OUR NUMBER’S UP—AND IT’S 350
Kevin Teo
October 8, 2009
OUR NUMBER’S UP—AND IT’S 350
Bill McKibben is the man behind 350.org, the global campaign on climate change that has declared October 24 to be International Day of Climate Action. John Elkington[1] talked to him about the campaign—and the underlying science.
For a comment from Dr Gary Kendall, SustainAbility’s Director of Energy Sector and Climate Change, see here.
John Elkington: Bill, it was great to meet you at last when we were both speakers at the Oslo Sustainability Conference—and to hear more about the 350 campaign. In headlines, what do you hope to achieve with the International Day of Climate Action?
Bill McKibben: To—for the first time—use a citizen’s movement to put a piece of scientific data at the center of the planet’s agenda. We want to take the most important number on Earth and make it the most well-known, on the theory (well-founded, we think) that that will push the politics nearer to the science.
John: When—and how—did you first switch on to climate change?
Bill: I wrote the first book for a general audience about global warming, way back in 1989. The End of Nature came out in The New Yorker, and in 24 languages, but it didn’t solve the problem.
John: So what’s the story behind the 350 campaign?
Bill: It grew out of a nationwide campaign I helped organize—the first big U.S. campaign for action on climate change. We called it StepItUp and we (me and 6 college students) managed somehow to organize 1,400 simultaneous demonstrations in all 50 states on April 14, 2007.
A few days later both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton changed their platforms to meet our demands—we were feeling pretty smug. Then, few weeks later, in the summer of 2007, sea ice in the Arctic began to melt with a vengeance, and scientists began to panic—global warming was beginning to happen much faster than predicted.
The old targets—the ones we’d campaigned on–were out the window, and in a few months the leading researchers produced new, deeply rooted goals: 350 ppm CO2 turned out to be the maximum safe level in the atmosphere if we wanted a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” Which we did, so we started trying to figure out how to organize globally. Which is ludicrously hard, but my crew of young organizers is ludicrously talented!
John: Why ‘350’?
Bill: In addition to the reasons already mentioned, for organizing purposes it’s turned out to be the perfect strategy. First, because we’re already at 390 ppm, it really wakes people up—it’s like going to the doctor and learning your cholesterol is too high. That’s the day you buy a pair of running shoes and Google ‘vegan.’ Second, because Arabic numerals translate across linguistic boundaries, one reason that October 24 will be the most geographically widespread day of political activity in the earth’s history.
John: Just to clear, what does the 350 figure represent—long-term stabilization of CO2 or CO2e[2]?
Bill: CO2—but it works as a figure for CO2e as well. (As Jim Hansen has explained in a couple of papers, CO2 works as a good proxy). In any event, both CO2 and CO2e are elevated far above 350 already, so in effect the message is the same—time to stand on the brakes and throw this baby in reverse.
John: Our view—both at SustainAbility and Volans—is that it’s crucial to distinguish between CO2 and CO2e. But we absolutely agree about the underlying trajectory, which is for science to suggest ever lower safety thresholds. Putting that aside for a moment, however, what’s the best estimate in terms of the likely average global temperature rises associated with 350 ppm of CO2, based on the latest science?
Bill: It’s very hard to say, but probably we’re talking something like 1.5 degrees or less, hopefully considerably less. We’re obviously not going to prevent global warming, and we’re obviously going to keep going past 350 for a while. If we get back down quickly enough, we may be able to prevent civilization-scale challenges (and, truthfully, we may not—the momentum of these changes is large and there are no guarantees).
John: What might the wide adoption of the 350 target mean in terms of impacts?
Bill: It means less sea level rise, less drought, less flood, less methane release, less everything. That’s about all you can say with any assurance.
John: Bill, what was your reaction to the G20 statement acknowledging the need to stay below 2 degrees C?
Bill: If 0.8 degrees melts the Arctic, setting 2 degrees as a goal seems ill-advised. We may hit it, but the emphasis should be on coming down just as fast as we can. The goal has to be 350 or below—or so science says. Of course, politicians deal in political reality, which to them seems more real than the laws of nature. Would that it were so—but chemistry and physics are pretty tough bargainers.
John: SustainAbility has committed to the ‘less than 2 degrees’ goal, recognising that the allowable CO2 and CO2e to keep within such limits levels been falling almost continuously as new science comes in. Still, given that we’re now around 385 ppm CO2—and 435 ppm CO2e—what do you say to people who think that it’s too late for 350?
Bill: In our lifetime it probably is. Even if we do everything right, the youngest people on the planet will likely be elderly before we get back there. But we have to start now, and very dramatically, before any more feedback loops kick in, or we’ll never get there.
John: What strategies for lowering greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do you find most persuasive?
Bill: The rapid conversion of our fossil-fuel economy to renewable energy. We have the technology, but so far not the will.
John: What sort of time-scales might be involved?
Bill: That’s the trouble—we have to do it faster than our political and economic systems will find convenient or easy. The best data seems to show we need to be out of the business of burning coal by 2030, and sooner in the western world. That means wartime footing for change—and it means a lot of sunk costs for folks who’ve been building power plants. Tough problems, but not as tough as the alternative.
John: What needs to be done next to have any chance of meeting the 350 target?
Bill: Set a stiff global cap on carbon based on the science, and transfer the necessary money and technology north to south so that developing countries can participate in this transition.
John: What sort of response have you had from the business and financial communities?
Bill: They’re beyond the denial phase, and there are plenty of companies smelling some serious money to be made. But very few want to move as quickly as we need to go. In normal circumstances gradual evolution makes utter sense. These aren’t normal circumstances.
John: Is there any individual or organization whose efforts in this area sum up for you what we all need to do next?
Bill: I’m most impressed by the fact that October 24 is being organized by ordinary people all over the world-especially in the developing world. I mean, today we passed the 130-country mark. it’s exuberant, it’s homemade, it’s powerful. Leaders aren’t leading so citizens and scientists are taking up the slack.
John: Many thanks, Bill. And how do we all get involved?
Bill: Almost anyplace anyone is reading this (except North Korea), there’s an October 24 action happening nearby. Go to 350.org to figure out how to throw your weight behind one!
[1] Co-Founder of Environmental Data Services (1978), SustainAbility (1987) and Volans (2008). See, too, http://www.johnelkington.com. And with thanks to Gary Kendall of SustainAbility for some of the questions.
[2] CO2 equivalent. As a start, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/carbon_dioxide_equivalent
