SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
A Conversation with Bill McKibben
Remember when climate change was called global warming? Remember when global warming was called the greenhouse effect? Bill McKibben does. He's been sounding a clarion warning call for humans to curb our carbon dioxide emissions — or else — since the late 1980s. If by now his call is ever more dire, it's at least less lonely: he has been joined by an international chorus of scientists, governments, defense wonks, and insurance companies. (Not to mention the Nobel Foundation.)
McKibben will be in town to promote his newish campaign: 350.org. The basic idea is to create a global movement around a worrying fact: scientists have identified 350 parts per million of CO2 as the safe upper limit of carbon in our atmosphere. (The worrying part is that we're around 390ppm right now...)
We'll talk about 350.org, but we'll also take a broader look at McKibben's 20 years in the environmental spotlight. We'll look at what McKibben thinks individuals can do to reverse (or at least retard) climate change — and what can only be done on the geo-political stage. We'll ask McKibben what effect an increasing global population has on global temperature. And we'll find out what he's learned about effective messaging in his more than two decades of ardent environmental activism.
And we'll bring in your questions and comments. Have you been reading Bill McKibben since his 1989 debut, The End of Nature? Have you just discovered him? Did you see him on the Colbert Report? What questions do you have about the science or the politics of climate change?
Tagged as: bill mckibben · climate change
Photo credit: Nancie Battaglia
-
My participation on October 24 is to wear White all day as a demonstration of grief for the melting Arctic ice. I have a white car and if I had a house I would paint it white and put a white roof on it. If 6 billion people all wore white and had white houses and if all the roads were white instead of black, would heat be reflected back like the arctic white cap? Even if not, it would be a visual act of solidarity to identify people who care.
-
NASA and NOAA have a "global database of surface seawater Dimethylsulfide (DMS) concentrations." Have you heard of the CLAW hypothesis (1987) presented in June 2009 by Benjamin Hillman of the University of Washington? [CLAW stands for C = Charlson, L = Lovelock, A = Andreae and W = Warren]
Can humans contribute to the sulfur cycle by enriching the phytoplankton with nutrient concentration of iron? Are there other ways to increase cloud cover to create a cooling effect?
It is obvious the science footnotes stop in 1999. Thankfully the DMS database has continued to gather data from "Ships of opportunity" even with the political silencing of climate data.
-
In James Lovelock's latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, he states on page 11 that the threat of dealing with the waste from nuclear energy is "insignificant compared with the real threat of intolerable and lethal heatwaves and sea levels rising to threaten every coastal city of the world" by 2046.
He does not see nuclear energy as a cure, but a way to buy time to make a global switch away from oil and coal. He implys that science needs electricity to solve problems, even if it comes from nuclear energy. He states that wind turbines will be useless when the wind currents change. The most reliable source of alternative power will come from geothermal and wave energy but that still needs extensive time to develop. I am willing to resort to nuclear energy, would you?
-
Most of the modeling I've seen says the same thing: nuclear is too expensive to play a large role. Nobody is building the reactors--well, almsot nobody. The Finns have jsut aobut bankrupted themselves building one
-
Do you agree that burning wood and biofuel is not really a renewable source of energy? If our society burned wood instead of oil, would it still overload the biosphere with CO2? I suggest if every house was warmed by wood, we would burn the forest faster than it could grow (even without the New York Times being printed on wood based paper).
I have decided to keep my thermostat down to 60 degrees this winter. Humans lived for thousands of years with winter and felt warm in caves that kept a constant temperature of 52 degrees. During the winter when we have a warm day of 52 degrees, many people go out without their coats. Humans are delightfully adaptable.
-
Yes, thanks for bring this up, Judy! The biofuels solution mirage is such an important concern here in the Pacific Northwest, where timber companies see a potential boom and are investing toward rapid expansion.
But given a forest industry that still relies overwhelmingly on clearcutting - despite many years of association TV ads telling us it wasn't done anymore - and sues to block even mild environmental regulation - how likely are we to effectively regulate what fuels come out of the woods?
The latest, most complete science on forest carbon sequestration has dispelled several convenient timber industry myths.
In fact, current science shows:
- Old native forests store more carbon than young or managed forests, and old forests continue to store more carbon effectively indefinitely.
- If forests are allowed to recover naturally after wildfire, very little net carbon is lost over the time span of the fire cycle. Salvage logging delays forest recovery and causes greater release of carbon.
