Can We Buy Time?
Much of the discussion on the “low-hanging fruit” post revolved around a hypothetical question: would tackling secondary climate forcings (such as soot and methane) pave the way for stronger climate policies down the road, or further defray action on carbon dioxide, which happens to be the more pressing long-term threat?
At this juncture, political and economic realities would seem to argue in favor of Andy’s incrementalism approach, which he laid out here and here in that thread.
Indeed, his argument is similar to the one made in the recent NYT op-ed:
Reducing soot and the other short-lived pollutants would not stop global warming, but it would buy time, perhaps a few decades, for the world to put in place more costly efforts to regulate carbon dioxide.
But when I read that passage, I also wondered about this notion of buying time, whether it was true or not. So right after I published my post, I sent my query to the new Climate Science Rapid Response Team.
Two days later, John Abraham, a co-custodian of the organization, responded with a nice note, saying they had obtained a response to my question from Dorothy Koch, a research scientist at Columbia University and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Koch’s areas of expertise (from her NASA page) include “global modeling of aerosol chemistry” and “aerosol impacts on climate.” Here is how she answered my question:
I did not read the op-ed, but the statement “Reducing soot and the other short-lived pollutants would not stop global warming, but it would buy time, perhaps a few decades, for the world to put in place more costly efforts to regulate carbon dioxide.”
is extremely vague. How much reduction? Of what precisely? Buy time for what?
Yes, if we were able to reduce soot and methane and ozone this would reduce warming. Any one of these alone would make a small dent, and when you start to look at practical reductions in emissions for any one of these, it gets tricky. Warming “Soot” is co-emitted with shiny cooling aerosols, so one needs to be careful to target sources with lots of dark carbonaceous material but without the shiny aerosols (diesel is a good target). Finding methane sources that are easy to reduce is also not so easy. So the point is, once we find the low-hanging particular sources of the particular warming short-lived species, the benefit is small. But worth pursuing, particularly due to the co-benefits of pollution reduction for both soot and ozone.
Now, just to be clear: if I were writing an article for a publication (as opposed to a blog post), I would follow up with Dr. Koch and ask additional questions. I’m assuming that the Climate Science Rapid Response Team knows this, as I expect would the experts they match up with journalists. However, that is not necessary for the purposes of this post. (I do appreciate the service this organization provides and also the efforts of Dr. Koch and others who make themselves available for public outreach.) But in a quick search of recent work by Veerabhadran Ramanthan, one of the op-ed authors, I did notice this May 2010 PNAS paper, which outlines a “three avenue” approach:
(i) reduce the rate of thickening of the blanket by stabilizing CO2 concentration below 441 ppm during this century (a massive decarbonization of the energy sector is necessary to accomplish this Herculean task), (ii) ensure that air pollution laws that reduce the masking effect of cooling aerosols be made radiant energy-neutral by reductions in black carbon and ozone, and (iii) thin the blanket by reducing emissions of short-lived GHGs.
I’m guessing that political developments since last May probably led Dr. Ramanthan to conclude, as he argues in the NYT op-ed, that
more modest steps, with quick and measurable effects, are a better way to proceed.
And that would be focusing attention on those short-lived GHGs.
The one convincing argument for “other things first” is the unlikelihood of a CO2 suppression regime in the near term. Is there any support in the science for the idea that OTF is the better mitigation strategy, regardless?
Good reply by Dr. Koch. Funny that nobody else bothered to note that ‘warming “Soot” is co-emitted with shiny cooling aerosols’. The bottom line is also correct: “once we find the low-hanging particular sources of the particular warming short-lived species, the benefit is small. But worth pursuing”.
That’s exactly right.
Paul,
You write “Is there any support in the science for the idea that OTF is the better mitigation strategy, regardless.”
That was my rationale for the question that was presented to Dr. Koch. As for whether it would be a better strategy to go this route, regardless, I think Andy (and yourself) make compelling arguments in favor. In particular, I see Andy’s rejoinders (here and here) on the previous thread as making the most sense.
“What is the better mitigation strategy” depends on what you mean by “better”, and perhaps more importantly, over which timeframe.
If the goal is to limit the amount of warming, then in the short term (decades) OTF (other things first) quite likely offers more bang for our buck (i.e. we could make a bigger dent in warming than with solely attacking CO2 with the same amount fo resources available). Note that others, incl Koch, have noted that OTF is not quite as some here (me included) have assumed, so whether it is indeed more efficient to do so remains to be seen. Cynically one could observe that it can hardly be more difficult though.
For the long term (multiple decades – century/ies) CO2 reductions are the most imporant, and could be considered as a “conditio sine qua non” for having a chance at substantially limiting temperature increase over that timeframe.
Bart,
Take off your scientist hat for a minute and consider Andy’s main points from the other thread:
Let’s start with this: “Betting that luck and circumstance will bring about the political conditions for carbon reductions does not sound like a wise strategy to me. You could wait around for decades.”
Then, move to this: “What is realism in this case? CO2 reduction is the goal ““ on that everyone agrees, correct? Strategy is how one goes about achieving that goal. The proposed strategy here is that, given the failure of co2 reduction policy, efforts should be put into secondary areas in order to grow the necessary political support to make the main effort ““ co2 reduction ““ a viable political option and eventual reality.”
Are you ready to roll the dice on Andy’s incrementalism approach or would you prefer to stay the course?
No doubt, soot is public health hazard. But so is white sugar and coca-cola, McDonalds and Burger King, etc. There are many things that are much more urgent and more important than GW in the short term (nobody really knows about long term despite the claims to the contrary). I really don’t see the point of mixing them together in the same blogpost. Even if we manage to target just the right type of emissions as Dr. Koch suggests the warming reduction will be, at best, a small corollary to public health improvement.
The Copenhagen Accord calls for avoiding 2C warming. This means steep emission cuts and inevitably it means steep cuts specifically in CO2.
One can argue that 2C is already a lost cause, but let’s assume we want to stray as little above that as possible. The science literature (cf. Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009, Meinhausen et al 2009, Allen et al 2009, many others) shows that the emission pathways to have any hope of doing so requires that CO2 emissions peak very, very soon – ~ 2015, 2020 at the latest. The cumulative nature of CO2 in the atmosphere (and oceans) means that all emissions made prior to that peak imply steeper and steeper decline rates afterwards.
Figure 22 in the Copenhagen Diagnosis gives an example of this, based on a specific set of assumptions. It shows that if we start reductions in CO2 now, we have to decline by 3.7% per annum, whereas if we continue to rise until 2015, it is 5.3% p.a., and if we wait to 2020 then the required decarbonization rate is closer to 9% p.a., which would be almost impossible.
Any “time” we are buying is only intensifying the inevitable task.
Sternman and Sweeney are correct: “Public attitudes about climate change reveal a contradiction. Surveys show most Americans believe climate change poses serious risks but also that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations can be deferred until there is greater evidence that climate change is harmful. US policymakers likewise argue it is prudent to wait and see… We report experiments with highly educated adults ““ graduate students at MIT ““ showing widespread misunderstanding of the fundamental stock and flow relationships, including mass balance principles, that lead to long response delays… GHG concentrations will therefore continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal. In contrast, most subjects believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from it. These beliefs ““ analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow ““ support wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter. Low public support for mitigation policies may arise from misconceptions of climate dynamics…
.
