt a baby at birth. The delivery was scheduled for several weeks after the blockade but it arrived early, so this woman was watching her baby's birth by skype while Australian police were brutally clearing her and the other Warriors from the waterway. "The baby looked so calm," she recalled, "while I was bawling." Her husband and mother were there to help with the birth and the baby, and when she told them how sorry she was to be absent, they told her, No, you are just where you need to be, where this baby needs you to be at this moment.

Today felt less dramatic as I joined a 'blockade' of sorts in front of Harvard's administrative building, University Hall. The students who have organized these protests are warriors too, and they have been tireless all week, sleeping outside to maintain their blockade, keeping up a chanting, chatting, orating, giddy presence in Harvard Yard. But the administration has simply reiterated its refusal to negotiate divestment and withdrawn, leaving the students little to push against, while the vast majority of their fellow students and teachers carry on with their routines, visibly indifferent to the whole business. The blockade today was spirited in its way--a delegation from Montreal, who are waging the same struggle at McGill University, brought international solidarity to the picket line and enlivened things a bit--but I couldn't help feeling some sadness, not with the Divest Harvard activists but with their isolation from the main currents of University life. Theirs is a prophetic witness, but it's getting late for prophecy.

Which brings me back to loss. My other absorption this week has been with Dale Jamieson's remarkable book Reason in a Dark Time (2014), a book I learned about from Jonathan Franzen's New Yorker piece and mentioned a few posts ago. Jamieson is an academic philosopher, a rigorous thinker who has set out to explore the question of how and why we human beings have failed so completely, despite all the urgent warning signs, to address the climate change crisis. Not are failing but have failed: the change is upon us, and Jamieson knows better than more casual observers how far we are from any meaningful remedies. There is some sadness, then, in this book, but a certain comfort as well, as he explores the long trajectory of scientific discovery--a path necessarily long, given the complexity of climate and its newness as a science, though disastrously elongated by the deliberate efforts to obfuscate and undermine legitimate research. That too is a predictable consequence of the ignorance, greed, and narrow self-interest that are woven into our human tapestry. I haven't finished Jamieson's book--he promises to suggest some mitigating actions, though no 'solutions' as such--but I find that the effort to examine quite closely all the difficulties embedded in our systems of science, economics, politics and ethics, all the ways we have fallen short even when applying our strongest intellectual tools to this problem, makes it seem less of a debacle, an atrocity, and more of a tragic condition, another dimension to our already tragic and tenuous grip on things. As one of the faith leaders-the Buddhist, I believe it was--encouraged us, we need to address this problem, this crisis, not with anger but with love. I'm trying, and Jamieson's lucid explanations make that easier to do.