Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Race to the Finish

By Bill McKibben, Grist.org. Posted March 15, 2007.


How climate activists can put aside "business as usual" to win the race against time.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Bill McKibben, an AlterNet guest columnist, is spearheading the Step It Up 2007 campaign. A scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, McKibben's newest book is the forthcoming Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. His column is reprinted by permission from Grist. For more environmental news and humor sign up for Grist's free email service.

The most overused image for the fight against global warming is the "race against time." Still, it's one of those ideas that grabs you on occasion and won't let go. (And not just because here at Step It Up 2007 we're passing the 30-days-to-April-14 mark and working essentially around the clock to organize our rallies.) It's a metaphor that lingers for a reason.

This week the Bush administration admitted what everyone had known: its official projections show our greenhouse-gas emissions increasing 1 percent per year through 2020. In global-warming terms, that's essentially forever -- well past the point where the barrel goes over Niagara.

Meanwhile, the early drafts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change impact reports began to leak, full of predictions about the imminent onset of ecosystem collapse, the spread of malaria, and shortages of water. We're stuck in the same cycle we've been in for 20 years -- emitting more carbon even as we understand more clearly the danger.

And each day -- well, each day a day passes. We get that much farther along without doing anything of substance at all -- at least on the federal level, where, ultimately, action is most needed. Nothing deflects the trajectory of our path. Tuesday is worse than Monday by a few hundredths of a part per million of CO2, a few ticks up on the thermometer.

That's why we need something sharp. We need April 14 to be a day of real passion, of peaceful but firm commitment to changing that trajectory. And it's why we need our presidential candidates and our congressional representatives to sign on to the target of 80 percent greenhouse-gas emissions reduction by 2050. (Or, better yet, raise the bidding and go for something even better.) That's the kind of target that might shock our economic system into delivering a set of new approaches, new investments, and new technologies. It might shock us into developing a few new habits.

Another shopworn phrase in the global-warming battle is "business as usual." It's usually employed to describe the emissions scenarios in a future where we make no attempt to do anything new or useful. That 1 percent growth a year? That's pretty much business as usual. But environmentalists can fall into business-as-usual mode too. The long round of papers and books and conferences and proposals is, on the one hand, vitally important -- we need the ideas and the networks -- and on the other hand lulling; it can cause us to imagine progress where it isn't happening.

That's why, when moments come along that allow us to step outside the normal flow and make a loud, heartfelt noise, we should do it. That's why more than 850 communities have decided to Step It Up, and why most of the big environmental groups have lent such a huge helping hand. Now we have a month to collectively figure out how to make our shout echo as loudly as possible, and make April 14 one of those moments when business as usual ceases -- one of those moments outside of regular time when the race suddenly looks winnable.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, bill mckibben, step it up 2007

Bill McKibben is the author of "The End of Nature" and "Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
There is...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 15, 2007 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is just no way to have a sustainable society with industrialism. There is no way to have a healthy culture with industrialism and its affects on workers as well as employers.

If all we are talking about is global warming, not any of the other environmental problems we face, then we will never really get anywhere besides just getting past this one crisis while facing many more later on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There is... Posted by: kelt65
» And then insist, of course... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Actually, no... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Sequester Carbon, Enjoy Good Health and Save the Planet -- EAT CLAMS.
Posted by: alaskagrrl on Mar 15, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget about planting trees:

There is no better carbon sequestration plan than mass-farming of shellfish.

WHY AREN'T PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THIS ?

-- Clam or Oyster meat is among the finest and healthiest proteins available and it contains zero fat -- not to mention it handily grows a shell of Calcium Carbonate far in excess of even it’s own body weight.

-- Floating shellfish impoundments provide ecological substrate for other fish species, including reproduction habitat for edible fish stocks. These same impoundments, placed near eutrophication zones would quickly rid the sea of ‘blooms’ that cause dead zones from AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF -- read that as mitigating vegetarian impact !

-- Bivalves do this by eating Plankton, thus living as far down on the food chain you can get. They only arguably even have a brain -- and they live ‘free range’. (Sardines and Sockeye Salmon are also Planktonivores, by the way).