.
We find significant misperceptions of basic climate dynamics in a population of graduate students at an elite university… Worse, a large majority violate fundamental physical constraints including conservation of mass… These beliefs favor wait-and-see policies, but violate basic laws of physics.”
We really need to start thinking in terms of a fixed budget of remaining carbon emissions – forever, and irrespective of timing. This will help clarify that there really is not much “time” to buy… only quantities…
@KK (5)
As was pointed out in the previous thread not nearly everyone agrees that CO2 reduction is the goal.
Maybe it’s a goal but not the goal unless you are Hansen or Tobis.
Sashka (8), that would consist mainly of you and the outliers.
Your saying so doesn’t make it so.
Keith,
Re the first quote from Andy: I’m not advocating waiting for luck or circumstances to change, so I agree.
Re the second quote: I’m all in favour to think more strategically about these things, the lack of which is one of my criticisms towards the climate concerned in general. I agree with a strong push for reductions in secondary forcings (as I’ve said multiple times). I’m not as convinced as Andy apparently is that this will increase “the necessary political support to make the main effort ““ co2 reduction ““ a viable political option and eventual reality.” I don’t see how the former (reduction of secondary forcings) will necessarily make the latter (CO2 reductions) easier.
I also agree that we’ll more likely get there by taking small steps at a time than by taking one huge leap at some imaginary time in the future, i.e. an incremental approach.
However (you knew it was coming, didn’t you”¦?), as RNS also notes, the longer we wait with CO2 emission reductions, the more we’ll have to reduce them later on to achieve the same target. In the grand scheme of things, the long term climate effects that we’re at risk of committing ourselves to, are of most concern to me. Therefore I’ll keep banging on the importance of not losing sight of the importance of reducing CO2, and to start as early as possible.
In terms of effectiveness, the relative emissions of absorbing aerosol, reflective aerosol and GHG per source are very important. On long timescales, only the latter really matters, but on shorter timescales, even reducing CO2 sources could initially lead to an increase in the warming before leading to a decrease, if the same source emits a lot of reflective aerosol such as sulfate, nitrate or organics. Emissions from the transport and domestic sectors have a larger black carbon to sulfate ratio than those in the power and industrial sectors (Shindell et al., 2008). Incomplete burning of biomass or fossil fuel has a larger BC to OC ratio and thus warms rather than cools.
That’s why I concluded in a review of aerosols and climate:
“Many combustion processes result in the simultaneous emission of (warming) greenhouse gases and (cooling and warming) aerosols. Due to the different lifetimes of these compounds, the result can be short term cooling (e.g. biomass burning) or no short term impact (coal fired power plant), but long term warming (all sources). In devising policies to curb health effects, simultaneous climate impacts should be considered, and vice versa. It is becoming more and more clear that regional air quality and global climate issues are intricately linked with one another.”
Raes and Seinfeld (AE 2009) is a good, quick and easy read on the interplay between aerosol cooling and GHG warming.
Bart, are you familiar with Caldeira’s work popularized in Superfreakonomics?
BTW, that’s another “outlier” for you, Keith.
@Sashka
As was pointed out in the previous thread not nearly everyone agrees that CO2 reduction is the goal.
Maybe it’s a goal but not the goal unless you are Hansen or Tobis.
…
Caldeira’s work popularized in Superfreakonomics?
BTW, that’s another “outlier” for you, Keith.
Ken Caldeira’s views on reducing CO2:
“I compare CO2 emissions to mugging little old ladies. . . . It is wrong to mug little old ladies and wrong to emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The right target for both mugging little old ladies and carbon dioxide emissions is zero.”
“Geoengineering is not an alternative to carbon emissions reductions… If emissions keep going up and up, and you use geoengineering as a way to deal with it, it’s pretty clear the endgame of that process is pretty ugly.”
“If we keep emitting greenhouse gases with the intent of offsetting the global warming with ever increasing loadings of particles in the stratosphere, we will be heading to a planet with extremely high greenhouse gases and a thick stratospheric haze that we would need to main more-or-less indefinitely. This seems to be a dystopic world out of a science fiction story. First, we can assume the oceans have been heavily acidified with shellfish and corals largely a thing of the past. We can assume that ecosystems will be greatly affected by the high CO2 / low sunlight conditions “” similar to what Earth experienced hundreds of millions years ago. The sunlight would likely be very diffuse “” maybe good for portrait photography, but with unknown consequences for ecosystems.”
Tell us more about how Ken Caldeira doesn’t think we need to be focused on cutting carbon, Sashka.
I want to make a couple of clarifications. IMO, the primary reasons to work on the secondary problems are political, not scientific. I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on the science (I work in national security – climate change policy is a kind of hobby for me), but I basically trust those who say that addressing secondary GHG’s and/or other issues beyond co2 reduction will have a limited or insufficient effect on CC (though they may provide meaningful benefits not related to CC). So, I don’t know if success in those areas will “buy time” in a climate warming sense or not. Rather, my arguments are based, simplistically, on one political reality: CO2 reduction policy is dead for at least a few years. In other words, the climate concerned community has some time on its hands which can be spent in one of three ways: Keep pounding on co2 and hope for a miracle, hit the bottle (ie. do nothing), or begin to build political capital for a future shot at co2 reduction policy. I would hope most people would prefer the third option but it seems there are people who still want to try the first, which I think is counterproductive. There are probably several possible strategies that might work for the third option – my comments in the previous thread on Paul Kelly’s ideas are but one approach. That’s a debate we should have, but it seems to me that in order to have that debate the community needs to get past the bitterness and infighting over previous policy failures and come to grips with the current political realities.
Secondly, there is an important difference between communication and policy. What I’m talking about here are efforts on policy, which I think need to take a detour away from co2 reduction for a period of time. That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t stop talking about co2 reduction as an issue and its central position as a GHG – indeed, good communication efforts on that front will be required to rebuild political capital for actual policy. Communication should continue, but legislative and policy efforts should be focused in other, more productive areas, until co2 reduction becomes politically viable again.
Bart,
I’m not as convinced as Andy apparently is that this will increase “the necessary political support to make the main effort ““ co2 reduction ““ a viable political option and eventual reality.”
I’m not all that convinced either, actually, and I do concede the criticisms against this approach may turn out to be true (and see my general view near the bottom of this comment from the previous thread), but I keep coming back to the question: What’s the alternative? This approach may be bad, but is it better than alternatives? So far I think it is but am perfectly willing to abandon it should something better come along.
However (you knew it was coming, didn’t you”¦?), as RNS also notes, the longer we wait with CO2 emission reductions, the more we’ll have to reduce them later on to achieve the same target. In the grand scheme of things, the long term climate effects that we’re at risk of committing ourselves to, are of most concern to me.
That is the dilemma! We are, in a way, trapped between the immovable object of political reality and the unstoppable force of nature’s timetable. I guess if I had one overarching point in all this it’s this question: What strategy is likely to bring about co2 reductions the soonest? My basic premise is that continuing to spend political capital pushing for co2 reductions now is only going to result in more failure and an even longer delay than what we’re already facing. If my premise is correct, then it makes sense to alter the strategy (not the goal) and take a more indirect approach.
