350: The number the whole world needs to know

The problem: 350.

One great solution: 350.org.

350. I should write it 350 times. We should all write it 350 times. Everyone on the earth should get out a pen, write down the number 350, and send it to their head of state. 350 times.

Now let me explain.

For the next two or three years, the nations of the world are supposed to be negotiating a successor treaty to the Kyoto Accord, the current international treaty on reducing the emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. In December 2009, heads of state will converge in Copenhagen to sign a new treaty that would forge a new international agreement on how we, as a planet, can limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to a level that would keep us safe from global warming's worst effects.

What is that level? How much carbon dioxide can our planet safely withstand?

350. As in parts per million (ppm).

The United States' most senior climate scientist James Hansen and eight other senior climate scientists have recently deduced, by studying evidence from previous climate swings in our planet's history, that we must reduce carbon dioxide to 350 ppm or below to avoid rises in sea level, severe changes in weather, droughts, lost of coastal habitat, plagues of tropical diseases, food shortages and on and on.

"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted," Hansen and his colleagues write, "paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

According to Hansen and his colleagues:

A practical global strategy almost surely requires a rising global price on CO2 emissions and phase-out of coal use except for cases where the CO2 is captured and sequestered. The carbon price should eliminate use of unconventional fossil fuels, unless, as is unlikely, the CO2 can be captured.

A reward system for improved agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon could remove the current CO2 overshoot. With simultaneous policies to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases, it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change. Present policies, with continued construction of coal-fired power plants without CO2 capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.

The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.

The challenge is not scientific as much as political. Think about it. No electricity powered by coal. To institute these kind of policies, to achieve this goal on a worldwide level, to get the heads of state to put their names to 350 in Copenhagen in December, 2009 is going to take massive international political will.

The entire people of the world--including the Americans, the Indians, and the Chinese--will have to agree to the potential lifestyle change that working towards 350 may require.

Which brings me to 350.org. According to Bill McKibben, the writer, the climate activist, the hero:

A few of us have just launched a new [international] campaign, 350.org. Its only goal is to spread this number around the world in the next 18 months, via art and music and ruckuses of all kinds, in the hope that it will push those post-Kyoto negotiations in the direction of reality.

After all, those talks are our last chance; you just can't do this one light bulb at a time.

So tell everyone about the problem: 350.

And tell them, too, about 350.org.

Photo from The Day After Tomorrow, courtesy IMDB.com. I know it's not a realistic scenario but you gotta love a dramatic picture once in a while.

Comments

[Sharon]

I'm so glad to see you posting about this, Colin. 350 probably is the most important project any of us can be engaged in. And accustoming people to the idea that our lives really do have to change - and quickly - is something you've done so well here.

Sharon

[gina]

What a scary picture and what a great idea about 350.org. I looked at the site but I didnt see any widgets that I could add to my garden blog that will take my readers to the site. Do you plan to make those available? I think that would be really helpful. I don't have nearly as many readers as you do, but every single one helps, right?

[Andy]

Well, this is where I notice an issue. We can tell everyone about 350.org, its purpose, is significance, but I feel that we need to be beyond the time of spreading the news. Since the 1960's, people have been trying to tell others the environmental problems our world faces, and very little has come out of that in the past several decades. Sure we have recycling to some extent now, but what else has come out of decades of discussing the issues?

I hate to admit it, but the only way it seems to make a change needed at the level needed within the time period needed to avoid irreversible damage, is to make wasting energy and resources so prohibitively expensive that people drastically cut their consumption. Reading a website may be inspiring at times, but it's going to take incredible action to literally convince people to use 25% of the resources they do now.

[Sans auto]

"The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean" That phrase got me thinking of Herculaneum, Missouri. (Go to Wikipedia for details). The people of that city were being contaminated by a huge lead smelter that was having serious health consequences. The problem was that everyone in Herculaneum depended on the lead smelter either for a job or the economy produced by the smelter. The city government recognized the problem with the lead, but it would destroy the city to shut down the plant. The state didn't particularly care because it was a small voting block that didn't make any difference in the elections. The town coincidentally (or strategically) got some important media coverage at the time of a key election that brought huge attention to a small town. In the end they were able to make major changes to the plant while maintaining the small town's economy.

I see this 'battle' with 350 to be similar. It has the potential to have widespread economic consequences. It has the a following of a relatively small voting block (especially from a worldwide perspective), but it is devestating to see world leaders doing nothing as the health of the world is jeopordized. It will take truly herculean movement to bring this to the forefront of attention. It will also take a herculean effort to see a drastic change in the way that we live without devestating the world economy.