-- If these clams develop Paralytic Shellfish Poison dump them into deep water where their shells still sequester carbon while feeding other food species like Shrimp, Crab, Flounder, etc... all good proteins. Clams that enter the Human Chain are easily monitored.

-- Shells could be used to provide land fill for things like buildings and road beds instead of tearing up good earth just to make gravel. An enterprising person could probably learn to make Concrete out of it as well.

This message brought to you by a meat eating, socially marginalized Alaskan Transsexual woman living in near-wilderness with barely a drop of environmental blood on her hands. Why does it take a ‘freak of society’ like me to see these things ? Because I have been forced outside of your society.

You should step outside of it yourself and see how FOOLISH all the Metrosexuals look -- especially the guilt ridden Urban Dwelling "Save the Planet' Vegetarians.

The fact I have never seen this carbon sequestration solution presented anywhere else tells me even Phd environmentalists would be well served by attending an apprenticeship in NATURE -- and maybe killing and eating few animals while there. The only way to really learn how nature works is to be a part of it.

Go out there and see... and I don't mean for a week either. Your musing will provide answers. We few remaining Wilderness Dwellers have better ideas than most of you are willing to give credit for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More engineers holding answers. Fewer activists holding useless garbage such as protest signs...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 15, 2007 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...delaring just how nigh they believe farcking end is this week. To that end, this article started off on a great note:

The most overused image for the fight against global warming is the "race against time."

To smash through carbon fuel sources in this country, you need cheaper alternatives for energy because:

1) Grandma will not give up her gas-fired furnace in the winter time because you're yelling at her about potentially killing three-eared toads in the Sahara and holes in her whoa zone. In fact, she might "mistake" you for a mean, nasty father-raper if you stray on her lawn. Be advised that granny's often pack heat.

2) Grandma will not vote for a government that proposes to turn off her furnace "for" her in deference to the environmentalism industry's core belief structures.

3) Neither (and this is laregly an aside) will she stop inhaling oxygen and expelling greenhouse gases for the benefit of an ideology (apologies to all you "there are too many grandma's in the world" anti-population advocates who've hitched yer' wagons to the environmentalism industry.)

People who are honestly passionate about the U.S. changing energy sources away from combustibles should look for answers in materials, chemical, and electrical engineering, organic and inorganic chemistry and the biological sciences.

Give granny the ability to buy a water heater that works by a combination of solar energy sources (thermal/electrical coupled) and which doesn't cost her any money to operate, and she'll have her grandson-in-law truck out the gas-fired one in short order. There! You've appeased your ideology, and granny doesn't turn into a wrinklecicle in January.

Go geothermal in relatively cold, dark areas, hydroelectric/tide based if you're near appropriate bodies of water, wind near the mountains and valleys...

Develop algae on a water treadmill that produce heat and electricity by snatching carbon, nitrogen and photons out of the air. You've got to take out the excess once or twice a month, but the good news is that they can be made into a tasty, protein rich substitute for flour.

Err...wait. Actually, folks are already working on all those things. Perhaps they weighed the impact of picking up a sign and yelling religiously at their peers against the impact that could be had from picking up a text book and approaching such problems with their wits and knowledge, instead of wasting time getting more aware.

Meh. I don't wat to rain on anyone's "Awareness" rally. Awareness of the problem is great. In leiu of focusing on "awareness", however, I'd advise people that there is an open invitation from every grandma in the country to quit shouting and start doing something to make your ideology of switching from combustibles relevant, worthwhile, and beneficial to those whose behaviors you'd like to alter.

And it's why we need our presidential candidates and our congressional representatives to sign on to the target of 80 percent greenhouse-gas emissions reduction by 2050.

Or, at the very least, I'd advise you to be a little more sneaky with your plan to have your ideology enforced on others via government state powers. Free people--to include granny's who enjoy being warm indoors--tend to frown upon being told how to conduct the more nuanced aspects of their lives according do debris...ooops, "decree" by government lawyers working for government politicians backed implicitly by government tanks.

Heck, that's why I don't vote republican.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only solutions: science education and renewable energy
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 15, 2007 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what really matters. It's no good being only an environmental activist; think instead of becoming an adovate for scientific literacy and for renewable energy development.