Sashka,
As I said in the previous thread, my comments are mainly about political strategy. I understand there is disagreement and a wide variety of views about what effect GHG emissions will have. For those of us who believe GHG’s are problem that need to be addressed (even if we differ on how bad the effects will be), then we need a strategy to bring about solutions to the problem as we see it.
Ah, TB was quicker than I was. Yes, I’m familiar with some of Caldeira’s work and some of his words, but less so how they were (ab)used in superfreakonomics.
From a comment exchange I had with Caldeira a while back:
Me:
“Caldeira remains a fairly vocal proponent of aggressive geo-engineering research despite his express knowledge that it doesn’t address “the other CO2 problem”; one that his Revelle lecture makes clear he takes quite seriously. Is this a testament to how much worse he thinks warming alone will be, reflective of a concern about tipping points/thresholds, etc., or something else? That’s something I’d love to see addressed the next time someone writes an article on geo-engineering and/or interviews Caldeira.”
Ken Caldeira:
“Unless we cut greenhouse gas emissions very deeply and very soon, I think that Arctic ecosystems and coral reefs will be a thing of the past. These ecosystems may be just the tip of the melting iceberg.
We need to eliminate CO2 emissions “” about this there is no question in my mind. There is also no question but that CO2 emissions are increasing more rapidly than was anticipated in any of the IPCC emissions scenarios.
I do not see intentional climate intervention approaches as an alternative to CO2 emissions reductions, but it may be something we need to do to, for example, prevent great ice sheets from sliding into the ocean. These approaches may be able to partially save Arctic ecosystems but will do nothing to save coral reefs.
When a patient is brought into the intensive care unit, doctors try to stabilize blood chemistry to avoid additional organ failure while trying to resolve the fundamental causes of those blood chemistry imbalances. We may at some point find that we need to bring our planet into the intensive care unit.
Obviously, we need to work, by eliminating CO2 emissions, to keep out planet out of the ICU, but things have progressed far enough to make me question whether we will be sufficiently successful in this endeavor.”
It’s both amusing and deeply saddening that people like Sashka think that James Hansen and Michael Tobis are “alarmists” and cite people like Ken Caldeira as supportive of their views. Ken makes people like me or Bart look like Bjorn Lomborg, for crying out loud.
Before we get too sidetracked on Caldeira, I’m going to ask the more frequent commenters from the previous thread (and anyone else, of course) to engage specifically with Andy’s argument( 14).
As a football fan, to me it’s akin to whether or not a team is capable of making halftime adjustments.
I agree with RNS and Bart’s points. I note that Mark Jacobson at Stanford has also been arguing for reductions in black carbon emissions for some time now (congressional testimony in 2000 and a new paper in J. of Geophysics earlier this year http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/07/soot-control/
In my view, given what appears to be outright craziness in the political climate in the U.S., we desperately need to buy time to address the CO2 issue – although it now seems well within the realm of possibility that rational reality-based climate policy making (viz. Reagan admin on acid rain and G.H.W. Bush admin on ozone) will not be returning in time to avert a very dire situation. In particular, I second RNS’s concern regarding the threat posed by cumulative GHG emissions, see e.g., Myles Allen’s work regarding the “trillion tonne threshold” summarized at http://trillionthtonne.org/questions.html
@ TB
Neither Caldeira nor I say that reducing CO2 is not a goal. (See my 8 above). Neither of us says that reducing CO2 is the problem that we must attack first and foremost without any account for cost and collateral damage. We differ in the target amount. I don’t see zero emissions as anything more than a rhetorical figure of speech but this is minor.
Caldeira has shown that GW can be controlled by geoengineering at moderate cost for pretty long time. This should address the urge to attempt something drastic regarding CO2 emissions right away. (Obviously it doesn’t.)
If you extend his geoengineering approach ad absurdum then you’ll end up with something ugly. However if you eliminate all CO2 emissions in 50 years you will end up with something much uglier and much faster. Let me tell you why: there is no replacement energy source available to substitute fossil fuels in such a short order.
Given posts crossing before appearing from moderation, I just wanted to add that also pretty much agree with Andy’s post at 14. If some strategy effective for actually implementing CO2 reduction comes along that can actually get enacted, I’m all for it – but given the political gridlock in the U.S., buying time by reducing other forcing agents may be the best we can do for the moment. (BTW Caldeira has most definitely not “shown that GW can be controlled by geoengineering at moderate cost for pretty long time” — at this point nobody has a handle on the nature and extent of the costs of the likely “collateral damage” of global scale artificial aerosol cooling, and it does nothing for ocean pH change.)
@Andy:
We are, in a way, trapped between the immovable object of political reality and the unstoppable force of nature’s timetable.
The former can be negotiated with, bullied, bought off. The latter not so much.
We’re seeing mass Amazonian drought and mass coral bleaching, the worst since 1998. We’ll probably hit the hottest year in GISTEMP and (depending on the revisions due to SST bias) possibly HadCRUT as well. Pakistan drowned, Moscow burned and choked.
The American public is fickle, and it admittedly does not want to be overly burdened economically. However, it also has a disturbing tendency to overly learn its last lesson. Ten years from now is several lifetimes in terms of political “realities”.
Ten years ago, I’m sure that someone like Roger Pielke Jr. could have written an “iron law” about the unwillingness of people to voluntarily give up individual liberties and spend gobs of money an ever-expanding police state. Yet here we are. Ten years ago, people wrote health care reform off. Yet here we are. I certainly don’t want a Pearl Harbor, 9/11 weather event. I certainly won’t bet on one, even as the dice continue to load. I will just reiterate that “indefinitely” can be a ridiculously short time in terms of legislation, even legislation that comes with a hefty price tag.
I Keith hears “without CO2, it’s rather pointless” and thinks that we’re saying “all or nothing”. We’re not. We’re saying, “try everything that works” and as the timescales expand, what “works” diminishes quickly.
My other point is that I think that the people who believe that we can get bipartisan support for increased smog, Montreal gases, black carbon regulations and/or clean energy funding have radically underestimated the current Republican party (and “moderate” Democrats). You don’t have to take my word on these people, only take them at theirs.
I’m a bit in uncharted waters here, so any corrections are welcome. I asked Bart, N-G and stoat about the role of feedbacks. All gave essentially the same answer. I’ll quote N-G.
“a sensitivity of 3C means that the feedbacks account for 2C of the warming. Other forcings would be separate, and many of the same feedbacks would come into play for them.”
On the face of it, it appears the greatest bang for the buck would come from a focus on feedbacks. However, uncertainty of the warming value of of feedbacks, both individually and in the aggregate, makes it hard to determine if what appears to be so actually is.
So, it might be a good idea to make a list of all the possible feedbacks with at least a best guess estimate of their effects.
To me, the higher one believes sensitivity to be, the more he or she should favor OTF. Again from N-G: “If the actual sensitivity is greater than 3C, the feedbacks are by definition more important, because they’re accounting for more than 2C of the warming. “
TB (21), you sound trapped in this rut, yourself. You keep pointing to the likely political obstacles to the incrementalist approach as a reason not to go there, and you keep conflating my interpretation of the two approaches.