- Research shows almost any significant disturbance of a natural ecosystem causes net releases of carbon. This includes industrial forest thinning.
There's no free lunch, and biofuels do not look like any kind of climate solution. We need to focus on retooling American society for low-carbon, high-satisfaction living with reduced resource consumption and especially reduced driving, while shifting aggressively to truly renewable sources of electricity.
-
Bill, what can we say when even a place as forward-looking as Portland insists on pursuing a climate-busting highway mega-project like the new Columbia Crossing? Why don't people get that we'll be driving less, in ten and twenty years, not more?
In Eugene, largely because of the relatively low carbon content of our electric generating sources, transportation represents fully half of the community carbon footprint - compared to about a third for most of the US.
This gives us an especially clear opportunity to focus effectively on the pivotal American issue of driving - as long as we don't get seduced by the mirage of forest biofuels.
Calculations made by environmental planning consultants working with Friends of Eugene show that the distribution of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, in our metropolitan area, is dominated by geography - in particular, by the radial distance of residences from the metropolitan center.
Yet national think tanks, from the Urban Land Institute, in its generally-excellent "Growing Cooler," to the Transportation Research Board with its just-released "Driving and the Built Environment" continue to promote meta-analyses of planning data which are based on a badly flawed methodology.
The details are beyond this already way-over-technical posting. But the result is a primary focus on density of development for reducing VMT, when density is actually a secondary factor, while simple geography - distance from the core - is the primary determinant.
Bill, do you have any suggestions on how people in Oregon might engage the national conversation around land use planning strategies for reducing VMT, on a technical level?
The subtle error systematically embodied in the prevailing analyses of land use and VMT appears to cause a dramatic under-estimate in the amount of VMT reduction available through appropriate planning.
Because buildings are such long-term committed investments - and with our carbon levels too high already - it seems urgent to turn around the old patterns of building in higher and higher VMT locations, and to focus instead on (re)developing (in dense high-quality green and nature-integrated mixed use formats, of course) in the right places, just as soon as possible.
-
I support your efforts to reduce the causes of global climate change, but I wonder what to do about air travel. Airplane travel is a part of the problem and I know you do a lot of it. I do a fair amount as well and it is bothersome to me. Is there an answer to how to deal with this efficient means of travel vs. the climate problems created as a result?
-
I think the biggest "elephant in the room" has to be population growth. We've already far exceeded the carrying capacity of our planet, and our population is growing. The US, where per-capita resource use is greatest, is still adding people. How will any of the measures being discussed be sufficient if we don't stop adding people?
-
Excess greenhouse gas emissions, per se, are more a matter of too many rich people, than too many people overall.
-
Eat Soylent Green!
-
please share a counter argument to prof. freeman dyson's position that global warming's no big deal and perhaps a good thing. thx.
-
If you want the science, google IPCC fourth assessment report. There's really no doubt in the scientific community what's going on--Dyson isn't doing research, he's just venting.
-
The host just said "What do you do about people who DO NOT BELIEVE THE SCIENCE?" -- this is the scary thing for me, that many Americans do not "accept" the scientific method.
how can we increase science education and knowledge quickly in this country?
-
I believe this view comes from fear and that we need to learn what people are afraid of. Giving people a chance to share their fears I believe will address this better than increased science education. The science is already clear.
-
On October 24th, hundreds of paddlers in canoes and kayaks will gather on the Willamette River in downtown Portland to form a giant floating "350" in support of the International Day of Climate Action. www.riverofaction.com
-
Hooray, hooray, and many many thanks. Actions like this will really matter, because they help spread the science in a way people can relate to.
-
2009 was the 30th anniversary of a major event in the Northwest, the eruption of Mt St. Helens. Oregonians experienced the millions of tons of ash that spewed into the atmosphere, increased air turbidity and it changed global climate for years. The amount of ash probably equalled industrial output of the world for decades. We see ongoing effects of Pacific El Nino predominantly from active volcanoes in the Phillipines and Pacific rim of fire, that will occur reguardless of our energy efficiency.
There are hundreds of active volcanoes, including the recent eruption of Mt. Redoubt in Alaska this summer. What is the significance of volcanology on climate change and how can we separate it from mankind's effects?
-
bill,
please offer some spiritual advice on navigating the hope/despair challenge. thanks from hood river, oregon.
kevin
-
The only antidote to despair that I have found is action--so join in and help us, we could really use it!
-
I wonder about the political reality of reaching the 350 level. Our system of government seems to always regulate to the center, if 350 is the safe number, how do we make sure we hit it. I guess I am asking, is good the enemy of the perfect, with 350 being the perfect?
How do we keep climate activists from fighting amoungst ourselves?
-
We don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. But we do need to make the necessary the enemy of the convenient.
This is not like other negotiations--because physics and chemistry simply won't compromise
-
Bill, could you speak to the climate change mitagation technique known as Biochar.
thanks
-
It may help--a lot of things may help. There's no silver bullet, maybe enough silver buckshot if we pick it all up carefully
-
What's going on in the Portland/Oregon region on Oct. 24th?
Are there already events planned in our communities?
-
see 350.org. there's a google earth map there with events and descriptions. group bike rides, photos with banners, conversations, etc.
-
As Mr. MkKibben stated, the change in behavior has to be in BILLIONS of people. What can be done about China and India, whose standards of living don't lend themselves to having the "luxury" of changing energy habits?
Thanks to Mr. McKibben for all of his enduring efforts on this.
-
China and India are ready to deal--but as you say, we'll need to help them develop without burning their coal. Think carbon version of the Marshall Plan
-
Please comment on the role population growth in global warming.
It seems that discussing over-population has become somehow politically incorrect on the Left for fear of accusations of racism; and is anathema to those on the Right.
I fear that all the good actions in the world may be swamped by our sheer numbers.
-
I recently heard of a 350 project that encourages people to spend $50 three times a month at a locally-owned business. While it doesn't sound like this is directly part of Mr. McKibben's 350.com project, it certainly dovetails nicely.
-
THE REAL ISSUE IS PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE
The common denominator to most (99%) of the world's problems is Over-Population..... once we address this issue and control it, we can control climate change.
If we can control Over-Population, we can manage or get a handle on most of the world's other problems.... Pollution, Garbage, Air Quality, Disease, Starvation, Poverty, War, Urban Sprawl, Shortages of our Natural Resources, Over Fishing, Etc., Etc.
I admire your work .... but we must ask ourselves how many more people can this earth support today .... tomorrow?
-
But most of people in these "Third World Countries" want to live like Americans.
What is going to happen when every Chinese wants a three car garage, a 2500 square foot house. A Hummer. A refridgerator, A big screen TV. A computer. A hamburger for lunch? A vacation home? Travel by airplanes. Etc. Etc.
Not everybody can live in the WOODS or want to. What would happen if every Chinese and/or American wanted that 10 acre home?
(Even if every Chinese did not want the American way of life. Lets say, half of the Chinese people wanted the American way of life .... thats over 600,000,000 people. Its all in the NUMBERS)
-
How does nuclear power play into the situation given the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions? Can nuclear power stations be an effective stop-gap? When answering, please keep in mind alternative nuclear reactor construction such as molten salt reactors and their potential for reducing nuclear waste.
-
I find it shocking that people would not believe the science. But, I think the issue is larger then one of science. Even if you accept the science without skepticism, as I do, and support efforts to make changes, on a conceptual level it is still hard to say why the human race should continue. Why can't humans go extinct? We would never know anyway. Unless you believe in some kind of spiritual existence, I can't see a case for trying to perpetuate human life as a species.
Perhaps, I am a ridiculous anomaly, but it is hard for me to be passionate about climate change when I can't answer the fundamental question of what is beneficial about human life and its existence. People that take this on as a cause célèbre or make it their mission---I just can't relate or understand what motivates them.
-
Scottmil, I've been a hunter and every animal, bird, and fish that I ever killed and ate, fought for its' life. It seems to just be a fact of nature.
I realize that humans vary a lot from the religious suicide cult groups to the people who freeze themselves crygenically in hopes of being revived when they can live forever, but I suspect that in general we all have that same fight to live in us.
I get your points but I think nature has built into us to fight to live on.
I don't think that it is worthwhile to even ask some questions, even if I can and have.
So I don't even ask about humans being beneficial any more, we just are, and I'd like to stay around as long as I can to see how it all shakes out.
-
On Flying...
If you are organizing people to mitigate climate change your net impact, or net carbon footprint over the long haul will be less than if you never fly, but never organize people against climate change.
In other words if you just change your own lightbulbs to act against climate change you will have a certain carbon footprint. if you organize 100 people to change their lightbulbs but do not change your own, your net impact on climate change will be greater than if you just took the stance to change your own. We need to organize people, masses of people to understand and act against human caused climate change.
