Gernot Wagner's Blog, page 18

Should Greenpeace have a picture of John D. Rockefeller on the wall of every office?

Whale oil production hit its peak sometime in the 1800s. John D. Rockefeller discovered "rock oil" sometime in the 1800s. Rock oil replaced whale oil as the oil of choice sometime in the 1800s. If you care about whales, you should thank Rockefeller. Right?

Not quite.

It turns out whale oil peaked a couple decades before Rockefeller found his first oil. Never mind that whaling fleets were still out in full force when Rockefeller hit his liquid gold. Whale oil peaked not because we discovered oil but because we ran out of whales. Simple as that.

But there's a much larger lesson here than just to correct a historical inaccuracy, and that's the patent lack of a parallel story to the current situation: It's not that we are running out of oil, coal, and gas—at least not quickly enough.

We'll be running out of atmosphere long before we are running out of fossils to burn. Hoping that the whale oil story will repeat itself is no solution—neither the false one (that a new technology is just around the corner to save us all), nor the correct one (that we are running out of fossils soon). It'll take a concerted policy effort to make us break our addiction to oil and the other dirty fuels. Wishful thinking won't do.

Overshoot Day

Yesterday was Earth Overshoot Day. As of today, we are spending down the planet's natural capital without any chance of making up for the depreciation.

The seven billion people of us use up 1.35 times as much land as the planet has to offer. That's true despite the fact that most use far fewer resources than the average American, and at least a billion live barely above subsistence level. In short, things don't look all that good.

The big question is where the gauge is heading: will things get worse, or is there hope on the horizon?

It's a high-stakes race with an uncertain outcome. There's always the minute chance of a major technological breakthrough, which dematerializes human progress and saves the day. Trusting that it will happen any day now is like playing the lottery. Chance is it won't pay off, but hey, nothing lost in giving it a try.

Sadly, the cards are stacked against this breakthrough approach. If the playing field isn't level, if oil, coal, and gas get subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars a year, and if spewing gunk into the atmosphere without monetary repercussions for the offenders is the status quo, innovation will necessarily be skewed.

That's the worst of all worlds: We can't even trust that breakthroughs will go into the right direction. My money is on hitting overshoot day even earlier next year, although I'd gladly be proven wrong, and soon.

$20 bills hanging out the window

If you think energy efficiency is overblown, look no further than this window.

Apparently, businesses are almost as bad. EDF's own Climate Corps program has found $650 million in energy savings. No matter whether you care about the planet, you should clearly care about the bottom line here.

Sometimes these savings are as simple as putting in better insulation.

A ton of coal, gone tomorrow

A ton of West Virginian coal adds around $30 to GDP.

There's only one minor flaw with this arithmetic: Once you've dug it up, it's no longer there for the taking tomorrow.

Considering just that simple fact, the ton would only add $15 to GDP. Quite a difference, but one we routinely ignore in our GDP calculations.

Welcome to the wondrous world of creating value from nothing.

None of that even accounts for the fact that getting the coal out of the ground causes black lung disease in miners, or that burning it causes asthma in minors—and rising sea levels to boot.

Mouse versus 747

While burning the midnight oil in front of my laptop a week ago, I heard some rumblings in the corner. By 1 a.m., I knew more about humane mousetraps than I ever thought possible. Turns out there is quite a selection. This one claims to be fun for the kids.

Fortunately, my sixth-month-old was fast asleep when we caught this critter and released it a few minutes later in the park across the street.

Since we are sharing incriminating pictures, here's another one.

Don't get me wrong. I like fruit baskets on my trans-Atlantic flights as much as the next guy with too many frequent flyer miles. (This first-class flight, by the way, was entirely free. Thank you, BA, and damn you for ruining every other economy-class flight experience from now on.)

I don't need to point out the irony that humane mousetraps make zero difference to the larger outcome. Of course, it made all the difference for that one animal—and to me for not having to deal with a poisoned or maimed mouse. But there are probably more mice and other critters dying because of my flight than I could have possibly ever trapped in my kitchen.

Centuries of science

Year the greenhouse effect was discovered: 1824

Year the greenhouse effect was first shown experimentally: 1858

Year the greenhouse effect was first reported quantitatively: 1896

Decades of evidence

#1 hottest decade on record: 2000-2010

#2 hottest decade on record: 1990-2000

#3 hottest decade on record: 1980-1990

For the love of people

Human Impact on the environment equals Population times Affluence times Technology: I = P x A x T, for short. The equation starts with population for a reason. Seven billion of us have a larger footprint than one. So why, if you care about the planet, are environmentalists often so hesitant to tackle population head on?

The population question is a loaded topic—a loaded topic that perhaps comes down to one simple question: Why are you an environmentalist?

If the answer is because you like birds and bees, population may need to be on the table.

If the answer is because you like people and want to protect the planet "for future generations," or "maintain a livable planet for all," population becomes tricky.

To maximize the collective well-being of humans on the planet, one answer surely is to add more humans.

All of this has its limits, and most global population projections do show a flattening out at around nine billion by 2050. There are also clear and present problems, especially in already overcrowded and overtaxes local environments. But the question of how and even whether to tackle the P in IPAT is anything but clear-cut.

The highest lever

Individual action won't do to solve global warming. It needs to be something collective. But what if individual action is all you've got?

Say you are running a small, grassroots organization with the aim of making a difference in the community. You can do a lot of good by advocating for all the things that matter to the community. Global warming or global overfishing affects your community, but it's also clear that your individual actions won't solve the problem. What now?

Pull the highest policy lever possible.

If you are a national environmental group, set your aim at changing national policy. If you are a state-wide operation, aim at the state capital. If you are a city-wide operation, aim at city hall. Some of the policies affecting daily choices are made on the federal level, some are made on the state level, many are made close to home.

City planning plays a crucial role in getting greenhouse gas emissions under control. It also happens to improve livability: the higher your walk score, the better for you and the planet.

Just make sure you do aim at making policy change happen. Organize that community bike ride, and also add in a pledge for getting more bike paths. Clean up that side of the road, and also make sure to ask for more sidewalks. Get households to change their light bulbs, and make sure they are calling for new laws as well.

Moving Planet

On September 24th, 350.org together with some 150 other organizations is staging its latest day of action. It's tough not to get excited.

The emphasis is on moving the planet beyond fossil fuels, and what better way than getting millions excited by staging thousands of events in over 160 countries?

Well, millions or even a billion people moving around on bikes for a day won't move us from fossil fuels to wind turbines. It'll take much more than that.

These folks know that. What makes this movement so important is its emphasis on real, fundamental policy change. In fact, the first demand is a call for "science-based policies to get us back to 350ppm." Emphasis on policy.

The organizers also get the basic bathtub problem and drive home the point by calling for a "rapid, just transition to zero carbon emissions." Emphasis on zero.

Both 350ppm and zero emissions, of course, are far from easy to achieve. That doesn't make the goals any less important. There are certainly worse ways to spend your Saturday than participating in one of the Moving Planet events near you.

Just remember that it's policy change we need. By all means, keep on biking long after Saturday. But remember biking alone won't move us off fossil fuels. The right policies will.