A new fault line has emerged in the climate movement amidst a firestorm of debate over the past week. On one side is a group of old-guard and well-known environmentalists, and on the other is a newly forming alliance of climate and energy scientists who are challenging traditional beliefs held at the highest levels of the environmental establishment. What is happening should invigorate young activists to continue challenging conventional wisdom – and serve as an alarm to the entire movement.
It all began last week when a commentary by three scientists called “Dangerous Assumptions” was published in Nature, one of the most prominent scientific journals in the world. The article challenged the IPCC for being too timid in its call to climate action and for holding a set of rosy-eyed assumptions about the climate challenge. These respected scientists – Roger Pielke Jr, Tom Wigley and Christopher Green – demonstrated that the IPCC has assumed up to 96% of total world emissions reductions (to achieve 500 ppm CO2 stabilization, a level which we now know is too high) will be achieved regardless of policy change through “spontaneous” decarbonization and technological advancements.
IPCC: Dangerous Assumptions? (blue represents “spontaneous” decrease)
The danger, they argue, is that the IPCC has seriously underestimated the scale of policy efforts needed to transform our global energy systems – and that it may inadvertently be offering comfort to those who believe we possess all the solutions and do not need to invest in technological development.
How could this be? The heart of the issue rests in an assumption about global energy and carbon intensity. For the past hundred years, the carbon intensity (measured by carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP) of the global economy has been slowly but steadily declining. The IPCC assumes this trend will continue and has incorporated this into its scenarios for emissions stabilization.
But all indicators suggest this trend has reversed. Rapidly developing countries like China and India, in an effort to lift their populations out of poverty, have set the world on a new energy development path in which hundreds of coal plants are being constructed and the rate of global emissions growth is dramatically increasing. According to the analysis, these trends stand “in stark contrast to the optimism of the near-future IPCC projections.”
The IPCC scenarios for 2000-2010 drastically underestimated observed emissions growth.
Here’s what the commentary concludes:
Enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at acceptable levels… The IPCC plays a risky game in assuming that spontaneous advances in technological innovation will carry most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions, rather than focusing on creating the conditions for such innovations to occur.
One might expect the environmental establishment to applaud these scientists for their efforts to challenge a set of beliefs that could inhibit new policies to develop clean energy technology. But believe it or not, several prominent environmentalists have sharply attacked their work – some going to the extent of comparing these scientists to President Bush and labeling them climate “delayers,” “deniers,” and “destroyers.”
Take Joe Romm (left), for instance – a well-known climate writer and former Clinton political appointee who is now at the Center for American Progress, runs ClimateProgress.org, and is harbored by Grist.org – who has launched a set of hysterical attacks against Pielke et al. He calls their analysis “a pointless and misleading if not outright dangerous commentary” and paints the scientists as “standard delayers” – or even more outrageously, “climate destroyers.” The absurdity of his attacks is illustrated by an erroneous and malicious comparison of these scientists to the skeptics at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank:
“For years, people like Pielke (I call them delayers, you can call them climate destroyers, or, if you like, “people who are very wrong”) have been arguing that the IPCC’s emissions models were too pessimistic. That’s right, the climate deniers/delayers/destroyers have been saying that the IPCC was scaring people into unnecessary action by assuming emissions growth was higher than in fact it was. Yes, I know, if you actually read the Pielke et al piece, that seems hard to believe. They never bother pointing this out. But after a mere 10 seconds on Google, I found a classic example, an essay from the conservative (read denier/delayer/destroyer) American Enterprise Institute titled … wait for it … ‘New Doubts about the Dominant Climate Change Models.’”
But neither Pielke, Wigley, or Green have ever had a relationship with the American Enterprise Institute or had any involvement with this essay. Pielke has published for the past fifteen years in support of action on climate change. And in this case, their conclusion is precisely the opposite of the “standard delayers,” as they conclude the IPCC is being too timid.
Can this truly be happening? Are leaders of the environmental establishment really trying to discredit, quash, and destroy evidence that suggests we need bolder climate policy? Take a look at Romm’s attacks and judge for yourself:
Read Joe Romm’s attacks against Pielke et al.
The truth is that major public investment in clean energy technology development isn’t controversial. It is supported by a large, robust, and ever-growing number of energy and climate experts. Romm and other old-guard environmentalists are simply reacting to evidence that challenges the conventional policy approaches they have clung to for years.
But as young activists we cannot afford to tolerate such behavior. Time and again, whether in climate debates or the 2008 elections, we’ve seen how such ruthless and divisive tactics harm the political landscape. We have to ensure that substantive and constructive debate about our course of action is welcomed. And we need to be intentional about what kind of movement we’re creating and what kind of behavior we want to allow.
The overarching issue here is much larger than unacceptable tactics, though. What is at stake is the future of the environmental establishment as we know it. If we, the next generation of climate and environmental leaders, care about the future of our movement and wish to see it not be reduced to irrelevance, we have to continually challenge traditional thinking and demand that today’s environmental leaders take these challenges seriously. We can afford nothing less.
###
More:
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Thanks Teryn. I am delighted there are young people like you willing challenge such poorly written and wrongheaded analyses such as Romme’s, and that you are willing to commit yourself to seeing that your generation gets it right. Thanks.
Look, we are going to fry or not. You don’t have to believe in Global Warming to do something about it. I am a social scientist – I believe in wonky science. But even if we don’t know all the facts yet – do we really want to take the chance of doing nothing? I’ll play it safe thanks. But what about a few ideas on what to do if it heats up beyond what we can handle? Can something like the polar cities idea work? http://angryafrican.net/2008/04/09/heating-up-time-to-worry/
It appears Joe and Ted have buried the hatchet – for now – and are engaging in an excellent debate on the policy substance at Climate Progress now.
I highly recommend people head here to check it out.
I can’t believe how much digital ink Romm wasted attacking Pielke – and eventually dragging the entire Breakthrough Institute into it – often times (heck, frequently!) in an overly personal and vicious, almost obsessive way, before getting to this point – and how much time Breakthrough staff had to spend in response. This debate has waged on all week.
And how long would it have taken to get down to substance if Romm had just started with the honest questions and critiques in his latest post, or if Ted and Breakthrough had responded by clearly articulating their policy position and (very valid!) concerns, as Ted succinctly does here?
Thanks to both Joe and Ted for getting down to business. There’s nothing more important to be debating than what it’s really going to take to solve the climate crisis. And like Teryn, and encourage young climate activists to engage critically and thoughtfully with these kinds of issues. Our future is riding on getting it right!
I’d say this is just science playing itself out as it does. The problem as I see it is that the actual action of ’science’ is far more transparent these days than it has ever been before. A single article can cause a huge and distorted media reaction as has so often been the case with the climate skeptics. What we forget is that this is science in action.
The ever changing nature of the ‘truth’ as defined by those contributing to the search for the ‘truth’. We must remember science and particularly climate science is not a subject for public debate. Science isn’t made in editorials or on web sites it’s the result of thousands of scientists pouring over the each others results and contributing to the current body of knowledge.
If we ignore the vocal minorities and keep our eyes on the bigger picture climate change becomes a no brainer, it’s the battle for the hearts and minds of the non-scientists who can be swayed by badly researched editorials and the ravings of the ever vocal skeptics that we should be fighting!
You’re OTL with this post. Nature is a highly respected scientific journal but you must keep in mind that the article you discuss is simply an opinion piece. Many scientific journals have what amounts to an editorial page where all kind’s of stuff is published. Don’t mistake what is written there as hard, peer-reviewed science. Given that and Mr. Pielke’s past history of insisting that first: global warming isn’t occurring; and then that global warming might be happening but it was nothing to worry about; and then that global warming is bad but the solution is worse, makes you’re blog entry the utter peak of out-to-lunchness. Mr. Pielke’s opinion piece is nothing more than his latest step in recommending we do nothing about global warming. That is, he’s setting us up for his next argument: let’s do nothing about global warming, all efforts are futile until we develop new technologies. Yes, he asks for increased funding but for what? For instituting existing renewable energy technologies? No, rather he recommends we do nothing until new technologies are developed.
Romme maybe getting hysterical, that’s his problem, but he’s ranting not because he’s miffed at Pielke, but rather because folks like you are going to once again fall for his garbage.
Do you agree with Pielke? We can’t do anything until new technologies are developed? We need to just sit on our hands because after all China and India are not going to stop messing things up no matter how hard we strive to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions?
Andy, there you go jumping on the bandwagon, throwing misrepresenting accusations around. There is no suggestion in any part of this piece that we “do nothing until new technologies are developed.” It says the exact opposite — if we’re serious about reaching a reasonable atmospheric CO2 ppm, we need to be clear-eyed about the technology challenge and ramp up our efforts. It’s unfortunate to see young climate activists attacking a body of evidence which demonstrates the need for bolder policy action.
It’s also worth recognizing that the entire Nature editorial board came out in support of the commentary. Does that normally happen with “opinion” pieces? You can read their review here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/full/452503b.html
“Enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations at acceptable levels.”
These are Pielke’s words. There is a hidden agenda he holds close to his chest in them.
Pielke is arguing that more needs to be done. Certainly, who can argue that? But then he employs false information (frozen at 1990 technology, stating a very high price on carbon is needed) to state that not only will current technologies not work, but that even using them to start us on the path to a carbon neutral world is a futile effort.
If I’m in a race and the car I’m driving needs a new set of tires; sure I’m going to drive to the pit and get a change at the first opportunity so I can get the job done and win the race. But meanwhile, I’m going to make do with what I’ve got. I’m not going to drive to the infield and stop until my crew can get there. In the end, that will only put winning the race out of reach.
We need to do what we can now and although nothing in the Nature editorial or Pielke’s paper or entries on this blog argue against that; Pielke’s history tells me that he’s put this notion out there knowing it will be picked up by the fossil fuel industry and will be used as yet another delaying tactic.
I recommend you and your readers do this: watch the news, see what happens over the next year or two. If I’m wrong, then so be it. I’m just a grouchy no-good you can ignore. If I’m right, and we start seeing the very same graphs and statistics that Pielke has put out there being used by Exxon Mobil and others; then take the lesson to heart, understand what is happening, and argue for action now.