You obviously don’t want to acknowledge that Andy is talking about a strategy that dictates putting aside (temporarily) the emphasis on C02. It’s not about “trying everything” at the same time. You can’t do that in a political space. That’s why Obama didn’t pursue cap and trade with the same gusto as he did health care reform.
Stop moving the goal posts and engage with the thrust of what Andy is saying. It dictates a completely different mindset. Can you acknowledge at least that much?
Additionally, with your stroll down memory lane (post 9/11 events), it sounds like you’re banking that your luck might change, that the political circumstances might change virtually overnight given the right external events. Well, as Andy said in the previous thread, you could wait a long time for that to happen.
To me, it sounds like you’re on a team that’s way behind in the score at halftime and you’re advising that no tactical adjustments be made to get back in the game.
@ Andy
I don’t think you can develop a coherent strategy to unite those who support CO2 reduction in principle (count me in) until and unless the strategy is soundly linked to environmental and economical realities associated with (non)reduction. You can’t formulate a long term strategy based on existing uncertainties. You’ll need one approach for 4 degrees warming and completely different one for 2 degrees. Uncertainty is a part of reality. Constraints on mitigation is another part of reality. Our ability to adapt is yet another one. None of these is likely to change any time soon so I don’t believe in significant accumulation of political capital. Unless we have a some sort of climate catastrophe as some people hope.
What I believe needs to be done is adopting tax-and-dividend scheme which is supported even by Hansen. Based on my limited experience, this is a relatively easy sell for all but most deranged sort of folks. Once the mechanism is in place it can be gradually cranked up to encourage efficient technologies and kill inefficient.
@ TB (16)
I am using Caldeira’s work, not appealing to his views. If these are in contradiction then I am more interested in his science than convictions.
@ Paul (22)
Focusing on feedbacks is a (worthy) academic endeavor but it has nothing to do with policy. Feedbacks mean physics, moreover poorly understood physics. Scientists are working on it for decades but the uncertainty is right where it was 20 years ago.
Andy is correct. Government imposed CO2 regimes are, for now, a closed door. Continuing to pound on that door as a main focus is a real impediment to effective action. Where we we may differ is that I believe the political arena is the wrong place to look for solutions. Mitigation is best accomplished more as a social movement towards energy transformation. Not saying government has no role, just that it shouldn’t have the lead role.
@Keith:
You keep pointing to the likely political obstacles to the incrementalist approach as a reason not to go there
Absolutely, positively, 100% dead wrong:
“I don’t see such opposition as meaning that we should give up on these [other] reductions, but I am also not one of the ones claiming that we should stop fighting for carbon reductions.”
Keith, this is just like when you tried to frame Michael Tobis as being opposed to adaptation. Please stop.
“Should we pursue mitigation or adaptation, CO2 or low-hanging fruit, clean energy funding or carbon pricing, new comprehensive legislation or creative use of existing laws?”
Yes.
I’m simply saying, that while I agree that we should focus on doing everything we can, wherever possible, the people who are saying that these other reductions will be easy or have bipartisan support in this political environment are basically hoping that the Republicans are lying about promising to fight them on it. And maybe they are! I rather doubt it.
And I’m not sure why they think they can play make-believe about what the Republicans are saying about ozone regulations, energy efficiency, etc. and cast themselves as “the realists”. It’s absurd.
To me, it sounds like you’re on a team that’s way behind in the score at halftime and you’re advising that no tactical adjustments be made to get back in the game.
Of course it sounds that way to you, Keith. That’s how you’ve conditioned yourself to think.
Stop moving the goal posts and engage with the thrust of what Andy is saying. It dictates a completely different mindset. Can you acknowledge at least that much?
I suppose it “dictates a completely different mindset” to someone who thinks that the only possibly successes is achieved more or less instantly through a single sweeping treaty on CO2 and CO2 alone, but I don’t think any such people actually exist. Do you?
I am certainly in favor of increased focus on non-CO2 radiative forcings. I’ve said it so much in the last few days I feel like I’m going to throw up. Why can’t you take “yes” for an answer?
It sounds to me like you want people like Bart or myself to sign off on the idea that it’s a “good” plan- but from what perspective? From a scientific standpoint? Not in terms of ultimate success, but every bit helps. From a “spin” standpoint? Literally no one can know that. From a political standpoint? It might turn out that way, but as of now the only possible way to believe that is to believe that the Republicans are lying about not fighting virtually all incoming and a great deal of existing relevant legislation.
TB,
My other point is that I think that the people who believe that we can get bipartisan support for increased smog, Montreal gases, black carbon regulations and/or clean energy funding have radically underestimated the current Republican party (and “moderate” Democrats). You don’t have to take my word on these people, only take them at theirs.
Two points on that. First, you don’t know what can be achieved until you try. If you are going to concede the field based on your perception of the opposition, then I guess there is no point in trying anything because the opposition, in your mind, has already won. Sun Tzu said something about that I think. While GoP obstinance is certainly frustrating on many issues, I don’t think it should deter anyone from attempting to find a workable compromise or from continuing to advocate.
Secondly, for a variety of reasons, I’m not at all positive about prospects for passing any legislation for the next two years. However, as should be obvious, I’m looking at this from a long-term strategic perspective. Invariably there will be periods when progress grinds to a halt or even retreats. We are probably in such a period now. However, we should still encourage allies in the Congress to see what compromises can be made and what it will cost to make them. Compromise may indeed be impossible at the current time, but there’s only one way to find out for certain!
Added: Just saw Keith’s response which I agree with.
Sashka,
In national security, where I work, we do strategic planning under conditions of great uncertainty all the time. One tries to hedge against uncertainty as much as practicable, and plans can and do go wrong, but the alternative of no planning – just muddling through, isn’t very attractive. Obviously, plans need to change when circumstances and uncertainties change. That’s what I’m suggesting needs to happen now – it’s time to adjust the strategic plan.
Paul (#26),
That’s a great point on social movements. I think that is a necessary element in gathering political support for policy.
You obviously don’t want to acknowledge that Andy is talking about a strategy that dictates putting aside (temporarily) the emphasis on C02.
What part of Keith hears “without CO2, it’s rather pointless” and thinks that we’re saying “all or nothing”. We’re not. do you find hard to understand?
@Andy:
First, you don’t know what can be achieved until you try. If you are going to concede the field based on your perception of the opposition, then I guess there is no point in trying anything because the opposition, in your mind, has already won. Sun Tzu said something about that I think. While GoP obstinance is certainly frustrating on many issues, I don’t think it should deter anyone from attempting to find a workable compromise or from continuing to advocate.
You’re making the argument for continuing to pursue CO2 reductions as well as the non-CO2 forcings quite well!
That’s my entire point- all of these “alternative” approaches tend to start from the fictitious place that they don’t or won’t suffer from the same virulent political opposition that a comprehensive GHG plan would. Once it’s pointed out that, contrary to initial claims, there will indeed be rampant opposition they go on to make the same argument that I do in favor of continuing to push all of the above.
At least we’re finally getting some people to acknowledge that opposition-less strategies just don’t exist. Progress! Maybe someday Keith will, too.
Paul K,
It sounds like you’re confusing feedbacks with secondary forcings. Feedbacks refer to how the climate system responds to a given forcing (change in planetary energy balance) to either strengthen or weaken the initial reponse (positive and negative feedback, resp.) They occur more or less independently on what caused the initial forcing.
Secondary forcings are those forcings that are of secondary importance (after CO2). Their initial forcing is likewise strengthened or weakened by feedbacks.
Sashka wrote: “You can’t formulate a long term strategy based on existing uncertainties.” Andy has dealt with that. I would add that this discussion is not about long term planning, but about what to do today, tomorrow, and over the next 5 years.
Carbon soot reduction is mentioned because it has broad support even among deniers, and is not only identified as a significant feedback in itself, but also as a trigger for other feedbacks such as ice loss. A paper last year said carbon soot feedback could account for up to 40% of 20th century. Since about half of all soot emissions could be permanently eliminated by replacing dung fueled cooking stoves in Asia and Africa, doing so would have a significant effect on future warming.
@ Andy (28)
In national security, where I work, we do strategic planning under conditions of great uncertainty all the time.
Nothing personal, but is there a good performance record to support the contention that such strategic planning is not worthless? It would be especially illuminated to hear about strategic planning in light of Wikileaks.
I’ll repeat though that I don’t propose doing nothing. See my post above.
TB (27), ah I can see this will be fruitless again. You keep trotting this out:
“I’m simply saying, that while I agree that we should focus on doing everything we can, wherever possible, the people who are saying that these other reductions will be easy or have bipartisan support in this political environment are basically hoping that the Republicans are lying about promising to fight them on it.”
That’s not what Andy is saying or myself, or Paul Kelly.
You seem incapable of recognizing/acknowledging what is being said: It’s not about either/or, it’s not about working simultaneously on carbon reductions and the low-hanging fruit, it’s about consciously shifting course in strategy. That’s what’s being discussed.
Great to hear you’re all for focusing more on secondary forcings, but that’s not the argument being made. It’s putting aside (temporarily) the single-minded focus on carbon reductions and turning instead to something that may get more buy-in from disparate parties—which may then lead to stronger climate policies down the road.
PDA (29), where do you hear from Andy, Paul or myself that “without CO2, it’s rather pointless”?
What is pointless is going round and round in circles. How many more years are you prepared to stay with a failed strategy is something I’ve asked on this blog before.
i’m disappointed with this conversation. i’ve been trying jokingly to bring in a more holistic view of the american political situation and it’s been completely ignored, including by the host who regularly scolds people for ‘rutting.’
here’s the essential problem: a debate-shaping portion of decisionmakers in the united states appear to have decided, in this moment of economic weakness, to use china & other lowball exporters to drastically drive down working people’s wages in this country.
it’s an opportunity they’ve dreamed of for decades, even as they achieved considerable success, and it dominates their minds, pushing aside the obviously present monsters of climate, oil supply, and medical costs.
to these parties seeking to frighten the bulk of workers into lower expectations, green jobs are bad because they are jobs. federal investment to create new markets & build new industry is bad because it creates jobs.
since it looks very like the timeframe for carbon action is much shorter than 50 years, the 5-10 years these ‘wage hawks’ want for their own purposes is a theft from the future of civilization, but then certain kinds of crime do regularly go unpunished here.
this is missing from andy’s analysis.
four years ago i did a big rethink on this stuff, including the factor of the inevitable credit bubble crash, and determined that the ‘cold war between the states’ would shape climate action into a trickle-down situation, where science-forward cities & states would drag their neighbors into the green future even as the federal kabuki theater went on into the night, as it traditionally does, to the satisfaction of its well-heeled patrons.
based on that ‘cold war’ scenario i determined there was a need for parties to help the carbon-dependent states leapfrog at least to the level of resource efficiency that california & massachusetts have already achieved, to their great economic benefit. but i didn’t know who was going to do that: al gore of course is a popular effigy at southern bonfires, and everybody else is poor or acting on assumptions from the 1990s.
that’s why i was very glad to hear about initiatives like http://architecture2030.org who recently scored a win for the ages w/ getting their building standards into the international codes, which will help protect us and also reduce the TCO of the buildings.
we all want to know how we get to elimination of coal emissions, but the coal industry already knows: create a green job market that will fight for its own survival. that’s the only way to bring forward the needs of future people. otherwise you’re talking about hansen’s “children and animals” helplessly watching their legacy vanish.
andy said,
“In other words, the climate concerned community has some time on its hands which can be spent in one of three ways: Keep pounding on co2 and hope for a miracle, hit the bottle (ie. do nothing), or begin to build political capital for a future shot at co2 reduction policy.”
and this is false. during the bush administration, california passed AB32 because it would create jobs. during the obama administration, a deeply wounded california rejected prop 23 because it would destroy jobs.
but the key here has much less to do with carbon than to defeat the parties conspiring with the chinese to destroy our labor market. they are manufacturing the scarcity feeding the fears of green hitler and so on.
as far as diesel soot, the better way to go after it is to reduce consumption, because this also helps insulate our logistics from the next oil shock.
http://ucsusa.org/shipitgreen
Bart,
I’m trying to separate forcings and feedbacks to increase my understanding of the whole picture. I have a decent grasp of secondary forcings, most importantly that they, like CO2, have known radiative properties.
Feedbacks are another story. Is carbon soot a feedback or a forcing or a little of both? I don’t know much except that it is feedback effect that raises the forcings to possibly dangerous levels. I wonder if it is possible to attack the feedbacks by themselves as a way to limit warming. That’s why I was hoping to get a list.
Okay, I’ve changed my mind completely.
No more talk of CO2.
Let’s pass energy efficiency, use the EPA and existing legislation to fight ozone/smog, ratchet up the Montreal gas regulations we have, and dump as much money as possible into clean energy funding. If everyone promises to never mention climate change or CO2 again, it is your contention that these efforts won’t be opposed in virtual lockstep by GOP and “brown” dog dems, right? And the end result will be an averting of dangerous climatic change because of the success and trust you build sailing through with these non-CO2 plans, right?
Okay, I’m in.
How is “soot” a feedback? Do higher temperatures produce more soot?
@ Paul (36)
Once again: no. You can’t attack climate feedbacks any more than the law of gravity.
Soot is a forcing.
Actually, as I think about, I suppose if temperatures lead to more forest fires, leading to more black carbon, then yeah, I suppose, Paul, that “soot” could be considered a feedback. But I think you are mixed up on what is a forcing and a feedback.
PK,
The major feedbacks are:
Feedbacks = (water vapor (+/-) albedo (+/-) lapse rate (+/-) clouds)
the best empirical observational data suggests:
WV = +0.6, albedo = +0.1, lapse rate = -0.3 clouds = +.15
WV is the most important. Clouds are the most uncertain with the statistical confidence of about 80% that the number is correct.
Soot and other forcings are calculated as separate values and added together for combined forcing which include methane warming, CO2 warming, aerosol cooling, solar anomaly, etc. If you line up each warming forcing against the combined cooling forcings you get an idea how much each warming agent is responsible for observed temperature change.
