
[Welcome Bill McKibben, and Host Heather Rogers.] [As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
In his new book, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, Bill McKibben portrays the dire environmental conditions that a generation ago seemed like abstract predictions of what our grandchildren might endure. In much of his previous work the environmental journalist and activist aimed to wake people up to the existence of climate change before it was too late. His 1989 The End of Nature was the first book to clearly chart for a general audience the human causes of and potential disasters wrought by global warming.
In marked contrast, Eaarth accepts that climate change and its grave hardships are underway, serving as a manual of sorts to help guide us through a world irrevocably altered. We now inhabit a planet so dramatically remade through climate change it warrants a new name: Eaarth. “The world hasn’t ended, but the world as we know it has,” he writes.
Eaarth is at once mature, angry and inspiring. In the opening chapters McKibben maps our new planet—one with prolonged droughts, more intense storms and floods, acidifying oceans, expanding tropical zones, and rising sea levels. He then dedicates the second half of the book to how we might try “to manage our descent.” It might sound grim, but by exploring this reality McKibben quits the self-delusion that keeps so many of us hallucinating that technological fixes and economic expansion (i.e. consuming and wasting) can remedy the problem.
A life on a tough new planet, McKibben tells us, must be less complex—slower, smaller, more stable—one of “maintenance” instead of mind-blowing growth. He looks back at US colonial history and the earliest days after the American Revolution to explain that we chose federal over state (and local) power to accomplish the grand National Project, as he calls it. That project was one of westward expansion (including constructing the railways and highways), reaching the moon, overcoming the Soviet Union—in other words building the physical and political infrastructure needed to create the largest economy in human history.
But now, McKibben argues, there is no room left to grow, so we must “back off.” The undoing of complexity—that which makes workers in China lose their jobs thanks to bad mortgage bets in Nevada, and creates floods in Bangladesh due to CO2 emissions from American drivers—allows us to be more agile in the face of turmoil. It gets us off the too-big-to-fail disaster track. McKibben gives considerable ink to the role of the state as serving the people and the importance of people acting as citizens—and not just shoppers—in this globally warmed world.
The book’s last chapter offers compelling details of a new way of life, explaining that we can solve our problems now. In his rendition, technologies and practices that rely on decentralized social organization are exciting; solutions to a polluted atmosphere and transmuted ecosystems can be elegant and creative, addressing what is deeply human about us, even amid the ruin.
We will be able to feed ourselves more reliably by growing three dozen different crops in one field as opposed to a monoculture of corn or soy, he explains. We will be able to power our lives by using dispersed sources of heat and light generation, all of which currently exist—solar water heaters, photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, biomass plants that burn organic matter, and more.
Then there’s the social component of the switch to the local. While at times he can romanticize such a shift, McKibben also gets it that a tight-knit localized community can be stifling, even “dull.” We need access to a wide range of ideas and cultures, which McKibben says the Internet can be key in delivering. “It’s as if it came along just in time, a deus ex machina to make our next evolution bearable.” And, like local food and dispersed energy generation, the Internet is decentralized, which means not only will our ecosystems and economies be diverse, McKibben posits, so will our culture and politics.
The activism the author has engaged in for the past several years with students from Vermont’s Middlebury College, where he teaches, embody this new kind of politics. 350.org, the group’s latest effort, is a decentralized Web-based campaign to communicate that 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is the most the world as we’ve known it can handle. (We’re currently well past that at almost 390 ppm.)
350.org’s ongoing campaign doesn’t require participants to trek to Washington DC for a mass rally. Instead McKibben and his six collaborators simply ask people to use the number 350 in any way they see fit and take a photo that can be posted on the group’s website. This strategy of meeting people where they’re at was wildly successful, with citizens from over 180 countries participating in one of the most widespread global actions in history.
Eaarth is a visionary book; while it’s not always rooted in the practicalities of making change it’s truly rooted in the real. And it bravely stakes out “the architecture for the world that comes next, the dispersed and localized societies that can survive the damage we can no longer prevent.”



175 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Bill, Welcome to the Lake.
Heather, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Good afternoon. Thanks for being here.
hi there–good to be with you
Bill, I want to start off with a question about why you wrote a book like Eaarth now — why now?
Well, I wrote The End of Nature 21 years ago, and at the time it was mostly prediction and warning. It was the first book about climate change, but other warnings followed, and those weren’t heeded–so now we’re in the rapids and I wanted to document what was already happening on a hotter world.
In hopes, of course, that we would take mroe action to slow the warming down–but also begin making the adjustments necessary to inhabit the planet we now live on, a planet already changing in fundamental ways, hence that eztra A
You talk about our current ecological state in such a sober way, you don’t sugar coat it. Are you worried people will find the book too depressing?
Good afternoon Bill and Heather and welcome to FDL this afternoon.
Bill, I have not had an opportunity to read your book (and forgive me for the somewhat facetious nature of this question) but isn’t there a small positive in that if we reach out to the stars, we’ll have to do some ‘terra forming’ of other planets to make them compatible with our atmosphere, right? (or it will push us to find those out of solar system planets where we might be able to survive)
Thanks so much for writing this book Bill, and for being here today. And thanks Heather for hosting.
It does feel like we’re about half way into chapter 1 of the Book of Revelations these days. How has that psychology impacted what you’re seeing from 350 activists?
Well, the last 2/3 is about what we can do. And it’s not unrelievedly grim–I think the world on the other side of fossil fuel will have real compensations. But I’ve also found people eager to actually hear the truth. Our 350.org movement as you point out in the intro, has blossomed into the biggest climate change effort despite using a tough scientific data point as its rallying cry
As a technical note, there is a “Reply” button in the lower right hand of each comment. clicking the “Reply” will pre-fill the comment number and name of the commenter to whom you are replying (helps for others to follow the conversation more easily)
Note: Some browsers do not work totally correctly if you try to press the reply after a refresh of the screen until the page finishes loading completely
They’re msotly young, which means they;re a good deal more mature than most of the rest of us. Like–I know this planet is not as good as the one you got. But I have to live here 60 or 70 more eyars so I’m going to do what I can to make it workable. And I’m going to enjoy myself in the process–enjoy, epsecially, the sense of being linked up with millions like me around the globe. Check out the pictures at 350.org–it will blow your mind, as they used to say
Um, well, what can I tell you. Most of the people getting crunched first by cliamte change are precisely the least likely to be in the .000001 of us who might ever lift off for the stars. I don’t even like the image. This is my planet, I’ll fight for it
Yes, I agree that people want to hear the truth.
In the book you write that government structures need to change to suit a scaled back, local way of living. How might that play out in today’s political climate?
Welcome Ms. Rogers and Mr. McKibben.
As always, love to Bev.
What a fantastic and frightening lens through which to see the world.
• If we are able to ‘recover’, what will that recovery be – an eventual return to old practices, or a future that is restrictive of those practices by design?
Welcome Bill and Heather. We’re presently watching a series of climate/environmental disasters — everyone showing both the risks and the limits of our technology — and yet the prevailing assumption, I suspect, is that we can invent our way out this — the next Moonshot.
Do you think we have to change that way of thinking, and if so, how?? Or is there a way to adapt/nudge it in a more helpful direction?
Welcome.
I apologize for not having read the book, but do I understand the description above correctly: this decentralized culture sounds a bit like the Dark Ages after the fall of Rome.
Are you advocating neo feudalism? Not the serfs and lords part, of course, but the localism and relative isolation.
I think it will look different in lots of different places–but in general the logic of renewable energy is so different from the logic of fossil fuel (spread out and diffused bx centralized) that I’m pretty sure we’ll be living in more localized ways. wE can already glimpse it starting to happen with food–the # of farms in the US is suddenly increasing for the first time in 150 years. Hard to say where it all ends–the trajectory is the key thing
I just watched the alm ost comical BP press conference–these guys clearly have no idea what to do next. I think, in the largest sense, we’re running into the limits to growth people started laying out 40 years ago. When the arctic melts, it’s a poor sign. So now it’s time to stop trying to polevault over them and start respecting them.
For those who are so inclined, feel free to tweet:
Right now, @BillMcKibben of @350 on FDL Book Salon 2 Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet http://fdl.me/amwUuN host Heather Wilson
Well, isolation is the great worry. But here we’re actually in luck. The invention of the Net seems to me the one really empowering thing of the last decade or so, the good wild card that should let us live more local economic lives iwthout turning parochial. you can do 1000 google searches for the energy it takes to drive 6/10 of a mile
Hi All – welcome and fascinating subject.
Mr. McKibben you wrote:
Which is a kilometer. Do you think it’s important for us all to start measuring from the same set of metrics? I’ve often thought this is a problem communicating scale and scope of such issues.
BTW, Cynthia Kouril & Scarecrow beat the media as to the likely cause of the BP spill by a week — the figured it out within 72 hour:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/46149
it’s on of the reasons we went with 350.org–a measurement in ppm of co2–instead of the 2 degree C temp targets favored by some of the european greens (not anymore–they now recognize they’re too high). we have to figure out the few languages we all speak, and sad to say metric isn’t one of them. and probably won’t be for a while
More to the point, those methane hydrates are dangerous for a much bigger reason. They’re starting to melt en masse in northern waters, and as they do the flood of ch4–another ptent greenhouse gas–complicates global warming considerably!
I find it interesting that in suburban communities, mass transit is becoming a transpartisan issue. It’s not just an urban preoccupation any more. Nobody wants to be stuck in the sticks.
Hi Scarecrow,
The most commonly repeated assumption is that we can techno-fix out way out of disaster. That’s why our economy must continue to grow, so that we have the know-how and resources to get out of whatever bind we get ourselves into. It’s a utopian notion (a quite different utopia than I’d envision). Don’t get me wong — I believe technology is our friend, and I’ve experienced how it can be fascinating and motivating. But when it must serve the bottom line over human and environmental health it gets corrupted and we end up with what a friend of mine calls adulterated technology — tech that can’t really do the job we need it to do. Exhibit A: The drilling tech that’s being used in the Gulf.
Yes, that press conference was strange. On the one hand, government officials reading their “update” statements while everyone waiting to hear about the containment dome. Then the corporate guy comes on and says our solutions don’t work — “haven’t failed yet.” But isn’t that the pattern? The deference to corporate control and thinking and the inability to say, “you guys create conditions that are unacceptable and then tell us your solutions “haven’t failed yet.” But no willingness to say, we can’t let you continue to make the nation’s choices for us.
Gas at $4 a gallon in summere 2008 dropped the scales from many eyes–’where’s the bus stop anyway?’
it’s one reason that pricing carbon is probably the key global warming solution
True, but if people don’t travel, you lose the simulation of new places, new people. I know what the net can bring–I spend half my day or more with friends and colleagues I know only fromthe net.
But, without a way to organize on a large scale, you end up with closed societies and an inbred gene pool.
OTOH, I totally agree about localized energy production. Every home should have solar, every home should be composting (not just for the garden, but for the methane).
In Bermuda, they don’t have a good groundwater source. So every home has an underground cistern for captured rainwater, and the roofs are all coated with lime. Water supply is almost completley decentralized.
We could be doing that with entergy right now. And a greater emphasis on telecommuting could cut travel dramatically as well as overhead costs for office space
yeah, I noticed that too. The nice admiral kept saying we’ve laid out 8 million feet of boom, but she sure buried the lede, as we used to say around the newspaper. Why are they being nice to BP–if only for political reasons I’d be flaying them. Except then BP might choose to remind us a little more often that the adminsitration three weeks ago was touting the safety of offshore drilling
Happily, I think we’ve shown you really can organize without traveling too much. When we started 350.org, we said: no march on Washington. The architecture of the internet suggests something very different. That distributed political power is much like the distributed electrical power we’re going to need, or the lcoalized food
Yet, here on glorious Long Island the MTA is cutting NassauBus lines and decreasing service on the LIRR.
It’s insane
Welcome Heather and thank you Bill, for your work, this latest book and sharing your thoughts with us today. We covered Step it Up here at FDL and I remain inspired by the creative energy of the young folks you facilitate.
About a year ago, I was at a conference in Ottawa where Canadian govt leaders discussed adaptation to climate change and it was pretty astonishing. Rather than the completely past due debates here, they assumed that impacts were already happening and began the discussion of what communities and the govt need to do. It included everything from impacts on northern expansion to social services for elderly in communities likely to be flooded. Quite the eye opener … I’m curious if there’s any sense that similar thinking or work is being considered in the US.
We’re still in the ‘it’s your grandchildren at risk’ phase, which is one reason i wrote the book–time to show people this game is already underway, and that indeed we’re about six touchdowns behind
The images at 350.org for those who haven’t seen them are just amazing:
http://www.350.org/
Right now my dog is freaking out. If you didn’t know her you’d say she was just neurotic. But it probably means the barometric pressure is dropping. She’s just intuitively responding to something very real.
It feels like there’s some intangible energy that people are responding to, they can’t quite name what it is, though they try. The amazing pictures at 350 seem like an attempt to articulate that.
In discussions like these, I bring up the following formula:
PT = ER
where P is population, T is technology level, E is environmental impacts and R is resource use.
I would agree we either have or are going to blow past the tipping points associated with significant to severe climate change. But the other factors are worth noting in how they will affect our future. At current rates, world population will be at 9 billion around 2042. We are already over the planet’s sustainable population carrying limit at our current 6.7 billion. Add in peak energy, dwindling water resources and you have a witch’s brew of potential conflicts.
As the current financial debacles, healthcare, climate change, etc. have been showing us, our elites are incapable of effective remedial action on any issue. So while sketching out how we might live in a globally warmed world is interesting, it begs an important question. That is if we and our leaderships were sufficiently reasonable to embrace a smaller greener globally warmed world than we and they would have been sufficiently reasonable to avoid global warming in the first place.
Okay, here’s where I’m stuck. You can evision alternative communities, and groups of people can agree among themselves to go out and create those alternative communities. But it’s not clear how you get huge masses of people to make that voluntary choice, and yet we need something close to global coordination/cooperations to have the needed effect.
On the other hand, you can decide to pursue the political route and capture the government, use the power of goverment to make large changes, and encourage those in other nations to do the same. But so far, no nation has been particularly successful at this, and in our own country, corporate control and capture of government seems to be the dominant paradigm.
I don’t see how you get from A to B via either route. Is there a third way?
Bill, I’m a Lutheran pastor, currently in the Kansas City area, but formerly I was in Wyoming where Lutheran churches are few and far between. (For that matter, *everything* in Wyoming is few and far between!) The internet came along after I left WY, but in talking to old friends there, it has changed the way a lot of them connect with the rest of the Lutheran church. Geographically, they are relatively isolated communities, but intellectually and socially, they feel much more connected to the broader church now because they can connect with it online in ways that were impossible in the past. When connecting meant physically getting in your car and driving 6 hours (or more) to a meeting that would last 2 hours, a lot of them simply chose not to go. Now, they can be connected for the two hours, and not lose the whole day.
I wonder if it’s this case of people being stuck in that narrative of having to convince people of the validity of the science. I don’t think the problem is so much that people don’t get the science, it seems to be more of a battle for ideas.
FDL has been reminding them all of Obama’s words though: Spill Here, Spill Now
Elites don’t get reasonable on their own, you make them reasonable with political action and organizing. Power responds to power, and since we forgot to build a global warming movement twenty years ago we’re having to backfill now. We need your help on 10/10/10, when we’re having a Global Work Party. All over the planet people will be joining together ot put up soalr panels, wind turbines, etc–not because we can solve this problem one panel at a time, but because we can send a sharp and shaming political message–we’re getting to work, what about you?
Yeah, as a longtime rural American, I completely get it. The internet can’t do everything, but there’s a lot it can do. We have to grasp at the chances we’ve got, anyway
Well, Enron’s manipulation of energy prices in California and the rolling blackouts of 2000 almost made me a second amendment enthusiast. But that’s probably not what you mean.
And a tough battle, because the energy industry has the money it takes to confuse. and since confusion leads to delay, which is their only aim, game over. we’re not going to match them with money, it’s going ot have to be organizing.
i hear you
but in this case, we need to charge more.
and to make that poltiically possible, we need to rebate the $ back to everyone in the country, in a monthly check. Sen. Cantwell and Collins (!) have a decent bill that would get that started–far preferable to the proky kludge that Kerry and Lieberman are set to introduce next week. But they’re ‘serious’ because they let the utility industry write the bill. Go figure.
I just want to throw this out there. Bill, your opposed to nuclear power. Can you explain why?
Yeah, this is the crux wierd politcal problem. I keep saying we have two tasks, one to buidl resilient local communities and the other to do for the first time serious global political work on the first real global political problem. neither track is easy, but they are self-reinforcing. if we get a cap on carbon, and hence a rise in price, from the UN and the Congress, then we change the way that economic gravity works–all of a sudden it helps farmers markets and soalr panels, and wrecks the Exxon business model. Which is why the fight is so tough and so critical.
I think people – in a broad sense – do get it but the models and answers we’ve offered have been “be afraid” and pretty lame things to do rather than models – like Bill is writing about – that can engage in a stronger way.
I have friends who’ve worked, for example, on the “personal sustainability profiles” that Walmart (yeah, I know) initiated where everyone who works for them were asked to do 3 things to change their lifestyle towards sustainability. What was stunning was the excitement among the Walmart workers about this – and these are the very folks we tend to write off. There’s more appetite out there – but too few engagements.
And I think we see some of the needed changes slowly evolving as the local foods movements for example really take off … people are open and often best at self-organizing when they feel they can take some control themselves – and then it becomes addictive as they re-find the value of community.
or perhaps that is simply my pollyanna approach … it does keep me sane tho
Oh, look, nuclear pwoer is no longer the scariest thing in the world. You oeprate a coal plant according to spec and it wrecks the world. But I’m wary of the spill of red ink from nuclear plants. No one builds them without ungodly govt subsidy, and msot of the modeling i’ve seen indicates that if you’re going to spend that money, there are better alternatives
Okay, so we put a price on carbon, which I agree with, and we rebate to everyone, sounds good. In your estimation is this more politically feasible than cutting subsidies to Big Oil and redirecting those billions into solar and wind?
I am stunned when I look at vast arrays of flat roofs, begging for solar installations. Solar strikes me as the definitive example of switching to the local, and for a business that is located under one of those big flat roofs, it’s also a potential source of revenue, especially in the long run.
Do you have any business folks on board for 10/10/10?
I think you’re right, or i sure hope so. people are willing to do a lot if you ask them to do a lot, but only if they feel like enough other people are thinking along the same lines for it to make a difference. that’s why, when we do the 350 stuff, a big feature is making sure everyone instantly uploads pictures, so we can make sure they all know and can see what everyone else is up to
You. Me. Biome. Let’s go.
http://www.robaid.com/bionics/green-architecture-eden-project-in-uk.htm
both and
we’re in ‘can’t possibly do enough’ mode, i fear. but the rebate thing is good because it lets you tighten the cap, and raise the price of gas, with some political odds of surviving, because every time you do the check gets bigger
There’s also the issue of time. Getting enough nuke plants online to get us off fossil fuels will take decades. Why do you think some environmentalists are saying nuclear is more realistic than solar, wind, etc.?
more business folks all the time. we always worry about greenwashing, but we need people that are trying to scale up the right things
I notice that you did not address the issue of population control. Our elites are neutral to actively hostile on many issues, but population control is an issue that is crucial but which has a powerful grassroots resistance to it. Your whole plan of going small is essentially at odds with ongoing population increase.
Well, because it’s so damned tough to figure out where we’re going to get anywhere near enough power without fossil fuel. So job 1 has got to be real conservation. if we cut the powerload 40%, suddenly thsoe solar panels look a little more promising. there’s also that baseload trouble, though it’s getting easier to work around with wind and solar.
Actually, I wrote a whole book on population: Maybe One: An Argument for Smaller Families
Here’s the one piece of good news I can offer–people, msotly in the developing world, have broken the back of fertility growth. The average woman has 2.56 kids now, down from 6 30 years ago. Pop. growth will hve stopped by midcentury and then decline. The secret: educating and empowering women
Now we need to do something as decisive about the consumption curve
Aloha, Bill and Heather…!
Have you heard of the Sara Project…?
We’ve got a smaller scale version being developed here on the Big Isle… It incorporates adobe buildings painted with impregnated solar paint, with water catchment that is utilized for aquaponics (not hydroponics) that produces copious amounts of food; from tilapia and shrimp under the actual food crops, etc…! It’s truly a self contained, low impact habitation…!
Do you know if they are still trying to go around Lieberman?
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/89513-collins-suggests-attaching-her-climate-plan-to-energy-bill
In talking about another way, we can criticize capitalism because of its need for constant growth and the consequent destruction. We can criticize communism for its comparable pollution and degradation. Can this “third way” be something we build, taking what works and leaving behind what doesn’t — in critical conversations this option is typically off the table. You’re either a free marketeer or a socialist/communist/fascist (in the parlance of the day). I think finding new pathways is what Bill’s trying to push forward.
One of the nicer parts of Eaarth is the section on what we’re learning about small scale ag in general, and it echoes your Hawaii experience. The smaller the farm, the higher the yield per acre, often because of cyclical systems like the one you describe. It’s good fun, too
Not direct to 350.org Peterr, but some ones to note are found here:
BICEP
Since I’ve worked on this with companies for a while, I find a lot more interest and support than shows – and a lot of those folks are reading Bill!
I wish it were true. 30 years ago, the Califoria Energy Commission held some hearings on how far/fast to get to economic solar photovoltaic — and the DoE officials at the time — Carter guys — said it’s right on the horizon, and if we keep innovating and keep working on mass production, we’ll get the price down to make it competitive. Didn’t happen. It seems to remain “right on the horizon,” which I find very discouraging. Other options have done much better. But maybe that’s changing, ???
I think it’s all an enormous fustercluck right now. The BP thing screws up some of thier most carefully worked out compromises, but the real political problem is that Obama won’t say what he wants, won’t campaign for anything hard. He seems to jsut want a bill with the name Energy on the title page so he can check it off the list. A little dispiriting, since he’s the only guy who can break this logjam. But that shows the power of the energy industry–bigger even than Pharma!
I’m on my way ot China, to do some organizing but also to look at some of their solar stuff. They;re driving prices down fast. And while pv may take a while, solar hot water is a complete no brainer, even here in Vermont. I’ve seen cities in China where 98% of households have solar hot water on the roof–Israel too.
I’d prefer mine just outside Paris, with a direct subway link. I don’t want to give up a lot of creative/wonderful stuff that distinguish humans. So someone has to show me how we both have all that and live very differently from the way we do. I think that’s the bridge Bill is trying to describe??
What about Jevon’s Paradox — the more efficient we get, i.e. the more we conserve, the more energy we ultimately end up using. How can we cut the powerload of we don’t address the logic of our economic system?
some of the new pathways come when you price energy differently. fossil fuel explains an awful lot about the modern world and the way it looks (and the empty way it feels–it’s made us the first people int he world with no practical need of our neighbors). so it stands to reason that as we move away from it, new horizons will open up
Yes, I agree on the water heating. But is the pv getting closer, when you reprice trad electricity with whatever carbon tax makes sense? And what is that tax — in Cents/kwh? I haven’t seen that calculation in a while.
Well, i think there’s enough economic drag now that the old rules are beginning to fade. No kidding, we’re going to be resilience mode, not growth mode. Look at Nashville this month–more rain in three days than in any entire May on record. You know what kind of economic friction that starts to create? (Ask the insurance industry!)
Thanks!
In all the federal efforts to encourage people to engage in better energy choices, it seems that the primary tool used is tax credits. I agree with that, as far as it goes, but using tax credits leaves out the non-profit sector completely. If I put solar panels on my house, there are incentive programs to help pay for it; if my church or local non-profit wants to do the same, I’m not aware of anything that is available to them.
Am I missing something, or are non-profits simply off the radar of the policymakers on this?
The way population is so often talked about is with so many more people we’ll run out of resources, therefore the problem is THAT we consume. But what we really need to be talking about is HOW we consume. If, as Bill points out, population begins to level off and decline, we still must deal with the way we use the materials we extract from and dump back into nature.
You realize they don’t allow Blackberry?
Clsoer, but not there yet. You need those various subsidies tht states have been offering (and which run out in a few weeks because so many people apply). as to how much carbon tax? as much as humanly possible, which is why we need tht rebate scheme, to reduce the political pain. under cantwell collins 80% of americans come out ahead.
especially true since msot of the pop growth is coming in places that don’t use much energy at all. this problem has to be faced here, and in the rpaidly developing, though not much growing, coutnries–china, say
Bill – A lot of this conversation, properly, has been around energy. But a big factor coming is fresh water, and how fresh water sources are going to change and move around. Can you talk about that a little?
The other thing to note is that in much of US, solar for hot water heating displaces gas, not electricity, and thus not coal (maybe not true in China?). We need to be attacking the coal. I read recently that now that it’s growing very fast again, China is having to construct many large coal plants to keep up with industrial demand — so while our GHG may be lower at the moment because of our recession, the opposite is happening there.
Water is where the new Eaarth is most different
1) warm air holds more water vapro than cold–the atmosphere is already 5% more moist, which is completely off the charts incredible. it’s why we’re seeing more drought, but especially more downpour. As I said earlier, ask the good people of Nashville. (this week. Last month, Rio de Janeiro. In March, Rhode Island. ad infinitum)
2) more evaporation is making ag harder, especially since we were alredy bumping groudn water limits
3) and don’t get me started on seawater. the catastrophe in the gulf is small comapred to the slick (invisible) of acid spreadng out across the oceans. They are 30% more acid from absording exces carbon in the atmosphere. That is completely f-ed up, almost as sick as watching BP trying to figure out how to put a box on top of its well.
Industrial demand in China is growing–but even more so the demand for stuff. A first refrigerator, a first car. That’s what’s so hard to slow, because, um, are we going to tell them no?
Because they haven’t had their energy bills quadruple at the hands of the Bonneville Power Administration?
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=274
My Republican mother said “I never want to hear about nuclear power again” after “experts” predicted our dirt cheap Washington State hydroelectric power was going to be inadequate to supply the region any more in the 70s. The idea that maybe, even if that was true, we could’ve just stopped exporting it to California rather than building five new nuclear reactors didn’t seem to occur to anyone.
They never went online. Forbes called it “the greatest managerial disaster in business history.” And then there’s Hanford, the most polluted nuclear site in the country. Some kind of biblical wrath for producing the Nagasaki bomb plutonium I guess.
People from Washington get a bit hinky at the discussion of nuclear power. It doesn’t subject itself to abstract analysis with spreadsheets and projections because no matter how sophisticated the technology is, the execution is always problematic.
Then there’s the feed-in tariff in Germany — install solar panels on your roof and hook ‘em up to the grid and the utility is obliged to buy the power for 20 years at double or more the going rate. You can pay off your pv’s in about 12-13 years, then the rest is profit. The project is funded by all the country’s rate payers chipping in an extra .01 euro cents per kwh. It has led to a triple-digit increase in the installation and generation of solar power in the country — 1 in 100 houses has panels on their roofs today.
I like to call them “eco hustlers.”
Also, there’s a really pwoerful nuclear energy lobby that has decades of experience at sucking the govt teat because its never made money on its own
BP’s dome just failed
p.s. the subsidy system in the US can’t match the feed-in tariff, precisely for the reason you point out — the subsidies run out and the whole transition hits a wall. These fits and starts create too much uncertainty for PV producers and too many hurdles for homeowners.
One possible hope:
The horror in the gulf might bring Obama off the sidelines, and give him the opening he needs to make energy policy a priority. We’ll see if he means it or not about this stuff. I’m guessing no, but i’d like a surprise.
btw, everyone should agree we won’t call it a spill anymore. it’s an oil volcano gushing away, an oil river. this is like calling a stab wound a ‘blood spill.’
One thing I’ll just point out; the Colorado River doesn’t flow all the way to the Gulf of Baja as it once did when I was a kid.
The estuary there is all quite brackish now, and it’s shrimp production has fallen way off to negligible. This intensified the production and employment problem on the Mexican side of the border; not all of it but a piece of it.
The geo-political response to the resulting additional migration in the new AZ immigration law is illustrative in my mind. I think we’re going to see more restrictive geo-political laws as regards resources.
Your view?
In California, the CEC demand forecasters created an “end use” forecast, and directed the utilities to provide us with huge amounts of survey data — how many people have how may refrigerators, how many central air conditions, how may electric vs gas heating, and so on. We then used that data to tell us which appliances we should regulate by imposing new appliance efficiency standards. That, plus the simultaneous new building standards, forced the growth in consumption down, over time.
It would kill me to think that China or India? is just now going through this huge change in living standards — good for them — but not demanding that all these new appliances the Chinese are buying are not very efficient – that would be a huge lost opportunity and make it even harder to arrest to coal surge.
Obama farmed out the health care bill to Congress and seems to be doing the same with energy and climate. (What happened to the lesson with the health care — take decisive action?) What are your thoughts on how he could be doing more via the EPA on restricting carbon?
He could be ramping up EPA action to white hot, and using it to scare people into a tough energy bill. and if they don’t scare, then he could be using the epa to start closing the oldest coal plants, one at a time
well, this is why we should be sharing–for free–every bit of proprietary technology we’ve got along these lines. the chinese can’t afford the latest greatest fridge yet, so they go for the cheapest icebox they can find.
not jsut here, either. india just finsihed a 2500 mile long wall along the bangaldesh border. they have a pretty good idea what happens when the bay of bengal starts to rise
Lobbyists! Now you’re talkin’ my language.
I see Joel Johnson, Rahm Emanuel’s good buddy at Glover Park, just signed up to lobby on “matters pertaining to nuclear energy” for EDF Energy:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/05/300268926.pdf
Wonder what that portends about the future of nuclear energy in upcoming legislation? Hmm, let me think on that for a minute.
Mr. McKibben, your hypothesis here is intriguing, but I must admit to being skeptical of some parts of it. In the next half century it seems likely to me that we will see several revolutionary technological developments. I see that someone has mentioned going to other planets and you rightly pointed out that this could never be any kind of solution. But what about things like very cheap and efficient solar cells? Already there are companies like Nanosolar that are trying to bring down the price per watt, and my bet is some much more revolutionary options will be well developed by 2050.
Have you considered what happens to your predictions if we develop very cheap, efficient solar power and fuel cell technology?