Fact: fossil fuel CO2 has had a measurable effect on the climate and this effect will only strengthen. The results will rises in sea levels, melting of the polar ice caps, more extreme weather events from intense hurricanes to heat waves to flooding to drought - yes, both - flooding in coastal regions, drought in continental interiors, and disruption of both natural ecosystems and human agriculture (for example, polar bears and the destruction of California's orange and grap crops).

Fact: the only solution is to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy - this means using energy efficient technology as well as solar photovoltaics, wind turbines, energy storage technology, advances in sustainable fossil-fuel free agriculture for biofuel production, solar water heating, electric and hybrid transportation technologies, and others. Attacking biofuels (as Bill McKibben has done in the past) doesn't help this effort; what we need are sustainable biofuel production techniques, not poorly though out polemics.

Fact: this will require global cooperation with countries such as Russia, China and India, which means we need politicians who believe that diplomacy and communication are the way to solve problems, not politicians (like Bush) who believe in unilateral aggression.

Cheers to all - and get to work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global warming
Posted by: WhatNow? on Mar 15, 2007 10:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming: A Convenient Lie

I do not know what is the truth. I find it pretty lousy that Gore does not practice what he preaches. If I had his kind of money, I'd be living off the grid using solar and I'd buy an electric car. His massive use of resources for his home and promotion of his movie does more than anything else to make me think alot of this global warming science is a sham. If it's such a dire situation, why can't Al do more to conserve resources?

I am beginning to question all this global warming news. I do think there is a major problem with the way we are wasting resources and causing pollution but global warming may just be another scam for the aristocracy and bourgeois to bleed us proles even more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Global warming Posted by: fungus
» RE: Global warming Posted by: particle
» Thoroughly Misleading Article Posted by: lessbread
global hysteria
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Mar 17, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forgetaboutit!!! Global warming is nothing more than a state of the mind caused by the dis-order of liberalism. A crock of hysterical CRAP designed to scare small children and liberals into believing that the normal fluctuations of warming and cooling have something to do with human activities. Folks like ALGORE have used this canard for self promotion and for making large amounts of money from the gullible while all the while engaging in the very activities that supposedly cause this problem and doing it at a far higher rate of activity than the average person. For myself I'm going to hope and pray that the cost of gas comes down, that this country start drilling for oil in areas now closed off and that we build more and more efficient oil refineries and nuke power plants to wean us off of our dependence on foreign sources of energy. On April 14th I plan to celebrate by driving the old SUV to see my son in Las Vegas. A trip of 2100 miles.....one way. Smell my exhaust whiners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are pathetic. nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
race
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 17, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Race to the finish... yeah that sounds about right for what is proposed here.

We just keep on racing on trying desperately for technology to save us from our current crisis only to cause another crisis at a later date with that technology... which we then try to fix with even more technology believing that if we just get it advanced and widespread enough we can live in a sustainable paradise, even though there has really been no hint of such a thing from technology so far. Eventually, though, we'll run out of time and raw materials... and run out of world to save in the first place.

Race to the finish? Race to the END!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cissie
Posted by: Cissie on Mar 17, 2007 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is sorely needed in the debates over global warming is an understanding of the nature of the economic system that drives overproduction, consumerism and "growth" and the states which seek to keep this destructive system in place. Telling people they are to blame as individuals and that they must curb their own consumption of fuel etc, takes the heat off the profit system and those who defend it. The rich will continue to lead their lives of luxury while the rest of us are supposed to return to the "simple" primitive life, never travel and not use modern technology. Check out a new action guide called "Running a Temperature - an action plan for the eco-crisis" if you agree with any of the above.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Its not consumption of fuel... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
McKibben completely caved in. It's not a pretty sight.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Mar 19, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's industrial-strength-stupid to pretend we can solve any environmental problem while we completely ignore human population growth.

After all, if our population was small enough, none of this crap would be happening, EVEN IF human nature remained somewhat less than perfect.

Bill McKibben once knew better than to ignore overpopulation; but that was 9 years and 750,000,000 more humans ago.

Maybe Bill now shares the right-wing corporate endless-growth-mantra promising more people mean more geniuses to figure out how to reduce the increasing CO2 from more people.

Yes, maybe that's why Bill completely abandoned his once-commendable efforts to reverse human population growth.

Or maybe, just maybe, he caved in to the left-wing PC fantasy that evermore humans have no significant environmental consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Perhaps a Final Solution is in order Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar
CLIMATE CHANGE DOGMA
Posted by: gellero on Mar 19, 2007 8:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Climate-Global Warming dogma is not on a sound scientific basis. Check out this Brit documantary.
GLOBAL WARMING DOGMA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CLIMATE CHANGE DOGMA Posted by: particle
The party line
Posted by: ClarkKent on Mar 20, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McKibben closes with:

"That's why, when moments come along that allow us to step outside the normal flow and make a loud, heartfelt noise, we should do it."

Unfortunately he's lent his name to events like The Interfaith Walk for Climate Rescue in Massachusetts whose organizers refuse to accept endorsements from groups that don't support the Cape Wind corporate privatization of the commons. One can't help but wonder if a similar litmus test exists for his Step Up campaign. After all, McKibben has always supported Cape Wind.

Given the realities it seems there should be room at the table for everyone, not just those who sign-on to the party line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"fusion research, a proven waste of money" Jeffrey Sinclair
Posted by: rwa on Mar 24, 2007 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...On the eve of the Kyoto meetings, the nuclear industry secured another startling windfall, this time a promise of nearly $400 million in research and development subsidies. The key man here was one of Al Gore's Svengalis, John P. Holdren. While a professor at Berkeley, Holdren portrayed himself as a mighty foe of nuclear weapons. His popularity among Berkeley students soared after he gave backing to Carl Sagan's scary scenarios about nuclear winter. Now Holdren is ensconced at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, where he presides as the John and Teresa Heinz professor of environmental policy. Yes, that Teresa Heinz, she of the $2 billion fortune, wife of John Kerry, and head of a $200 million foundation which gives money for "practical solutions to global environmental problems." She is also a long-time board member of the nuke-happy Environmental Defense Fund.

Holdren was tapped by Gore and Clinton's science advisor Jack Gibbons to head a task force on energy and climate policy as part of the Presidential Commission on Science and Technology. Holdren's panel was well stocked with allies of the nuclear lobby, headlined by Bechtel's Lawrence Papay and William Fulkerson, former associate director of the Oak Ridge National Lab and a senior fellow at the Gore-endowed Joint Institute for Energy and Environment at the University of Tennessee. Masquerading as an academic was Charles Vest, a former president of MIT and a driving force behind the American Nuclear Society's Eagle Alliance.

Another prominent spot went to Virginia Weldon, chief flack for Monsanto. Weldon rarely misses an opportunity to praise irradiation as a cure for all of the dangers lurking in the US food supply...

With this roster of advisers, it's not surprising that the Gore-Holdren report largely parroted the line advanced by the Nuclear Energy Institute, calling for increased research and development subsidies for fusion and fission...

Holdren's panel recommended that federal spending for research and development on commercial nuclear reactors be tripled from $40 million to $120 million, a bigger percentage increase than is recommended for either renewables or energy efficiency. The money is essentially a direct subsidy to help nuclear companies and utilities deal with the industries two biggest problems: radioactive waste disposal and aging reactors. "The interest is not so much in building new nukes in the US, but in finding a way to keep the old reactors up and running so that they can be relicensed," says Auke Piersma of the Critical Mass Energy Project. "It's a shame that people like Holdren use global warming as way to justify this handout."

Holdren writes "given the desirability of stabilizing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to establish fission energy as a widely viable and expandable option. World leadership in nuclear energy technologies and the underlying science is also vital to the United States from the perspective of national security, international influence and global stability."

Incredibly, Holdren and his gang also recommended spending $280 million on fusion research, a proven waste of money in terms of energy production. Under even the most optimistic scenarios, fusion reactors will be able to generate electricity for about 50 cents per kilowatt hour, ten times more than the cost of natural gas turbines. But a boost in fusion research can go a long way toward solving a problem that has vexed the nuclear industry and the defense lobby: How to keep testing nuclear weapons technology under the restrictions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty The answer: funnel fusion energy research money to places like the Lawrence Livermore Labs and its mammoth National Ignition Facility...

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03242007.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement