[Reader-list] global warming

[Nagraj Adve]

The Politics of Global Warming: Can We Avoid 2 degrees?

‹ Nagraj Adve

The Earth¹s oceans, forests, grasslands and other landmass can currently
absorb roughly 14-16 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, an amount that is
slowly declining each year. About 36-37 billion tonnes (Gt) were emitted
into the atmosphere in 2006, the last year for which reliable worldwide data
is available. Of this, according to the official US¹ Energy Information
Administration, 29 Gt was emitted by the burning of coal, oil and other
fossil fuels. Another 7-8 Gt was added due to deforestation and land use
changes. Hence about 20 billion excess tonnes of carbon dioxide remains
unabsorbed each year, adding to the CO2 concentration in the Earth¹s
atmosphere, which currently stands at 387 parts per million (ppm). These
higher concentration levels of CO2, and also of methane, nitrous oxide and
other greenhouse gases have warmed the Earth by an average of 0.8 degrees
celsius since the Industrial Revolution. And because there is a lag between
CO2 emissions and warming, a further 0.6 degrees of warming is assured.
That would take us, over time, to 1.4 degrees above pre-Industrial levels.
Warming triggers feedbacks in the Earth¹s ecosystems, which contribute to
further warming. Already observed feedbacks include reduced Arctic ice,
release of methane from melting permafrost, decline in oceanic algae,
emissions from warmer soils, and reduced absorption of CO2 in the Southern
oceans. It is widely accepted that were the Earth¹s average temperature to
cross roughly 2 degrees above pre-Industrial levels, it would likely trigger
these feedbacks, simultaneously, to a scale that would undermine human
capacity to control the process.
Whether one can avoid reaching these dangerous levels of warming is one of
the key questions that Jonathan Neale addresses in his book Stop Global
Warming: Change the World. The best estimates, he says, suggest that 2
degrees will become unavoidable if CO2 levels reach 400-450 ppm. Neale talks
not so much of dangerous levels of warming as much as "abrupt climate
change", which others including James Hansen, the world¹s foremost
climatologist, have warned about.  To avoid this climate catastrophe, Neale
suggests that sharp cuts are needed in per capita emissions in the
industrialized world, by roughly 80 per cent to "between 1.7-1.3 tonnes per
person", and urgently, in 10-30 years (pp. 24, 30, 159). I think the numbers
are even more dire than Neale suggests; for one, he makes a mistake many do
in omitting carbon emissions from deforestation in his calculations: they
have been over 4 billion tonnes a year averaged over 1990-2005,  and even
more in recent years. That would make the target cuts he sets even more
difficult to reach. What¹s more, recent writings by Hansen and others
suggest that even 400 ppm may be too high, and to really be safe we should
revert CO2 levels to 350 ppm, "but likely less than that"  i.e. reduce it
from current levels. There¹s a small but growing campaign demanding this.
But this is not a book about the science of global warming. For an overview
of the science, there have been few better than Fred Pearce¹s The Last
Generation. Another superb, sometimes technical but generally accessible
source is realclimate.org. Nor is this book about the impacts of global
warming. For that, you would profit by visiting IPCC¹s website to read the
massive second volume of its 2007 report though it¹s conservative in some
aspects, or UNDP¹s Human Development Report 2007-08.
Neale¹s book is essentially about the politics of global warming ‹ about the
climate justice movement, its links with the anti-war and other mass
movements, about climate politics in the 1990s, the Kyoto Protocol and
subsequent negotiations, the resistance of corporations and other powerful
elites to change, and the linkages between all these. One of his main
arguments is that the drastic cuts needed urgently to avoid abrupt climate
change are feasible, using existing technologies. Focusing on individual
consumption, though useful to generate debate, is simply not worthwhile and
would prove inadequate. We need huge public works, and massive government
intervention and regulation, globally. However, since there are powerful
vested interests ‹ of the ten largest companies in the world in 2007, six
were oil companies and three, car companies ‹ preventing the kind of
intervention necessary, a vibrant mass movement is needed to push these
changes through, either by forcing current elites to act or replacing them
by those who will.
The book is divided into five sections, Following a brief presentation of
relevant aspects of the science, the sections that follow discuss
technological solutions and policy measures that could work now (and some
that won¹t); why the rich and powerful won¹t act; climate politics in the
1990s and after 2001; and alternative futures, a penultimate chapter that
discusses the horrors of global warming impacts in New Orleans and in the
Sahel, a world of "refugees, famine, war and suffering [that] awaits us if
we do not act", and a final chapter that brings the various threads of his
argument together urging the necessity of a radical climate justice movement
to overcome the many hurdles facing it. It¹s all too possible, he says at
the end, that elites stall long enough and abrupt climate change will
overwhelm us. It¹s also possible that ordinary people take control of their
societies and economies in a revolutionary overturning of corporate power.
It¹s not the most likely outcome but it is possible and "it would save the
planet" (pp. 255-256).
A short review can scarcely do justice to the numerous themes and ideas this
book touches upon. It¹s striking how varied the issues are Neale discusses,
and with a remarkable lucidity, borne of his engaging publicly with these
issues for years and also of his being an activist in many movements since
the 1960s. I¹d urge his book be read not just by those involved with the
climate justice movement in India, but also by activists in other movements,
and readers at large.
A crucial section of the book ­ given the urgency and scale of the problem
at hand ­ is the one that deals with ŒSolutions That Could Work Now¹. It
discusses cutting emissions via the transformation of electricity generation
by massive deployment of wind power, concentrated solar power and PV cells.
Britain, he argues, could have five million solar roofs in five years.
Other, sunnier places including India could deploy concentrated solar power,
and transport the electricity generated through long-range high voltage DC
cables, such as the 1,700 km long DC cable in operation in Africa. Separate
chapters then deal with cutting energy use in buildings, transportation and
industry. Reading these portions reminds one of George Monbiot¹s Heat: How
to Stop a Planet Burning, which also presents various technological
solutions in largely a First World context. In discussing emissions from
cement, oil refineries and steel industries, Neale¹s frame is wider than
Monbiot¹s, and its politics considerably wider. But neither of them discuss
emissions from the Œdefence¹ industry worldwide, one huge source of direct
and indirect emissions, possibly due to the lack of reliable data.
There are a number of issues about technological solutions that Neale does
not address adequately. One is the Jevons paradox, which shows that
increased efficiency in using a resource results not in its reduced demand
over time, but paradoxically in increased demand or an overall increase in
energy consumption.  Two, as John Bellamy Foster has repeatedly argued,
"under capitalism, it is those energy sources that generate the most profit
for capital Š that are promoted, not those that are beneficial to humanity
and the Earth".  Witness the alacrity with which Shell and other fossil fuel
companies rushed in to mine the ecologically disastrous tar sands in Canada,
and are currently withdrawing now that the price of oil has fallen to a
third of its peak of US$ 147 a barrel a year ago.
Three, one was uncomfortable with his assertion, repeatedly made, that
"climate change does not have to mean sacrifice for ordinary people". Even
if one assumes that technological advancement prevents dangerous climate
change, what of the other ecological and livelihood crises thrust
inordinately upon the poor and non-human species because of direct and
embodied consumption by elites everywhere ‹ the loss of community and
livelihood from mining, soil degradation, the increasing lack of access to
safe water, the loss of species which some call the sixth mass extinction in
history, the oceanic crisis and food security, the generation and export of
toxic wastes, etc? And which ordinary people is he referring to? If one were
to measure consumption, or indeed carbon emissions, on a world scale, the
Œordinary people¹ of the First World Neale refers to would be placed easily
at the higher end of the scale.
Four, what matters if we are to avoid dangerous levels of warming is not
merely technological change but the rate of change. Do we have the raw
materials or indeed the capacity to carry out that massive task worldwide in
the short time at hand? Drastically reducing the carbon intensity of the
world¹s energy systems necessitates a rapid transformation of its economic
infrastructure. It¹s moot whether decarbonization can proceed "faster than
the rate of depreciation of long-lasting fixed assets".  In short, what
would one do with the coal powered stations that China has been building at
a staggering rate, even as it galloped past the US as the chief emitter in
the world?
In fact, the rapid rise of China¹s CO2 emissions as manufacturing expanded ‹
from 3,050 million tonnes in 2001 to 5,322 mt in 2005,  and over 6 billion
tonnes in 2006 ‹ illustrates how centrally global warming is connected with
the growth and spread of capitalism, precisely because of capitalism¹s
deep-seated logic of opting for cheaper inputs, of energy (coal) and labour
power. A more thorough discussion of the systemic nature of the problem
would have resulted in a more realistic picture of the hurdles we face.
Which brings us to another major theme Neale stresses in his book ‹ the
importance of a mass movement, to enable not just the deployment of more
benign technologies but also the growth of societies based on people¹s
needs, not on profit (p. 259). The job can¹t be done by environmentalists
alone; a "mass climate movement has to include and mobilise large numbers of
working class people". I couldn¹t agree more. Such a movement would need to
"persuade unions and workers that the fight against global warming is not
about sacrifice but about jobs and a better world".
There¹s no doubt that global warming (along with myriad ecological crises
generated by capitalism) have brought to the front-burner questions of
equity, enriched the sustainable development debate, exposed the limitations
of an anthropocentric worldview, and has the capacity to link movements
against displacement, mining, dams, war, and for equitable access to the
commons. Global warming simply cannot be resolved under capitalism, and
makes the struggle for socialism an even more pressing one. But if one key
question is, can we avoid 2 degrees of warming, then we really need to ask
ourselves whether the climate justice movement, can, arm in arm with other
people¹s movements, grow in scale and then ensure the wide introduction of
benign technologies, and enforce public policy changes that Neale talks
about, along with the accompanying transformation in economic and social
relations. In time.
I doubt it. True, the movement against global warming has been growing by
leaps and bounds in the last couple of years in the West. Increasingly
visible impacts of climate change in India, such as on agriculture,  will
build the momentum of the fledgling movement here. There are also vibrant
struggles against forced displacement from industrial projects, SEZs and
dams, etc, which directly or indirectly relate to global warming. But let¹s
face the fact that global warming as yet cuts no ice with most political
parties and industrial unions in India, and, anecdotal evidence suggests, in
China. Despite its impacts on agriculture for years ­ 15 years in his
region, an activist and agriculturalist told me recently ‹ it has barely
begun to register on the radar of large social forces. This may be because
of the many other serious systemic crises facing the Indian underclasses,
but also because there exists a fragmented view of development,
industrialization and employment. A more nuanced analysis by Neale of the
constraints movements face would have been useful. The book¹s frequent
references to past successes such as for the welfare state, public drainage
in the 19th century, etc, underestimates the scale of the problem
("somewhere between the French Revolution and the fight for the welfare
state"), and the complexity of equity, which is at the heart of the matter.
In fact, an increasing number of climate change scientists feels the Earth
may have already tipped.  There¹s also the view that "since there are
already threshold changes in ecosystems and ocean acidification Š dangerous
change is likely to appear before 2 degrees celsius".   The RealClimate
group recently wrote that given the extent of current impacts "after only
0.8 degrees of warming, calling 2 degrees C a danger limit seems to us
pretty cavalier".  But there¹s very little discussion in most Left writing
about what the poor would face if and when we cross dangerous levels of
warming. Public discussion on possible impacts beyond ‹ which Mark Lynas
discusses in his grim book Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet ‹
would underline the urgency of global warming and perhaps help prepare for
the crises. Doing too little, too late would be a matter of life and death
for millions of the world¹s poor, and for innumerable other species on this
planet.