Keith,
You wrote “(…) which may then lead to stronger climate policies down the road.”
That’s the question. Does it? If so, how?
From Andy’s comment above I interpret his argument to be more along the lines of “achieving anything is better than achieving nothing”, which sounds fair enough as an incremental start. As long as the long term focus is not entirely lost from the public consiousness.
TB (37), none of what you write here is being asserted by myself or anyone else on this thread (my emphasis):
“…it is your contention that these efforts won’t be opposed in virtual lockstep by GOP and “brown” dog dems, right? And the end result will be an averting of dangerous climatic change because of the success and trust you build sailing through with these non-CO2 plans, right?”
Nobody is asserting this, least of all me.
Bart (42),
Let me try and simplify the choice being presented by Andy (as I see it): Stay the current course or take a different path.
He and Paul have already explained how they think a different path might get you where you want to go faster than the current one.
Like I said before, it’s a choice between making tactical adjustments at halftime, or staying with your existing gameplan.
I’m loving the part where we concentrate our efforts on educating the public on the urgent importance of reducing the amount of ozone in the atmosphere.
I’m sure there will be no opposition to that.
dp,
I think I understand your basic point, which looks to me to be that climate policy doesn’t happen in a vacuum, especially when it comes to the economic and political situation. Since I’m simply doing short-form commenting here in my spare time, it’s difficult to incorporate a more holistic approach and do it justice.
Sashka,
Nothing personal, but is there a good performance record to support the contention that such strategic planning is not worthless? It would be especially illuminated to hear about strategic planning in light of Wikileaks.
Planning often falls short, but then the future is unpredictable. It’s also very difficult in a democracy where national-level priorities tend to shift each election cycle. Strategic planning has other benefits, however, such as examining priorities, resources, assumptions, capabilities etc. It’s an introspective exercise (at least it should be), which is valuable regardless. In my opinion it’s far better than muddling through, but YMMV.
Bart,
From Andy’s comment above I interpret his argument to be more along the lines of “achieving anything is better than achieving nothing”, which sounds fair enough as an incremental start. As long as the long term focus is not entirely lost from the public consiousness.
Yes, that is half of it, necessitated by the simple fact that the “long term focus” is long term. The other half is building political support to turn the long-term focus into reality. In my view those two lines of action are complimentary.
@Keith:
He and Paul have already explained how they think a different path might get you where you want to go faster than the current one.
I think it would be a little more apt to say that they think a different path might get you part of the way to where you want to go faster, providing the same roadblocks haven’t been thrown up in front of their proposed route, with no real idea of whether or not their path will ever lead to the place you’re trying to go.
Just doesn’t have the same zing to it, though, huh?
Like I said before, it’s a choice between making tactical adjustments at halftime, or staying with your existing gameplan.
“First rule of hiking is: when you realize you’re lost, stay put. Sure you might blunder back to the trail, but the odds are you’ll only make things worse.”
I think we can all come up with activity-related platitudes to back our respective positions here. I don’t think they end up contributing all that much.
Nobody is asserting this, least of all me.
Do you believe that many if not all of these proposed incremental steps will, as promised, be blocked by the GOP or not? If not, why?
rustneversleeps,
I’m sure there will be no opposition to that.
Not to be snide, but in what universe is opposition absent? Every policy everywhere is opposed by someone. There is always, always going to be opposition. The purpose here is not to eliminate opposition, but build enough support so you can implement policy despite the opposition.
I asked if soot was a feedback or forcing because I didn’t know. Thanks to those who answered my question. The answer to whether feedbacks can be attacked directly appears to be no – short of some kind of geo engineering, which probably no one here, including me, thinks is a good idea.
andy,
“Since I’m simply doing short-form commenting here in my spare time, it’s difficult to incorporate a more holistic approach and do it justice.”
but you are satisfied that opposition to greenhouse gas controls is a larger force in the debate than opposition to developing new industry and new working class job opportunities.
Keith,
No, I haven’t read “how they think a different path might get you where you want to go”
Andy specifically said that he’s not all that convinced at all that OTF makes CO2 reductions (needed to get where we want to go over the long term) down the road easier. His argument boils down to “anything better than nothing – and it’s clear that focussing on CO2 only is a dead end for the short political term”.
Iow, the “how” is exactly what’s missing to make me more enthusiastic than the mere “yes, sure, but let’s not forget about CO2 alltogether”.
@ Andy, I was just bemused at the thought. I don’t even think the original Ramanahan/Victor op-ed even called for “public support” on that point. I think they may have suggested using EPA reg’s on lower-atmospheric ozone as a respiratory hazard, or somesuch.
My point was just that if we had to take to the rather confused public a campaign “to reduce atmospheric ozone!”, I can just imagine the hoots and howls and yelps… and it made me chuckle…
I certainly get your point.
thingsbreak,
You are bringing a lot of criticism, which is fine. Criticism is good. And, as I’ve said a few times now, I’m certainly not suggesting this strategy is close to ideal or even guaranteed to work. I’m suggesting it is better than the alternatives that I’m aware of. I’ve asked a few times now – is there a better alternative? If so, what is it? What is your plan?
thingsbreak,
The OTF items discussed here are but steps on a longer journey. I’ve written about a broader alternative path here and elsewhere. Mostly it’s about concentrating on the goal of energy transformation – the only sure mitigation is through substitution – and not so much on debating the reasons one may have for wanting to reach that goal.
“First rule of hiking is: when you realize you’re lost, stay put. Sure you might blunder back to the trail, but the odds are you’ll only make things worse.”
Hey Buddy, this ain’t no walk in the park. (sorry, couldn’t resist)
@ Paul (49)
Not really. (a) I believe geoengineering is a good idea. (b) Geoengineering doesn’t attack feedbacks. It adds new forcing.
dp,
but you are satisfied that opposition to greenhouse gas controls is a larger force in the debate than opposition to developing new industry and new working class job opportunities.
I don’t think I’ve said that or tried to characterize the opposition at all. At least I wasn’t trying to. I get your point and analyzing the opposition does need to be done but it’s a level of detail I don’t really want to get into here.
“don’t know thine enemy” huh just aim somewhere else using the same weapon
I think that Keith and others are right on one thing. Republicans may oppose almost all of this. But the political tools available to oppose different things vary. Many of these Republicans would like to oppose the very existence of the minimum wage, but that is politically impossible. Political overshoot often causes political collapse.
The twinkle of light at the end of the tunnel is that if some of them oppose clean energy and fast trains, both of which are generally popular with the public, they may fall on their face politically, thus potentially opening political space for more long-term policy.
There are two competing sayings here: politics is the art of the possible – and – the art of politics is increasing what is possible. Maybe we can use the first to feed the second. It’s still a long shot, but as pointed out, it may be the best thing to work at now.
The other half is building political support to turn the long-term focus into reality.
I’m curious: how do you envision this ‘other half’ would work? It seems that the lack of ‘political support’ is pretty much the whole game here. What does OTF do that the current strategy does not?
