Our call to move beyond 80×50 shouldn’t be considered a slight on the work of Step it Up in any way. In fact, it’s your rapid and truly tremendous success (and the success of all of us who helped mainstream 80×50 in about six months time!) that inspires us to push for more and gives us hope it’s possible.

To be clear, climate positive isn’t without a goal. In fact, it’s precisely what the science calls for, which is to drive towards near-zero emissions as soon as possible! Clearly, in that context, Lieberman-Warner’s paltry 60% by 2050 is entirely inadequate as well. And 80×50 marks a good starting point, a line in the sand that should be the bare minimum of what we should consider.

Of course, the science has advanced pretty considerably since Step it Up (just about a year ago now) and it’s not good news. Its sounding more and more like 80×50 may only be enough to give us a 50-50 shot at avoiding runaway climate change (some McKibben has written about recently as well). And I’m sure we are all unwilling to take a coin flip with the future of the world as we know it!

Thus the call to move “beyond 80×50″ and adopt something bolder, something with even more urgency (talking about 2050 still seems pretty far off, even to young people), and yes, something more expansive – because this is about WAY more than just cutting emissions, it’s also about building a more sustainable, just, and prosperous society.

So Climate Positive is all those things. It’s ~100% by as soon as freakin’ possible, if you’d like to talk about emissions levels. But it’s also about building a sustainable, just, and prosperous future for all. And it’s hard to capture that in a statistical emissions reduction target, eh? If we want a movement powerful enough to do all that, we need a mantra powerful enough to compellingly communicate it. I don’t know if “Climate Positive” is it. But we’re willing to test it out.

Cheers,

Jesse Jenkins

As a part of the gang over at Step It Up who started pushing for 80×50, I’m thrilled to see that more radical targets are becoming mainstream. If “climate positive” becomes a major message, all the better.

But let’s remember how that process works . . . less than a year ago, 80×50 was just a radical idea that no one but enviros were talking about. Because the amazing work of organizers around the country and the thousands of students at Power Shift, it went mainstream: Nancy Pelosi lead a chant of “80×50″ at Power Shift infront of 6,000 students, 80×50 is the leading platform on Hillary and Barack’s climate plans, and 80×50 has been passed into legislation in states around the country. We’ve gone from fringe to legislation in a year.

That’s a major accomplishment – together, we’ve completely shifted the debate. This couldn’t have happened if we just said “Stop Global Warming” or “Step It Up.” Because we got specific, we defined the debate in the media and in congress. We made it unacceptable for politicians to talk about any other target. Perhaps most importantly, we gave people a clear way to judge existing policy – does Warner-Lieberman meet 80×50? No. Well, then it isn’t acceptable.

Is it everything we need? Of course not. But let’s not throw out the idea of targets completely. Motivational language is great, positive visions essential, but in the end, we’re also dealing with politics and chemistry. Those sometimes require specifics. If we can pair the two together – as we tried with our mantra (I like that) “Step It Up, Congress: Cut Carbon 80% by 2050!” sometimes we can get amazing things done.

I love your essay on Climate Positive. This paragraph was really inspiring:

“We are uniting behind fresh visions that are inspirational rather than limiting. We are moving beyond the paradigm of simply cutting carbon emissions to articulating bold plans for a new energy future that will reignite America’s economy, generate a new kind of sustainable development, confront poverty and inequity both here and abroad, and build healthy communities that are not only materially comfortable but socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable and secure.”

Right on guys! Let’s put a bold, inspiring, muscular plan at the center of our vision: massive public investments in clean energy. $500 billion to spark an energy revolution, achieve disruptive technological transformations, create millions of new jobs, and build new energy sources all across America.

As you articulate so well, we’ve got to take the positive and inspiring language to the next level and begin uniting young people across the country behind a vision that includes a strategy – a bold national plan – that we can aim to achieve.

And you’re right on: we can’t rely on setting incremental targets, such as cap-and-trade’s 2% annual reduction strategy. We need an energy revolution. We need a price on carbon – absolutely – but we can’t put higher energy prices and limits at the center of our vision. If anything, a carbon price – whether through cap-and-trade or a direct carbon tax – should be used to raise the funds for a bold American investment.

Onward,
Teryn

So, consider this an invitation and a challenge. Imagine what a climate positive society or community looks like. What do you see?