This sounds promising…
Obama’s support for nuclear, as of the state of the union, is now unequivocal. Seems like we’re talking about money here mostly. But what about health effects? Are we in agreement that the technology has improved that much?
what happens is, it gets possible to head off the worst. right now we’ve raised the temp 1 degree, there’s another degree in the pipeline from carbon we’ve already put out there. but climatologists promise 4-5-6 degrees if we don’t get off fossil fuel asap. if 1 degree melts the arctic we do not want to find out what 4 degrees will do, which is why we need to be pouring money at the kinds of tech you describe. and getting the price of fossil fuel up high enough that people buy them
no, it’s still scary. it’s just probably not as scary as coal. the one good thing you can say about nuclear is, the worst risks fall on the people who use the pwoer. we’ve worked hard to shut down our nuke in vermont, and i’m glad it’s going to happen–it’s manifestly unsafe. but if we jsut switch to coal-fired power, then the risk is transferred to bangladeshi peasants, who don’t even get the benefit of the juice
Bill, I’ve read that rooftop passive solar water heaing was the norm in Southern California until the nascent gas utilities “sold” enough water heaters at below market rates to destroy demand for passive solar.
As fossil fuel supplies dwindle, do you think it possible that publicly subsidized passive aolar (and heat exchangers based on subsurface soil temps) could help speed our transition away from fossil fuel for residential use?
(PS: Apologies if this is in Eaarth – haven’t yet had the opportunity to read it, but look forward to doing so.
And thank you to you and Heather both for being here and for your respective work and writings).
Where does that money come from? (I can’t help it, I’m a stickler for details.)
Are we in agreement that the technology has improved that much?
Probably not. But whose health are we talking about? Aside from ours, today, there is the future. And there is no bullet-proof way, no future “Rosetta Stone” to keep people 1,000 years from now warned that they might be digging up/walking into something lethal.
Slightly OT but do you know anything about the offices of technology transfer? It’s my understanding that they’re the ones that look for businesses to assume the IP rights to any technology that government agencies develop.
I know that in the case of biologic drugs, they gave the farm away to IP rights in exchange for…well, nothing. And now Congress just extended the period of protection from generic competition to 12 years and possibly beyond (as opposed to 5 for other drugs). I know a lot of “green” technology is being developed by the Department of Defense. I’m assuming technology transfer has similar issues there, if not worse.
x2
oh i don’t know–you think maybe the defense budget? since this is the worst security threat we face, by an order of magnitude? that’s where i’d start
yeah, but the subsidy is so big that we have to drive the price way down. which will happen when we drive the price of fossil fuel up, and really spur investment. carbon price is the only lever we have that’s big enough to pull, i fear
Bullseye, as per usual.
i wish i did know something about technology transfer. it’s a key part of this deal, and one of the things that was making the poor countries crazy at copenhagen. we create the disease, then we want to sell the medicine at the highest possible price
Talk about failure to connect the dots. In one week, he gathers world leaders to impress upon them the necessity of providing security for nuclear materials. The next week they almost drop an containment vessel in Chile, while loading it to ship to US for storage, reminding us that we need massive security to safeguard nuclear wastes — a virtual police state for that part of the industry. The next week, the nuclear operators in US say they shouldn’t contribute to the storage fund, because, after 30 years thinking about it, DoE doesn’t have a clue what to do with this stuff. And then the Pres comes out and says, we need more nukes and we can afford them and they’re consistent with our values and terrorism isn’t a problem and . . .?
Sigh: instead, Obama seems to be quite OK with the current execrable Senate draft that would rob the EPA of their capacity to regulate CO2 (beyond whatever the legislation would specify)….and give billions of subsidies to CCS vaporware that even Univ of Houston profs conclude can’t possibly work
Don’t which is worse: Obama’s cave-in for centralized relic energy technologies (coal, nuke), or the “Gang Green” Beltway-based groups who push to pass the Senate’s POS.
From my perspective peak oil seems to be somewhat of a distraction these days. If we wait for the stuff to run out to make truly renewable energy competitive we’re sunk. Oil sands in Alberta, deep sea drilling in the Gulf, etc.
Also, the shift to renewables has to be global. If we tax carbon in the US but Russia continues selling at current rates, how much progress will be really make?
The DoD is recognizing that climate change does pose a significant security threat… The 2010 QDR finally addresses it…!
the only thing i’ll say in obama’s defense is, we havent’ built enough of a movement to give him the political space he needs to really operate. he can help, but so can we, which is our raison d’etre over at 350.org
When Amory Lovins looks at nukes, isn’t one of his core critiques that nuke power is so hideously costly – and the lag time before it comes on line is so great – that it can’t possibly replace fossil fuel power rapidly enough to allow drops in total global greenhouse gas emissions to occur by the 2015-2020 deadline to avert ruanway (feedback loop) global warming?
That’s why global is key.
And the math is simple. We’ll pump most of the easy oil. But we’ve got to keep most of the coal in the ground, and msot of hard oil (tar sands, etc) too. Or else carbon levels spike so high we never get back to 350
Yep. Sometimes they are oddly realistic about the world.
I have to say I’m kind of surprised at the green community’s unwillingness to pin responsibility for these decisions where it belong: on Obama himself.
Our Mike Whitney produced a great ad about the BP spill:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/07/new-fdl-tv-ad-targets-obama-on-offshore-drilling-expansion/
Sarah Palin and Michael Steel are cretins, but they do not have a say in future offshore oil drilling. Fourteen point drop in public support since it happened, and 55% of Floridians now oppose. There’s one guy who can stop it from happening going forward, and his name’s not Newt Gingrich.
Yeah, the Finns are building a nuke right now, and they’re already 50% behind schedule (and 50% over budget). and scandinavians tend to be good at this kind of stuff…
agreed. i’ve been pushing obama as hard as i can for a year now. he needs to be challenged much more directly by the greens
And bless you all for that work. My eco-roots are with the forest defense campaigns of the mid-90′s along the Pacific Coast: heard folks talking about global climate change and net limits to consumption for many years, but never imagined I’d see those concepts brought into mainstream discussion. Yet you and 350.org and your allies have brought that about – congrats on that amazing success!
I definitely agree that we will be more decentralized. Solar energy generation can be very decentralized. You just generate it directly on your roof or nearby and there is no need for a big power plant.
But why should all this affect travel? Why do our communities need to be tight-knit and localized? Can you elaborate? Thanks.
This raises the question: What do you think of the role the Tea Party plays in enviro policy? I’ve talked to some tea partiers lately and they seem to be supportive of ecological sanity and opposed to political corruption. Is there something we can salvage from the TP?
for the moment, we actually ahve a way to get to the left of obama little, which never happened in the health care debate. he left himself vulnerable with his misjudgement on offshore drilling last month, and as much as i like the guy, it’s time to hit him on it. at 350 we’re using the slogan: Obama, this is your crude awakening.’ for those of you in dc, there will be a march from interior to the white house on tuesday
IMHO, someone at NASA will pitch their capabilities to orbit the waste around the moon, or a planet, until we figure out what to do with it. Now, of the three intractable problems (proliferation, waste disposal, water usage) you have one left.
Bill, Heather — if you get all of us to do just one or two things that might make a difference, or to understand one or two things that would change how we look at things, what would you recommend?
It’s already IN the defense budget. The DoD has been claiming huge chunks of “green tech development” money. They consider it a matter of national security, and they’re spending heavily. DC parties are full of drunk spooks talking about all the crazy technology coming out of there.
The good news is that nobody cuts the Department of Defense budget. The bad news that the money is controlled by the Department of Defense, and getting it ouft of their control is runs the gamut from highly unlikely to impossible.
heather, you know more about this than i do. as a child of lexington mass (where i used ot give tours of the battle green in high school) i’m predisposed to like people who take the tea party as a symbol. let’s hope some of them are actually opposed to empire, concentration of wealth, and the other things that pissed off the colonials.
I’m eager to hear Heather’s response (and y’all should read her book). for me, political organizing is the only task. we gotta build a movement big enough to matter, and then we’ll be able to do what needs doing with it. the ideal is what happened after the santa barbara oil spill–the first (radical) earth day, and the clean air act etc etc etc that followed
Absolutely. Hats off, Bill. You have managed the impossible — crow-barring a wonky issue into the public discourse. It’s an amazing achievement.
Hear, hear! Please push Obama, and push him as hard as you can. I have no expectations anymore of the POTUS, but fwiw, Obama did campaign on the notion (at least) of encouraging the development and implementation of many more green technologies. And where has that gone? Seems that the siren song of Big Oil & Gas, King Coal, etc, have a stranglehold, and what BHO said then has no bearing on what he says, does or commits to now.
I have voted Green in the past in local elections, and I’m very willing to vote Green again and again.
Our ecology/environmental NGOs also have to get out there with a loud voice and push harder on BHO to do what’s right for out planet.
Thank you for writing this book and for being here. The book looks very interesting, and I will check into it. Thank you also for all the work you’ve done over the years. I am definitely aware of it and appreciative. Keep up the good work. So needed.
yep, and since this problem can only be dealt with by sharing, not hoarding, that’s not so good. you’ve got to get china doing exactly what you’re doing, not try to gain an advantage
one thing to keep reminding obama–among his youngest supporters, 18-24–who did so much of the work, global warming was the #1 issue on their priority list, at least according to the surveys.
Interesting. Thanks, Jane. At least partially answers my question about what happened to “green” technology. Gobbled up by the DoD; what a surprise… not.
Yes, and I certainly HOPE that age group (and those younger) continue to push on this important topic and not get distracted (as far too many boomers have) by bright shiny objects and become greedy and complacent.
I lurk on some blogs that are mainly commented by the younger generation, and I see much that gives me hope. But I also know how hard the powers that be work to distract us.
It has also been my experience that many who are fairly active and participatory in groups, such as the Sierra Club, tend to be much older. I know that local Sierra Club chapters (the ones I know about) have worked really hard to get the younger generation interested in working with the club on these issues, but with mixed results. I hope that changes.
well said!
As storage technologies improve, wind and solar can push down the price of electricity. IMHO, that will improve the metrics of geothermal heating and cooling. That takes advantage of the steady temperature ten to twenty feet below the top soil.
I’m curious, in you book tour have you had a chance to go on tv or radio shows where they believe that climate change is not man made? On shows like Hannity or Rush who think it is a hoax?
I ask this because my local right wing radio host has a book out denying humans caused global warming. I would like to challenge him but it’s not my area.
The PR for the people muddying the water on this issue are highly promoted on the right and nobody is challenging the on their turf.
we’re finding kids leading all across the world. check out the energy action coalition on americna college campuses–great organizers. sierra club’s youth wing–and it’s dynamic new president michael brune. and all over the world–our average lead organizer for a country is 18-22, often a young woman. you should have seen them all gathered in copenhagen–by far the best thing about that miserable couple of weeks
they tend not to like much argument, and i’m always a little wary of giving more air to their anti-science. i jsut did a panel with bjorn lomborg, which was fun in its way, i suppose
Yes, organizing is key. We have to understand that solving climate change is a process, not a product we can buy. This shift is something each of us can do individually, but that ultimately we must do together. As Bill said earlier, as we get off fossil fuels so many aspects of our society will inevitably change and that will open new possibilities. We are so often hailed as consumers and therefore respond as such. One thing we can do is to start understanding and experiencing ourselves more fully as political actors, citizens, people.
It sucks that in the United States we fund much of our technological development through the military. It’s less efficient than just chalking it up and funding it directly. But they like to hide it in the military budget because it’s less open to democratic control. Nobody pokes their nose into these military programs, some of which are classified so it’s actually illegal to even know anything about them.
Yes, indeed. Bravo!
IMHO, Sierra Club has sold itself into astroturf. They pretend to be green, but exist to raise money.
Seconded. Definitely read Heather’s book, “Green Gone Wrong: How our Economy is Undermining the Environmental Revolution:
http://heatherrogers.info/
Naomi Klein says: “This carefully researched, deeply human, and eminently sensible investigation arrives just in the nick of time. Let’s hope it inspires a radical course correction.”
What a great intro & discussion. Thanks so much for leading it Heather, this has been amazing. You did a great job.
amen–that says it
Very last question here, if we develop some of these high-efficiency solar and storage technologies and apply them to cars, so the automobile does not emit as many greenhouse gases, then why does transportation necessarily need to decline?
the new guy is really good. i worked with him last year to run the first big climate civil disobedience in this country–we forced congress to conver t their (wholly owned) coal fired power plant to natural gas, with 5000 people sitting in at the fenceline. he ran Rainforest Action Network then, so i hope be brings the same verve to the Sierra Club
As we come to the end of this great Book Salon,
Bill, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and the future of the environment.
Heather, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.