Book Review of Jonathan Neale, Stop Global Warming: Change the World,
Bookmarks Publications, 2008, 287 pp, 11.99 pounds.



Notes:
 James Hansen, et al. ŒClimate Change and Trace Gases¹, Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A, 2007, 365, pp. 1925-54; James Hansen,
ŒClimate Catastrophe¹, New Scientist, 28 July 2007, p. 33.
2 UNDP, Human Development Report 2007-08: Fighting Climate Change, 2007,
Palgrave Macmillan,
p. 69.
3 James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, et al, ŒTarget Atmospheric
CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?¹,
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOASCJ/2008/00000002/00000001/
217TOASCJ.SGM
4 John Bellamy Foster, Ecology Against Capitalism, Cornerstone Publications,
2003, p. 94-95.
5 John Bellamy Foster, ŒCapitalism¹s Environmental Crisis: Is Technology the
Answer?", in Foster, Ecology Against Capitalism, p. 100.
6 Minqi Li, ŒClimate Change, Limits to Growth and the Imperative for
Socialism¹ Monthly Review, July-August 2008, pp. 49-64.
7 Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. World Carbon Dioxide
Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels, 1980-2005.
United States EIA website.
8 A good discussion of which can be found in P.K. Aggarwal, ŒGlobal Climate
Change and Indian Agriculture¹, The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
November 2008, pp. 911-919.
9 David Adam, "World Will Not Meet 2C Warming Target, Climate Change Experts
Agree¹, Guardian, 14 April 2009.
10  Thomas Lovejoy, ŒClimate Change¹s Pressure on Biodiversity¹, in State of
the World 2009, Worldwatch Institute, 2009, pp. 67-70.
11 ŒHit The Brakes Hard¹, www.realclimate.org, 29 April 2009.

First published in the EPW, 27 June 2009
naga at bol.net.in