Climate Roulette

by Mark Hertsgaard
The Nation, Oct 7, 2009

They say that everyone who finally gets it about climate change has their “Oh, shit” moment — an instant when the full scientific implications become clear and you suddenly realize what a horrifically dangerous situation humanity has created for itself.

My most recent such moment came in July, courtesy of the chief climate adviser to the German government. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the chairman of an advisory council known by its German acronym, WBGU, is a physicist whose specialty, fittingly, is chaos theory. Speaking to an invitation-only conference at New Mexico’s Santa Fe Institute, Schellnhuber divulged the findings of a study so new he had not yet briefed Chancellor Angela Merkel about it.

The study, Solving the Climate Dilemma: The Budget Approach, has now been published. If its conclusions are correct — and Schellnhuber ranks among the world’s half dozen most eminent climate scientists — it has monumental implications for the pivotal meeting in December in Copenhagen where world leaders will try to agree on reversing global warming.

Schellnhuber and his WBGU colleagues go a giant step beyond the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body whose scientific reports are constrained by the fact that the world’s governments must approve their contents. The IPCC says that by 2020 rich industrial countries must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent (compared to 1990) if humanity is to have a fair chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

By contrast, the WBGU study says the U.S. must cut emissions 100 percent by 2020 — in other words, quit carbon entirely within ten years. Germany, Italy and other industrial nations must do the same by 2025 to 2030. China only has until 2035, and the world as a whole must be carbon free by 2050. The study adds that big polluters can delay their day of reckoning by “buying” emissions rights from developing countries, a step the study estimates would extend some countries’ deadlines by a decade or so.

Needless to say, this timetable is light years more demanding than what the world’s major governments are talking about in the run-up to Copenhagen.

The European Union has pledged 20 percent reductions by 2020, which it will increase to 30 percent if others — i.e., the United States — do the same. Japan’s new prime minister likewise has promised 25 percent reductions by 2020 if others do the same. Obama has not mentioned a number, but the Waxman-Markey bill he supports in Congress would deliver less than 5 percent reductions by 2020. Obama’s silence — doubtless a function of the fact that Republicans on Capitol Hill are implacably opposed to serious emissions cuts — has allowed Chinese president Hu Jintao to claim the higher ground thus far on the climate issue.

Speaking at the United Nations on September 22, Hu went further than any Chinese leader has before, pledging to curb greenhouse gas emissions growth by a “notable margin” by 2020.

Obama, like other G8 leaders, agreed in July to limit the global temperature rise to 2°C (3.6°F) above the pre-industrial level under which human civilization developed. Schellnhuber, addressing the Santa Fe conference, joked that the G8 leaders had agreed to the 2°C limit “probably because they don’t know what it means.”

In fact, even the “brutal” timeline of the WBGU study, Schellnhuber cautioned, would not guarantee staying within the 2°C target. It would merely give humanity a 2 out of 3 chance of doing so — “worse odds than Russian Roulette,” Schellnhuber wryly noted. “But it is the best we can do.”

To have a 3 out of 4 chance, countries would have to quit carbon even sooner. Likewise, we could decide to wait another decade or so to halt all greenhouse emissions, but this lowers the odds of hitting the 2°C target to 50-50. “And what kind of precautionary principle is that?” Schellnhuber asked.

There is a fundamental political assumption underlying the WBGU study: that the right to emit greenhouse gases is shared equally by all people on earth.

Known in diplomatic circles as “the per-capita principle,” this approach has long been insisted upon by China and most other developing countries and thus is seen as essential to an agreement in Copenhagen, though among G8 leaders only Merkel has endorsed it.

The WBGU study applies the per capita principle to the world population of 7 billion people and arrives at an annual emissions quota of 2.8 tons of CO2 per person. That’s harsh news for Americans, who emit 20 tons per person annually today, and it explains why the U.S. deadline is the most imminent.

But China won’t welcome this news either. Its combination of a high annual emissions and a huge population gives it a deadline only a few years later than Europe and Japan’s.

“I myself was terrified when I saw these numbers,” Schellnhuber said. He urges governments to agree in Copenhagen to launch “A Green Apollo Project.”

Like John F. Kennedy’s pledge to land a man on the moon in ten years, a global Green Apollo Project would aim to put leading economies on a trajectory of zero-carbon emissions within ten years. Combined with carbon trading with low-emissions countries, he says, such a “wartime mobilization” might still save us from the worst impacts of climate change.

The alternative is more and more “Oh, shit” moments for all of us.