How Much Must We Reduce Carbon Emissions?

Among my greenish friends and acquaintances, this is a question none agree on. There are numerous opinions floating around:

• 5.2% below 1990 (Kyoto Protocol)
• 20% by 2050 (Step It Up 2050)
• 350 ppm (by unstated time and means) (350.0rg)

I think it’s fair to say that most, if not all of my friends and acquaintances, are undecided, and as a result, none are doing anything significant to reduce their carbon emissions. An unclear goal results in inaction, or avoidance actions.


If you are unclear and undecided about what your carbon emissions goal should be, I’d like to offer some information. The SEED website (http://www.seed.slb.com/subcontent.aspx?id=4120) offers a fun (water flowing into and out of a bathtub), interactive graphic simulator that enables you to try three different options for carbon emissions. There’s also an 8-minute video in which Drew Jones explains the simulator. Watch it first, then play with the simulator.


There are some drawbacks to the simulator. First, the upper limit is set at 450 ppm. That’s obsolete. James Hansen (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/) says the upper limit is somewhere between 300 and 350 ppm. Above that, sudden and catastrophic climate events are likely. We’re at 387 now. How would the simulator behave if revised to show we’re already above the safe level? For levels to drop to 300-350 in a reasonable length of time, say ten years, I believe the simulator would demand zero emissions immediately.


Second, the simulator offers no information on what would need to happen to reach that goal. The simulator combines carbon inputs from burning—burning gasoline, fuel oil, natural gas, coal, wood, bio-fuels, etc., with carbon reductions by plants and sea water. But currently plants (tropical rainforests, temperate forests, etc.) are being destroyed at an incomprehensible rate, and sea water is diminishing in its capacity to absorb carbon.


I’d love to see the simulator revised to enable it to predict what would happen if worldwide carbon emissions dropped to zero and destruction of the biosphere stopped. How many years would it take for Mother Earth to lower carbon to a safe, stable level?


The USA generates about 25% of worldwide carbon emissions. Presumably that can be controlled by the USA. But the USA cannot control the remaining 75% of worldwide emissions. The USA has set the lifestyle example much of the world is now trying to emulate: living in a McMansion in suburban sprawl, one car per driving-age person, a high rate of consumption of short-lived consumer products (http://www.storyofstuff.com/) , an unhealthy diet high in meat and HFCS, cut off from non-human nature, a bubble economy based on debt, and supporting military force to take “resources” from the rest of the world.


I think the USA must now set a new, sustainable example. We need to admit that our current lifestyle is destroying the ecosphere and bringing us little, if any joy. We need to get curious about what other ways to live might be in harmony with Mother Earth and might bring us joy. Might reconnect us with each other and non-human life. There are lots of options available.


I just watched a brilliant talk by Paul Hawken given in 2007 at the Long Now Foundation (http://fora.tv/2007/06/08/Paul_Hawken_New_Great_Transformation#fullprogram). It’s a 45 minute talk followed by 30 minutes of Q & A. Watch it! In this talk Paul shows a film that is simply a list of environmental/social justice groups—available options. The list rolls up the screen like movie credits. Then he says it would take a month to view the whole list at that speed! There are over 100,000 such groups!


He says folks ask him if he’s optimistic about what will happen on Earth vis-a-vis these groups. He replies:


“If you look at the data and you are optimistic, I don't think you are looking at the data. The data is terrible and you know it. I feel like if you look at these people, if you meet them, if you go to WiserEarth, you look at these organizations one by one by one as my staff has done and you are not optimistic about who we are, then you don't have a pulse, so it's both are true, right.”