[Shoshana]

I agree w/ Sharon and Andy. See the article in the NYT today about Juneau, AK. They achieved great reductions in energy use....because energy costs increased something like 400%. That's what it takes. -Shosh

[Jessica]

Maybe this should be my next tattoo then?

[Diane Gandee Sorbi]

I love the idea of 350.org, and I'll do what I can to support it, but I think Andy is right. There will always be people who prefer to stick their head in the sand and precede with business as usual. And then of course there are the powerful special interests like the coal companies that will fight change every step of the way. Real change will begin when living the way we do now becomes too expensive to continue. The rise in gas prices is a good example. Suddenly public transportation use is way up, and people are trading in their SUVs. I know it sounds harsh, but enduring some economic pain now may just bring about the changes needed to save us and future generations from a world filled with unimaginable suffering.

[arduous]

Wait ... 350's only goal is "to spread this number around the world in the next 18 months, via art and music and ruckuses of all kinds?"

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

I mean look, I believe in the power of art and music, but don't you think it might be time to get the big guns out, Bill? Maybe lobby Congress? Or the President? Or the UN? Oh, no?

Oh. Okay then. Art and music it is.

[Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man]

@Arduous and Andy--
I have bad news for you. The cost of energy isn't going up any time soon. Yes, gas prices may go up but the cost of coal is staying right where it is. And the reserves are here for a long time.

The only way to increase the cost of energy is falsely, through carbon taxes or cap and trade systems. The only way to accomplish that is through extreme political will, because people will feel it in their pocketbooks and it will cause changes in lifestyle.

Now then, John McCain has one climate goal, Barack Obaman and Hilary Clinton have another. Which is right? How do the people stop from getting fooled into an easy but false fix? We need to get a number in people's mind. An easy idea. Something people can demand and ask for. 350, I think, is a good start.

As for the lobbying of congress, Arduous, perhaps you should consider how hard Bill McKibben has been working on this issue for the past 20 years. 20 years. He has done plenty of lobbying.

What he is doing now is trying to get an idea into people's minds that will hopefully and ultimately get them to lobby too.

So go Bill McKibben! Go 350.org! And the rest of you who think there are better actions to take, stop wasting precious time criticizing Bill and 350.org and go take them.

All the best,
Colin aka No Impact Man

[MommaMouse]

I'll admit to being woefully underinformed about green issues but I'm working hard to catch up. There's so much contradictory information out there...

I'd like to get a feel for the personal impact the Kyoto Accord or its successor would have on individuals. What would we need to do to make 350 a reality? Can you point me toward any good sources of info?

Thanks!

[Western Family]

As I write this, my next door neighbor is taking weeks, yes weeks!, to install a koi pond in his side yard. For peace and tranquility, I'm sure. I'm tired of the diesel smell from the backhoe, the smell of smoke from the worker's cigarettes, the foul language from the worker's mouths, the running engines of their big pick-up trucks while they run the AC to eat lunch. And no, there's not a single Mexican over there. The much earlier immigrants to this land seem to have lost their appreciation for what they have. I can guarantee without a single doubt that 350 would mean nothing to the men working just yards from my home.

Please, Colin and Bill, teach me how to reach them.

[Sharon]

May I quibble (gently) with Colin on one point. The price of coal *is* rising steadily, and while unfortunately, we have more than enough coal to cause a complete disaster, there are supply issues. But that's not going to stop most of us from burning far more than can be sustained.

This is a minor quibble, however. McKibben has been working his behind off lobbying on precisely this issue - and prior efforts have had a measurable effect.

Andy, while it is true that "environmentalism" as broad issue has been around along time, a public understanding of necessary energy targets is very, very new - the idea that 350 is the necessary target is a really radical thing, since the world has been talking for more than decade about 450 or 550. So yes, time is needed for that idea to get out.

Sharon

[jeff]

@Colin - You make a good point just above but I think we need to face the reality that fossil fuels are falsely cheap.

Through tax breaks/credits, other subsidies and the economic sleight of hand that hides everything inconvenient in a box called "externalities", the price of these fuels has been kept well below their true cost. To say that the only way to increase the cost of energy is falsely could be interpreted as suggesting that the current situation is correct. (I'm sure that's not what you mean)

If you mean that a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system would introduce further distortion to an already horribly distorted market, I agree.

However, expecting legacy energy companies to pay their fair share, make their own way and together with their customers to clean up after them selves would result in a dramatic increase in energy prices very quickly.

Given the state of politics today (and the US energy bill) it appears that further market distortion has the better chance of getting traction.

[Linda from Deerfield]

I heartily agree with Sharon's sentiment that getting used to what needs to be done is "something you've done so well here".

