More Parts Per Million

A new environmental movement vilifies Big Oil, borrows from Occupy and encourages your grandma to risk arrest

| September 04, 2013 founder Bill McKibben speaks on Sunday, Sept. 15, at Burlingame Hall (252 W. Spain St., Sonoma) and Wednesday, Sept. 25 at Dominican University's Angelico Hall (50 Acacia Ave., San Rafael).

Page 2 of 3

In a political sphere where climate change, if accepted, is usually viewed as a problem that we should prepare for somewhere in the distant, murky future, his words might sound sensationalist at best, run-for-the-hills at worst. But read his detailed, three-decade coverage of continental ice melt and hurricanes like giant whirlpools spinning the warming seas, and his words start to sound sane—especially coupled with his equally detailed, three-decade coverage on why nothing's being done.

One of McKibben's most widely read pieces—"Global Warming's Terrifying New Math"— appeared last summer in Rolling Stone. It outlined several things. The Copenhagen Accord, an agreement signed by world leaders in 2009, set a cap of 2 degrees Celsius average global temperature rise. When the article ran, scientists estimated that industrialization had already caused an average bump of 0.8 degrees, which had by then caused one-third of the Arctic's summer ice to disappear and made the world's oceans 30 percent more acidic. That marker was contested by two leading climatologists, James Hansen of NASA and Kerry Emanuel of MIT, who predicted that 2 degrees could churn up wetter, stronger, deadlier hurricanes and obliterate low-lying island nations and most of Africa. But it stuck.

And so a "carbon budget"—the amount of CO2 that can still be allowed into the atmosphere before we reach 2 degrees—was set at 565 gigatons, which the global economy will reach in about 15 years, according to many analyses. And the amount of oil and gas reserves that energy companies and countries like Venezuela and Kuwait (which "act like fossil-fuel companies," McKibben writes) already have right now—that amount would release five times the carbon budget. According to McKibben, those reserves are "figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against [them], nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony."

In other words, he says, they want to burn it all.

FRONT LINES Over 2,000 people of all ages and backgrounds turned out in Richmond last month, while calls for divestment increase. - NADAV SOROKER
  • Nadav Soroker
  • FRONT LINES Over 2,000 people of all ages and backgrounds turned out in Richmond last month, while calls for divestment increase.

The scariest thing about McKibben's armageddon is that it's real. He may be shouting fire, but he's no outlier. While the exact course that temperature rise will take is difficult to predict, a staggering 95 percent of the scientific community believes that unless we do something soon, we'll roast. More tidal waves will crunch coastal homes. More Yosemite camp-outs will be replaced with photos of sequoias charred in a pink, dreamlike haze.

And as McKibben wrote over 20 years ago in The End of Nature, rising temperatures could be escalated by "feedback loops." If the arctic disappears, there will be less white stuff reflecting light and heat back into space. And if the arctic tundra goes, there will be a whole lot less springy, moss-colored vegetation soaking up CO2. And so one thing—like that infamous butterfly wing—can set off a chain reaction in which this whole beautiful, devastated orb dissolves in wind and flames.

But McKibben didn't run for the hills; he took to the streets. In an email interview—he was zipping from rally to rally at the time—I asked when he finally switched from impartial journalist to activist.

"Right about the time the Arctic melted in 2007," he replied. "It [was] pretty clear physics was forcing the pace of the discussion."

He added that was also created with "the desire to go on offense against the fossil fuel industry, not just playing defense against bad projects. We need people to understand that they are today's tobacco industry, a set of thoroughly bad actors that we must take on if we're ever going to get rational policy out of D.C."

But when the fate of cap-and-trade legislation is to litter the Senate floor, when Chevron donates millions to keep republicans in the House and when nearly half of the country is still unconvinced by climatologists near-unanimous statement that, yes, this is man-made—what can 350 do?

The only thing they can, say members. Expose the Chevrons of the world, and hope that someone takes notice. And do it everywhere, not just in D.C.

'We're with our supporters, standing on the side of the political system looking in," says Jay Carmona, a divestment campaigner with "We're working with the folks who are saying 'It's a pretty rigged game.'"

The nonprofit aims to be a traditional grassroots organization, empowering individuals instead of political reps. Along with marches like the one in Richmond, it tries to do this through an ambitious website, which is a basically a one-stop-shop for activists in training. Visitors can read the works of NASA climatologists and learn the ins and outs of divesting their schools, churches and city governments from pension funds or endowments in companies like Chevron or Shell. They can start petitions and sign up for "de-escalation" trainings, where they'll learn how to politely risk arrest. And they can educate themselves about everything from the Keystone Pipeline to fracking in Delaware to India's battle with coal.

Sonoma County's chapter mirrors national's loose structure.


Comments (2)

Showing 1-2 of 2

The article has a HUGE flaw, which - when exposed- renders its conclusions irrelevant. None of the proposed actions to address GW address ANY of the major causes of atmospheric CO2. Worse, no proposals even address the major cause of anthropogenic CO2, Third World homefires, per the revised IPCC report. So even if everything about the magnitude and imminence of the problem as stated in the article is true, none of the proposals to date could make meaningful changes in CO2 levels; the proposals amount to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

However, despite repeated false statement to the contrary, there is nowhere near consensus in the scientific community on the GW issues, especially among physicists and chemists. That does not mean we should not take action. There are plenty of reasons to take reasonable action to keep air and water clean that do not necessitate a return to the Stone Age. Some of us have been involved in those actions for many years. But we reject the ill-advised kind of panic responses pushed by the doomsayers.

report 1 like, 3 dislikes   
Posted by William M on 09/04/2013 at 10:02 AM

Bravo to those involved in this peaceful protest. Rachel painted well the dark brush strokes of what aging refineries look like.
In addition to those living near the refinery, Gary Pace and his children deserve much gratitude, a local Sonoma County healh professional who is able to project out what the near/long term might look like without intervention.
I grew up in and then worked for a brief period in the petrochemical industry. Another career took me away for a long time but I found myself recently creating a natural gas production reporting system (Exxon/Mobile) and software for oil/gas pipeline inspection equipment (GE)
My observations are that the "Separate Oil and State" mantra is crucial now to open up space for not just renewables but also energy efficiency across the consumption/conservation spectrum.
Too much of our financial, R&D, public health, and opportunity resources are still devoted to, and supporting forms of energy that without doubt have become problematic in many ways.
It will take longer to create localized distributed energy systems than it did to create the smartphone ecosystem, but it's happening. The evidence is everywhere and indisputable.
There is no shame in having the US become a prime mover in this energy transition, much less so than having been one of the worlds highest per capita consumers.
With the emerging electric car market, the increased use of residential high efficient hvac systems, solar installations, energy audits, changes in local government land use and energy policy, etc. change can be fun and without sacrificing anything except an old way of doing business.
Thank you Rachel for your courage to cover this topic.

report 1 like, 1 dislike   
Posted by hazz on 09/08/2013 at 5:16 PM
Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment