Recent news stories and photos of
air pollution in Harbin, a northern Chinese city of 11 million, no doubt
shocked and nauseated most Americans. They showed air pollution so bad that
some people compared it to a snowstorm, with the “snow” being particulate
matter from coal-burning plants that provide Harbin with heat—the heat just
having been turned on for the winter by the Chinese authorities. The air
pollution level was 30 or 40 times what is considered tolerable, with 25 parts
per million the acceptable level and Harbin’s at over 600 parts per million,
and in some places 1,000 ppm!
But
we should neither be shocked—global warming, after all, means global—nor comforted that it’s ‘only
China.’ Because, again, carbon in the air knows no boundaries. A recent reading
of Bill McKibben’s new book, Oil and
Honey: The Education of an Unlikely Activist (Holt: 2013), reinforces that
realization in several ways. First is his account of the civil disobedience
battle he led (and still leads) against the Keystone Pipeline. Second is his
account of his latest initiative, to induce colleges across the country to
divest their endowments of any financial earnings from fossil fuel companies.
The third, and what I’ll focus on here, are his elucidation of three key
numbers in the fight against global warming. McKibben likes using numbers as
symbols, as his major organization 350.org makes clear— the number 350 standing
for 350 ppm of carbon in our air, a level which is high, but which most
breathing beings can probably live with. Of course, earth has already overshot
that mark, our current level being around 400 ppm—a number the 350 highlights
nicely.
McKibben’s
other three numbers, though, are even more significant. The first is: 2, for 2
degrees Celsius. That’s the maximum rise in temperature that most scientists
agree is the upper limit of temperature rise that humans can survive with. Most
would prefer a lower number, 1.5 degrees or less, but 2 degrees is the limit.
We’ve already raised the temperature 0.8 degrees, but anything over 2 degrees
and it’s “game over.” The second number is 565. That stands for 565 gigatons of
carbon in the air—the maximum amount, by midcentury, we can put into the air and still have a
reasonable chance to keep the temperature rise at or below that limit of 2
degrees Celsius. The third number and the scariest is 2,795 gigatons—“the
amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal, oil, and gas reserves of
the fossil fuel companies and countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act
like fossil fuel companies” (146). As McKibben notes, this represents the carbon load from the fossil fuel we’re on target to burn. If you compare 565, the maximum, with
2,795, the amount we’re on target to burn, you realize that those who control
fossil fuels are planning to add five (5) times as much carbon as the earth can take and
remain viable for the kind of life humans have led for the past several
thousand years. The point is simple: these are proven reserves (and the number
could be far higher) still in the ground, but since the reserves are what
companies use to establish their worth, borrow money, and budget around (and
what stock prices are based on), there is no doubt that these fossil fuel companies
plan to use all they’ve got. As McKibben points out,
“These
are their assets, the holdings that give their companies their value. It’s why
they’ve worked so hard these past years to figure out how to unlock the oil in
Canada’s tar sands, or to frack the Appalachians—the value of ExxonMobil is,
more or less, the value of those reserves. If you told ExxonMobil that they
couldn’t pump out their reserves, the value of the company would plummet…”
(148).
It’s also, of course, why these
companies have spent so much to cast doubt on the idea that carbon burning by
humans causes global warming. So if you told the CEOs of any of these
companies—the Koch Brothers, Shell, Exxon, Chevron, British Petroleum, not to
mention Saudi Arabia—that they should keep about 80% of their proven reserves
in the ground, and write off trillions of their assets, they would laugh at
you. Capitalism simply doesn’t work that way.
This
is why McKibben and those who have joined him in jail have decided that a new
way of fighting global warming is necessary. If we continue to rely on the
so-called market to keep us from burning 5 times as much fossil fuel as the
planet can withstand, it’s really “game over” for the planet we once knew. So
McKibben and his cohorts have, in their latest initiative to save the planet,
targeted the companies themselves with their divestment campaign.
One
other element has come up in recent days to add to the plausibility of what
McKibben writes in Oil and Honey.
Last week, Al Gore made headlines when he said publicly that the next “bubble”
slated to collapse is the one in the fossil fuel industry. Gore, basing his
prognostication on the same figures McKibben uses, claimed that these fossil
fuel companies are heavily overvalued. Why? Because there is no way they can
make use of what they count as their assets, since to do so would push the
world into catastrophe from global warming. In other words, to burn the reserves producing that 2,795
gigatons would push us over the brink into a global warming nightmare—rising
sea levels, changes in plant and animal life, immense changes in weather and
storms like Hurricane Sandy. Therefore, they will have to refrain from using
their reserves, and hence are worth far less than what their current stock
value, based on using those reserves, indicates. The fossil fuel bubble will
have to burst—or the planet will.
And
to give us an idea of what is already happening in one little corner of the
ecosystem, McKibben tells us of the effect of our already-warming temperatures
on the lives of that most wondrous animal, the moose. Moose are perfectly
adapted to the climate they normally inhabit, their heavy coats able to keep
them warm in sub-zero temperatures. However, if the temperature gets above 20
degrees Fahrenheit, as it has recently in places like Minnesota, the moose are
in trouble. It’s not that they faint from the heat. It’s that warmer
temperatures allow ticks to proliferate (deep cold used to kill them off), and
the proliferating ticks drive the moose crazy. One moose could normally
tolerate about 10,000 ticks, but with proliferation, moose now harbor as many
as 70,000 ticks! This makes them so crazy that they scratch incessantly and
tear away most of their fur. But fur is their protection against cold, so when
a cold snap occurs, moose devoid of fur tend to freeze to death. The result is
that the moose population in Minnesota has dropped by about half. Nor has tick
proliferation stopped in Minnesota. In McKibben’s home state of Vermont, ticks
have now begun to proliferate as well, leading to alarming increases in Lyme
disease. Vermonters who used to love their woods are now reluctant to venture
there for fear of ticks and Lyme disease—which has become almost pandemic.
This
is only one example of a subtle ecological change caused by warming
temperatures that has deep and lasting consequences. It makes you wonder what
is going through the minds of those who would continue to support denialists,
and continue plans they know will plunge the earth into an unknown, and
preventable transformation. One clue, though, comes from the aforementioned
pollution crisis in China. A report I saw noted that many in China have begun to buy air purifiers. And which class is doing this most? You guessed it: the ruling
classes who run the Chinese government, as well as the newly wealthy who can
afford them. It appears that these neo-mandarins, like many of our own
oligarchs, think they can ride out the global warming catastrophe they’re
bringing about by buying safe havens for themselves and their families and
purifying the rare air they breathe. This is the same kind of cruel
indifference, rigidity and blindness that has led to civilizational collapses
in the past. All that remains to be seen is whether the pattern will hold in
our ‘more enlightened’ time as well. One thing is for sure, though: none of us
can afford to stay on the sidelines hoping that recycling our cans or driving a
prius will solve the problem; or that this time, because we’re all such nice,
well-meaning people, things will be different.
Lawrence DiStasi
No comments:
Post a Comment