I agonize over the energy cost subject discussed by Andy. Even though energy in this country is still a relative bargain, the fact is that there are already people who are being seriously hurt. I fear that prices high enough to jolt the inattentive could utterly destroy the lives of many others. Even so, like many of you, I'm feeling kind of desparate for something, anything, meaningful to begin.

In the meantime, I'm working very hard on getting my own house in order.

[Emily]

So is it better to heat with wood or propane? Wood emits less carbon dioxide, but propane emits less particulate matter. Soon, of course, we won't have much of a choice...so then what? Geothermal?

[arduous]

Yes, I'm aware that Bill McKibben has done a lot for the environment, and I don't intend to denigrate his commitment nor do I intend to waste much time picking on 350. Honestly, that was more my gut reaction to the goal of the organization which I had assumed would be more sweeping than just using art and music to get the number 350 out.

I know Bill McKibben has lobbied congress. I know that he has spoken to world leaders, but I don't really see why when the clock is ticking down, the only thing we're being asked to do is mail in postcards about what 350 means to us. Is that really all we can be counted on to do these days?

[Leslie NW]

"May I quibble (gently) with Colin on one point. The price of coal *is* rising steadily..."

I believe Sharon is right on here.

Here is a year old article on coal from Richard Heinberg - http://www.energybulletin.net/29919.html

As oil peaks, and the demand for energy in emerging markets rises, the demand for coal picks up which reduces the supply and causes the price to go up.

On top of that you have a coal supply where most of the lower sulfer, higher quality and easy to get at coal is gone - thus you have to work harder to get energy out of the coal - bringing up the price even further.

All energy prices are going up and they will continue to go up. Which may seem like a good thing. However, I fear that if they go up too far too fast people will have knee jerk reactions and start doing harmful things. Like using coal to replace natural gas and crude oil, because it is cheaper than the cleaner alternatives. Or drilling, where we should not be drilling (ANWR). As the price of energy goes up, our economy sinks, and with an economy in trouble it is hard for folks to focus on, to have money to put into clean alternatives, or infrastructure to allow us a carbon free future. It seems it's a bit of a catch 22.

How do we address this?

[greg]

"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted," Hansen and his colleagues write, "paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

So when the pendulum swings the other way and we begin to enter another ice age, are these same scientists gonna argue that we need to increase CO2 ppm to, let me get this right, "preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted?" This is exactly the arrogant human attitude that got us in this mess. There is no doubt that humans have an impact on the planet. But to assume that we can, or SHOULD, attempt to control it, is a dangerous idea. In all reality, this planet has been much hotter and much colder than it is now. And it will be much hotter and much colder at times in the future.

We need to reduce, reuse and recycle; Minimize our impact as much as possible (because it the right thing to do) and then, hold on and adapt...Not set arbitrary limits that will be meaningless when Mother Nature decides to slap us around...

[Andy]

Colin,
I think the others have hit some points I would have - about artificially low prices and as we shift from oil we will use more coal - but I wanted to add some things.

Of all people, I would expect you to understand the *cost* of coal. The cost is not what it takes to acquire that ton of coal. The cost is what happens when mountain tops are removed unleashing drainage problems, strip mines become hazardous when cave-ins destroy a habit, or when new land is used for exploration, or when companies are actually held accountable for acid mine drainage issues on local water systems, you can see where I am going.

There's also competition. Right now we use a lot of both oil and coal. If we were to run out of oil (or stop using it significantly) than the coal companies could inflate their prices and make record profits in the billions just as oil companies have.

And to make less emissions, we will need a tax or cap/trade system, so whether that is artificial or not, it will affect the price to consumers.

I don't know Bill's history, but what has he accomplished in 20 years of lobbying?

I have been taking action, and it's by significantly reducing my energy usage in all ways, having a good time doing it, and showing others that it's possible and not hard. It doesn't require science or politics, just showing others how to get their hands dirty and getting involved in solutions that can be seen. I know we have different views on this though.
-Andy

[missed_the_memo]

@greg - I agree with you.

[Leslie NW]

The cost of coal, oil, development of land, etc. is way to low because we don't count for destruction. We don't count the cost of habitat destruction when we clear land. We don't count the cost of contaminated water when we strip mine. We don't count the cost of climate change when we burn coal, oil and gas. The list goes on. When fires in San Diego happen, when hurricanes in the gulf occur - this is actually good news for the GDP, because money is in turn spent to rebuild. Honestly - it nuts. I think Colin probably gets this.

The problem is, that our society is so addicted to constant growth, to change it, to start counting the costs is very difficult.

For example, we have the some of the cheapest gasoline in the industrial world. Recently it has gone up in price, but is still relatively cheap. And look at the havoc the price increase has caused. People, especially those on the bottom are hurting. With expensive oil, everything else becomes expensive too. If it isn't made from oil, it is no doubt made by oil, then transported by oil.