I’m certainly not suggesting this strategy is close to ideal or even guaranteed to work. I’m suggesting it is better than the alternatives that I’m aware of.
On what basis? I’m genuinely not being snide here, but do you have anything other than ‘it has not failed yet’ to recommend this strategy?
I’ve asked a few times now ““ is there a better alternative?
Same question, different context. ‘Better’ by what measure?
@andy,
while I’m in agreement that something is better than nothing, it seems to me that there are still two questions that need to be addressed:
1. why would a focus on non-co2 emissions enjoy more political support than co2 only initiatives; and
2. would such a shift in focus have sufficient support to survive the sausage machine that is politics?
As TB has pointed out several times, it isn’t at all obvious that you wouldn’t encounter the same level of resistance to any environmental policy initiative in the U.S. at the moment. Again, I think it’s about expectations more than anything else. if all you’re saying (along with Keith and PK) is ‘might as well try something else’, then fine. but don’t expect others to show much enthusiasm absent a clear explanation of why it would be more likely to succeed.
And just to be clear, I’m in no way opposed to the sorts tactical shifts you’re pushing for. I’m a pragmatist not an idealogue. What I’m objecting to is the notion that this sort of shift and repackaging (as RPJr would say oblique strategy) is NEW. The ACE was not sold primarily as a climate change initiative anymore than ab32 was. The former failed while the latter did not.
I’d suggest that any re-imagining of tactics and strategies in a U.S. context begins and ends with the 60 vote requirement in the senate. if you can’t make a credible case for getting remotely close to that threshold then all you’re really talking about is changing game plans for the sake of change.
@ Marlowe
1. Because CO2 will remain (in the eyes of many) just a story spun out of proportion. Because anti-CO2 movement is fronted by public figures with distinctly negative charm. Because some of the climate scientists were caught red-handed in Climategate (I’m talking about public perception only for now so don’t jump with objections). In contrast, if you want to argue against soot or ozone you can bring in serious medical research and a bunch of good-looking doctors with untainted reputations.
2. Some initiatives do survive the political process. Until you try it there is no way to know whether it will survive or not.
What’s the downside of trying?
I’m going to add one more thing in defense of OTF despite my general pessimism about it. There is a long tradition in the US of getting policies passed by connecting them to something popular, even if the connection was minimal. For years during the Cold War, virtually anything that had the word Defense in it helped get it passed. Really, how much is the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, as our interstate highways are technically called, really about national defense?
My pessimism has less to do with the ability to connect non-CO2 policy to eventual CO2-limiting policy than it does with the time we have to make that connection.
@ Dean
Where did you get the idea that there is some kind of urgency? Try to trace your beliefs to the root and you’ll find no science there. Just a bunch claims based on nothing.
@ Sashka
That was a great quote you contributed upthread in #10: “Your saying so doesn’t make it so.”
It often comes to mind as I read your subsequent posts: “Try to trace your beliefs to the root and you’ll find no science there. Just a bunch claims based on nothing.”
Bart,
The path I see empowers the individual, for it is the aggregate of countless individual actions that lead to where you want to go. It is focused entirely on deployment of fossil fuel replacing technologies and efficiencies. It is a social rather than a political movement.
Energy transformation is a one building, one hybrid car, one solar panel at a time process. It is best accomplished bottom up. The path begins right now.
For everyone with climate concerns and anybody else who desires the replacement of fossil fuels. Wake up in the morning and think only of deploying technologies and efficiencies. What I did was form a deployment association made up of individuals and small businesses who agree to, on a regular basis, throw in small amounts of money toward deployment projects. In addition, the association promotes and participates in fundraising programs with 501c3 deployment partners. So it is a way to aggregate, and thus multiply the effect of individual actions.
@Andy:
You are bringing a lot of criticism, which is fine. Criticism is good. And, as I’ve said a few times now, I’m certainly not suggesting this strategy is close to ideal or even guaranteed to work. I’m suggesting it is better than the alternatives that I’m aware of. I’ve asked a few times now ““ is there a better alternative? If so, what is it? What is your plan?
My plan is to ultimately support whatever (any and all) ideas make it past the spitballing phase. Believe me, if there was a “breakthrough” scheme push to get clean energy funding that I could actually phone bank for, you bet your @ss I’d do it, even though I think it’s destined to fail (because it in no way addresses how the carbon from coal stays in the ground without unbelievable interference in the energy market). The same goes for all of the “low hanging fruit”. If there’s a way to help something to fruition I’ll be a pit bull for it.
Just because I am taking the Republicans at their word to try to kill basically all relevant legislation does not mean I will help them do it by opposing it or not helping however I can.
When I say that I will support these other initiatives “full stop”, I mean it sincerely. This is opposed to, for example, the “breakthrough” boys, who were actively campaigning for cap and trade to fail in environmental and energy circles (looking at people like you, Jesse Jenkins).
I just can’t force myself to believe that these things are actual alternatives in any sense to pushing for comprehensive climate legislation and international treaties. I’ll support them vigorously, but I’m not going to stop pushing for some sort meaningful solution at the end of the day.
@Marlowe Johnson:
I’d suggest that any re-imagining of tactics and strategies in a U.S. context begins and ends with the 60 vote requirement in the senate. if you can’t make a credible case for getting remotely close to that threshold then all you’re really talking about is changing game plans for the sake of change.
Well put.
why would a focus on non-co2 emissions enjoy more political support than co2 only initiative?
At least one already does. Black carbon soot reduction has support across the political spectrum. The source of half of carbon soot has been identified and the technology to totally eliminate that source is readily available. In fact, funds to deploy the technology have been appropriated by several nations. The source is dung fueled cooking stoves. The only fly in the ointment is that the people cooking on the stoves don’t want to give them up.
@Dean, Marlowe, rustneversleeps:
RE: #19, etc.
People who simultaneously believe that climate models are essentially crap and that geoengineering is a reasonable alternative to severely cutting carbon aren’t coming from a coherent position, guys. It’s not worth your time.
@Paul Kelly
Jim Inhofe != support across the political spectrum.
If you have evidence of a large bipartisan contingent of politicians voicing support for black carbon reductions, please let us know. Bonus points if you can square said support with the promises of the incoming Republican Chairs of the relevant House Committees.
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I’m just saying it’s the opposite of everything I’ve been hearing about the prospects of virtually any environmental legislation.
The Imhoffe amendment passed, so it must of had at least sixty votes.
@Paul Kelly
The Imhoffe amendment passed, so it must of had at least sixty votes.
The legislation that Inhofe was a co-sponsor of, Sen. Carper’s S.849 proposal that the EPA study black carbon, was only reported in the Senate. To the best of my knowledge, it was never subject to a full vote and had no support from any other Republican Senator. If you’ve seen otherwise, I’d love to hear about it.
Tellingly, legislation to actually do something about black carbon introduced in the House that same year, H.R. 1760, had zero Republican co-sponsors and made it less far than the proposal for EPA to study BC.
Again, I could be wrong about this- in which case I’ll happily revise my position. But I’m also not the one making grandiose claims about how black carbon regulation enjoys “support across the political spectrum” and doesn’t face the kind of opposition other climate legislation does.