Everyone, if you haven’t bought Bill’s book yet, here is a link to Bill’s website, and here is Heather’s website.
What a great discussion – thanks Bill and Heather!
and let’s all sign up for 350 and do something!
well, mainly because there’s jsut going to be so many of them. in china, they current;ly own cars at the same rate as americans in 1922, which gives you some idea of the possibility for growth. we hopefully will have some of the cars you ddescribe. also bikes. also buses. which are jsut as technological, and more social, and they leave you strong!
thanks to all. i’ve enjoyed this immensely, except for discovering what a lousy typist i am.
please help us at 350.org you guys have jsut the chops and the spirit we need
Heather’s salon will be on Sunday, July 18th.
Bill, Thank you again.
Thanks all.
Thank you for the discussion! Your book is worth considering.
Jane, Bill and everyone who made this such a great discussion — Thank you!
Bill and Heather, thank you both for spending your time here today – and Bev, thank you for making these Salons possible.
Y’all rawk.
A heavy vehicle with airconditioning and heat cannot imho be totally electric and mass produced. IMHO, we will need biodiesel (not ethanol) to run hybrids. That will put enormous stress on food production, as a bridge to something more sustainable.
IMHO we need a lot more mass transit and a lot more population density to bridge the gap towards less unsustainability.
David Dayen is upstairs!
Bob Bennett Ousted At Utah Republican Convention
Thanks.
Bev, thanks so much!
x2.
There are issues, esp at the national level, and I get what you’re saying. I am seeing more *real* community involvement and action at the local level. But yes, I get tired of all of the fund raising, too, which sometimes doesn’t get put to good use.
Glad to hear it. I hate to see the Sierra Club become just another waste of time. They HAVE done a lot of good over the years, and I think that there is a modicum of begrudging respect for them, even amongst some who aren’t all that in agreement that there are “problems.” So I like to hear this.
Indeed: it sucks. Couldn’t agree more. Very frustrating that citizens continue to turn their heads and look the other way, as well as (gack) “trusting” Big Daddy WarBuck$$$. Ugh.
“Tea Party activists” are largely comprised of two groups of people that have distinct ideolgies: the social conservative Palinites and the libertarian Ron Paulites.
The Palinites may be reachable through religious organizations, or from the “mom” frame, hard to say. There has been some penetration on that front with BPAs I believe.
The Paul-ites hate government waste, and any time you say “boondoggle” their eyes bug out. So it becomes about the frame. If you ask “are you opposed to nuclear power?” they would probably respond “no.” If, however, you ask “do you think the government should subsidize a nuclear power plant because they are never profitable (as Bill noted above), they’d probably say “hell no.” And if you say “well, if a company builds a nuclear power plant, should their corporate assets be liquidated to pay for any potential disaster before the government steps in?” they would say that this is how the free market is supposed to respond. And that makes them very unpleasant and risky to build.
As always, it’s the ease with which legislators can be bribed into making government foot the bill for any mess that incentifies companies to take excessive risk. You just have to frame nuclear power plants as Credit Default Swaps packed with plutonium.
The problem is the Tea Parties have gone through the Fox News blender, so the message got really corporatized, partisan and mangled. You have to break them apart into their subgroups and speak to them on that level.
Glad to hear that. Hope they keep it up. They certainly have my support. It’s so needed and necessary. And yes: they’re the ones who will have to deal with what’s been done up till now – good luck to them. They’re really going to need it.
Good points, esp about population density and much better public transit. Let’s hope we can get that to happen. It’s been a big point of advocacy for me for years. People simply haven’t had enough “good” choices and have been too distracted to pay for expensive bright shiny objects that are deleterious both to their pocket books, as well as to our environment.
It’s not just Republicans who “vote” against their own interests. Most of us do stuff that are against our own better interests, but sometimes it’s because we have few choices.
Good points. Now I have to remember them the next time I’m talking to someone of this mind-set!
I do agree that it might be possible to get through to some, but it’s really all about how it’s framed. I’ve been using arguments for years that are good for the environment but framing it much more in terms of money, avoiding taxes, saving money, etc. If you start talking about the enviroment, these peoples’ eyes glaze over and all they hear is Rush Limbaugh calling us Enviro-Nazi’s.
We need to find ways to frame the discussion so that it makes sense to people of different political persuasions or mind-sets.
Some Tea Party christians are also purported in favor of enviromental measures, but you also have to be very careful how you discuss such issues with them. If they think you’re a godless heathen tree hugger, they’ll turn right off, no matter how much in agreement you actually are.
Sigh… but good for improving communication skills.
Thanks so much for being here today Bill, this has been great. We would love to help you any way we can.
Follow Bill on Twitter: http://twitter.com/billmckibben
Follow 350 on Twitter: http://twitter.com/350
Heather I couldn’t find a twitter account for you. But there is your awesome book: http://heatherrogers.info/
we must power down the us empire and the world will help. lets defeat every teabagger, repug and demo. I am running to be elected to the Legislature in the 39th District. lindbladforassembly.blogspot.com
the human species holds no exception to becoming extinct.
… 99.9 percent of all species that have existed on Earth are extinct. … 95 percent of all species, 53 percent of marine families, 84 percent of marine genera … now, with animals going extinct 100 to 1000 times (possibly even 1000 to … Thus, if those habitats have already been destroyed, then the species are …
http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview.html
now comes:
http://www.examiner.com/x-8199-Breakthrough-Energy-Examiner~y2010m5d2-Mother-of-all-gushers-could-kill-Earths-oceans#comments
we tallking about a class of billionaires who will remain in opposition.
with direct action – and soon – to power down, I remain an optimist.
ever since corporations have been the species driving force, all potus have carried that water, at times, allowing their political agenda to be buoyed by high and noble, spoken ideals – the indigenous spirit was subjected to total genocide by the us and now the entire species is up for genocide. My 10th generation removed indigenous ancestry speaks to this.
Welcome. You should write a Seminal Diary.
Begin here.
Thanks for the pointer – i will – and together- here in the 39th Assembly we will put the corrupt, corporate, bumbling demo incumbent out of out of office – putting a steady-state economy, relocalization advocate in that office.
Usually there’s a hapless Republican running – this time its only me, Architect and community organizer against the incumbent ,representing only the corporate-spawned payola politics of musical chairs.