Somehow we need to find a way to change the infrastructure in such a way that allows people to lower their impact. We need a program which will help the worker who can't afford to live close to his work, for the retiree who can't afford to feed herself and pay the heat bill, for the trucker who is going out of business. Etc. etc., it is hard enough for us with education and a decent livelihood to figure out how to powerdown, but what about all those that Clinton has been talking to lately on the news - how do we get them involved?

Sorry for the long ramble - I hope my thoughts are somewhat clear. It is just that with the recent run-up in prices, along with the call to end the gas tax, and all the interviews of people having to choose gas or food. I couldn't help but think of the climate change issue - and what a different place those people are coming from, compared to what is discussed here. They have a large voice and their issues will need to be addressed. Somehow they need to embrace or at least understand 350.org and become enable to do something about it.

[Rav Casley Gera]

This recent news - that we need to aim for 350ppm, not 450 or 400 as previously thought - is super-depressing. Stern wrote even 450 off as unachievable.

At the risk of sounding like Bjorn Lomberg, if this is really what's needed to prevent more than 2 degrees of warming, then as well as campaigning we need honest studies and discussion of what kinds of emission reduction we need to stablisise at 350ppm. 60%? 80%? 95%? As long as there isn't an accepted figure for THAT vital metric, we can't convince the Lombergs etc that it's achievable and worth it - or, for that matter, even know for sure ourselves that it's worth it. People will use any shred of uncertainty as an excuse not to act.

So I think 350 actually *isn't* the vital number - what is is 90%, or whatever the global emissions reduction need is. Then that needs to be adjusted for rich countries' current higher-than-average emissions. I suspect the upshot will be that to get in line the US will need something like a 98% reduction in net emissions - some from clean energy, some from energy efficiency, some from reduced activity (waste etc) and some from sinks and mitigation.

[adriana from slovakia]

I understand why the increased level of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is an issue to humans and I respect people who are taking steps in reducing it but I also agree with Greg.
Few erupted volcanoes could raise the level of CO2 just as much or even more than the humans have with their rampant use of fuels. However, the arrogance doesn’t rest so much with people like Hensen. I think it is doing very well in the hearts of people who snigger “…so far for the global warming” every time there is a colder day in spring, it grows in the hearts of people who need houses x times their own size (fill in the number yourself and think about it), and it has consumed those whose greed has left lasting damage on the environment and wildlife.
So yes lets reduce the level of CO2 that we, in our ignorance and arrogance, have added to the atmosphere but above all lets “reduce, reuse and recycle”

One more thing. The arrogant types I described above will do nothing for the good of this planet because Earth is no longer part of their subconscious. This is when REPETITIONS like the one that Colin mentions here can make a difference. Repetitive messages, images… have power to penetrate the subconscious.

[Sara]

From internal discussions within my organizations, I have learned that no matter what action we take now, we are committed to a warming of at least 1.5C and a loss of 30-50% of all species on earth in the next 50-100 years (supposedly, this does not include Homo sapiens).

This is not at all to dissuade actions to turn the ship around. Actually, I think people should be more moved to action than ever, given that knowledge.

[Susan Och]

There is no doubt that humans have an impact on the planet. But to assume that we can, or SHOULD, attempt to control it, is a dangerous idea. In all reality, this planet has been much hotter and much colder than it is now. And it will be much hotter and much colder at times in the future.

I used to think somewhat along the same lines, until I read Tim Flannery's book, The Weather Makers. he notes that the world's climate did, long ago, fluctuate back and forth from hot to icy, but we are now living in an unprecedented period of relatively settled climate. The settling of the climate came at the same time that prehistoric humans started to use fire to clear swaths of forest and plant the first crops. You could say, "Yeah, the climate settled down, so humans had time to learn new things." Flannery turns it upside down and suggests that humans' use of fire and clearing of forests released enough CO2 into the atmosphere to trigger this long period of hospitable climate, and that humans are "The Weather Makers".

The system worked pretty well until we figured out how to burn fossil fuels; doing so ups the amount of CO2 we emit and throws off the whole system. He even suggests that we might need to save some coal for a century or so hence, when we have sufficiently curtailed our greenhouse gas emissions and need to counteract a cooling of the planet.

It sounds a little mystical, but he backs it all up with science from multiple disciplines. In the end, I think it's more fanciful to imagine that all species except humans have roles to play in the web of ecology, that the only role we have is pretending that we're not here. It's tempting to stick with the old "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" mantra -- after all it's easier to just do with less than it is to constantly learn new science.

But when the science tells us something new about the human race, or something old, since many creation stories have humans creating and caring for the world, how can we resist?