I think the burden is justifiably on you, Paul, to demonstrate this support. Again, Inhofe in isolation seems to be the exception that demonstrates the rule more than anything else.
thingsbreak,
I cited Imhoffe as an example of a denier who supports soot reduction. He does. If you have any questions about his support or that of his colleagues, ask him. That you, locked in partisanship, don’t see the broad support enjoyed by carbon reduction is worth less than a bucket of spit to me.
Paul:
I cited Imhoffe as an example of a denier who supports soot reduction. He does. If you have any questions about his support or that of his colleagues, ask him. That you, locked in partisanship, don’t see the broad support enjoyed by carbon reduction is worth less than a bucket of spit to me.
How is a single Republican Senator co-sponsoring a bill to just look at BC which went nowhere “broad support” for actually doing anything about it? You seem to be confusing the distance of Inhofe’s (I-N-H-O-F-E) starting position relative to where he “should” be on any climate-related bill as somehow indicative of the breadth of support a BC reduction bill enjoy-ed/-s in Congress.
Where is the bipartisan support (i.e. getting close to passable numbers) for these alternative, non-CO2-primary paths? If it doesn’t exist, aren’t you (or Keith or Andy) just, as Marlowe Johnson put it, advocating “change” for nothing more than change’s sake?
We’ll see what happens in the next Congress.
Marlowe (60):
Much of the discussion on this thread and the earlier one starts from this fact, as stated in a current article in The Economist:
“Despite 20 years of climate negotiation, the world is still on an emissions trajectory that fits pretty easily into the “business as usual” scenarios drawn up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
It seems to me that the onus should be on those who want to stay on such a path. You and others ask for some reassurance that Andy’s suggestions would lead to a better outcome. He doesn’t have a crystal ball to see into the future. In contrast, we’ve got a 20 hear history to compare to.
It’s halftime and the team that’s way behind has no idea if the tactical changes they’re going to make will work in the second half. The choice is: do you try something new to get back in the game or do you stick with what you’re doing and pray things turn out differently?
@ rustneversleeps (64)
I’ll give you another great quote: you cannot prove the negative. Try to think about it.
Marlowe (#60)
Good questions! I think Keith did a good job answering them, but I want to expand on that a bit more.
I don’t think what is being proposed is change for the sake of change, but change in response to failure. After all, the definition of insanity is supposedly doing the same thing and expecting different results. And again, I have point out that if you’re not going to change your gameplan for fear of failure then that seems to be to be a recipe to do nothing or more of the same.
Also, I’m not limiting things to only other emissions. I think any policy initiative which would positively affect climate change should be considered and that covers a lot of areas. A detailed analysis of which particular issues might garner sufficient political support is beyond my expertise and is something that a lobbyist or advocacy group needs to take on. So I can’t prove to you here that any other efforts are certain to enjoy more political support. However, given all the policy options available, it doesn’t seem reasonable to assume they will be failures before you even take a serious look at them.
I’d suggest that any re-imagining of tactics and strategies in a U.S. context begins and ends with the 60 vote requirement in the senate. if you can’t make a credible case for getting remotely close to that threshold then all you’re really talking about is changing game plans for the sake of change.
The filibuster is a problem for everyone trying to get legislation passed. There’s nothing anyone can do about that. Furthermore, you’re asking for something that can’t be definitively answered – you can’t know if a piece of legislation will be filibustered until it’s actually written, presented on the floor and subjected to amendments (or attached as an amendment to other legislation). Sadly, good legislation which would otherwise pass is often filibustered because of some unrelated amendment that gets attached to it (See this Daily Show episode on that topic for an example). You simply can’t predict what will happen when all legislation is subject to these kinds of shenanigans. In short, the filibuster isn’t something we can’t control for ahead of time.
I also think attitude and outlook matter in how one approaches these problems. You and others keep focusing on obstacles and are asking for what I think is an unreasonable level of confidence that those obstacles can be overcome. No strategy can deliver that. One shouldn’t view strategy through a prism of potential failure. It’s a mindset that will assuredly prevent one from accomplishing much of anything. In short, hesitation in the face of potential political opposition cedes the field to that opposition. Policymaking is a dirty business. Most legislation fails. Nature of the beast. Acknowledge the obstacles, try to plan for and hedge against them, and move forward.
Finally, as I said before, I would not expect much of anything to happen legislatively for the next couple of years and that goes for almost all legislation. Even so, there’s a lot of work to do in terms of research, filling out the details, planning for a way forward and laying the groundwork in order to push the legislative effort when conditions are more favorable.
@ KK
Or maybe “the team” should realize that it is playing a wrong game. If baseball proved to be a losing proposition I’d suggest trying softball.
@ rustneversleeps (64)
I’ll give you another great quote: unless you stick to formal stuff, you cannot even prove a positive. Think about why we talk about “proof” at all.
the republicans struggled for tax cuts for the rich by any means necessary because they were greatly incentivized to do so (quid pro quo). steep carbon cuts create new globally-competitive business, but they’re not equivalent to simply handing briefcases of cash to people who already have more than they know how to spend.
on the funny side, carbon cuts have stronger macroeconomic justification than do top-bracket tax bribes.
Of course, Internet anonymity allows everyone to slander anybody, individually or collectively, and no proof is ever required.
On the positive side, while the dog is barking the caravan keeps moving.
(and the next upper crust tax cuts really will pay for themselves and politicos would never dream of getting in bed with rich funders and TOM DELAY WOZ FRAMED)
I’m sure you can do better that conflating the sound critique of anti-tax politicians with blanket accusations of bribery. Someone has to tell you that the world is not painted black-and-white.
yes, someone needs to tell me that shifting the tax burden down the brackets only seems to win you big donations, there’s no correlation. and big donors rarely send people to congress or the oval office to win favors for themselves, and they rarely block other candidates to prevent their own losses. that’s only neoclassically rational profit-maximizing behavior, it’s not sophisticated nuanced reality.
ah yes, the world isn’t painted black-and-white, except for climate sensitivity.
So you have scaled down from briefcases of cash to big donations? OK, that’s good progress for one day.
the briefcases of cash were the outgoing policy. you could see this from two clues:
“steep carbon cuts create new globally-competitive business, but they’re not equivalent to simply handing briefcases of cash to people who already have more than they know how to spend.”
first, there’s a parallel structure. the subject of the whole sentence is “steep carbon cuts” as public policy, so it’s implied that “they’re not equivalent to simply handing briefcases of cash” is comparing one public policy to another.
second, looking at “handing briefcases of cash to people who already have more than they know how to spend,” a lot of readers would get the hint that politicos although wealthy aren’t generally “people who already have more [money] than they know how to spend.”
so basically we’re talking about people who have money to burn throwing some of it at the system in order to gain access to enormous personal public favors.
so then the “big donations” are the politicos’ private returns on the briefcases of ‘public investment.’ it’s chump change in comparison but today’s elections are more expensive than 99.9% of the population, including the politicos themselves, can afford to buy.
Ray Pierrehumbert has a post on this topic at RC, making the case that if the focus on shortlived components goes at the cost of focussing on CO2 (at least for the time being) will lose time rather than buying time. That is a pretty straightforward consequence of the difference in lifetimes.