While I DO NOT advocate needless flying, I prefer the organizing people model.
-
Dear Mr McKibben,
Sadly, in response to the new national (limited) carbon cap legislation, the coal industry has initiated a media campain complete with their own financed and designed public demonstrations.
How is it possible to address the commercial will of the old-school energy industry?
S.H.
-
1. Does the speaker believe that our society will voluntarily transform itself into a sane and sustainable way of living? And if not, what does that say about the tactics for the movements he's mentioned?
2. If the speaker proscribes as transference of wealth from wealthy nations to poorer nations. How does he envision such a transference occuring?
3. Even if our culture can slow it's pollution and energy consumption, as suggested by the speaker. Does it not still mean that our way of living is ultimately unsustainable? What does the speaker envision a sustainable society, will look like?
-
Let me plug one of my books in answer to question 3--check out Deep Economy for a sense of what a smaller scale more decentralized economy might look like
-
How about "geo engineering" as discussed by John Holdren and described at http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/09?
-
Insane--but we're in an insane trap and may need to do some insane things.The problems are myriad--can we, say, add sulfur to the air to block sunlight without completely changing weather patterns?
In any event, everyone agrees we also have to cut emissions sharply no matter what we do
-
(trying again, might be a problem with the website)
Limiting population growth must be on the table at Copenhagen. Most of the strategies being discussed to limit carbon emissions are expensive and rely on unproven or undeveloped technology. Furthermore, if we become more efficient but add more people who produce carbon emissions we won't make progress on reducing emissions. Reducing population by comparison is simple and can be done today. Policymakers continue to avoid an easy and workable way to reduce carbon because of the conflict with religious groups and economists that still believe unsustainable population growth is the solution to our problems. We can no longer tolerate this kind of ignorance.
-
Sorry you had a technical difficulty. Glad it worked out!
-
Right on.
We need to focus on the BIG ISSUE ..... PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE. We need to focus on the COMMON DENOMINATOR to most of the world's problems. That common denominator being Population (Over-Population).
Car makers are not making cars for the fun of it. They are making inexpensive carbon emitting cars because large numbers of PEOPLE want them.
We need leaders to take a bold stand and address this issue. Why are so many leaders blind to the obvious?
-
What is the approximate percentage of Americans who believe climate change is a real problem? I am always stunned to learn of someone who thinks it's a hoax, but I hear that more than I wish I did. And, how do you get through to non-believers?
-
World leaders need to revive bogged-down climate talks at a one-day summit a t NY UN on September 22, unless they want to risk failure in Copenhagen, Is 350.org going to try to influence this meeting?
-
we'll be there!
-
We are about to oversee the reroofing of my father's house. My sister, very conscious of global warming, wanted to put a light roof on. This is the contractor's reply:
All shingles are basically black underneath so different colors have very little difference in reflective capabilities. We are installing a venting system on your dad's home to let the heat/moisture out of the attic so that the house stays cooler.Please comment, thanks. -
Sequoia~
I painted my house in FLA white. It was cooler. Houses (& roofs) all over the warmer water regions (Greece, Israel, Bahamas) are light colors. When it's hot outside wearing light clothes is cooler than dark colored clothes. A white car is cooler than a dark car. The light color on top of the tar shingles WILL reflect heat BEFORE it gets to the tar paper under side. The attic needs a vent system and insulation.
Lighter color is cooler. Maybe not by much, but it is cooler and more reflective.
I suspect the contractor didnt understand the question/issue the way you meant it. At any rate, if you want a light colored roof or one made of jelly-beans, your contractor, after advising you as to his/her considered opinion, should do as you ask (as long as it's no code violation) or find another contractor. And as your contractor did not seem to object to light shingles, he should be able to install them, as you ask, with no issue.
Last~ Have you considered a living green/ eco roof?
Check it out: http://www.ecoroofseverywhere.org/
or google it
Good luck, have fun
-
If you liken the geological Continents to the rudder on a floating Supertanker and admit that the landmasses are fluid/in movement….. how can you ignore that a fraction of degree of change in only one of the Continent's position can change the Ocean Currents and resulting weather patterns. How are we going to regulate plate tectonics?
Carbon footprint is convenient to your livelihood but FYI we have been in a warming trend for thousands of years.
-
Can you comment on The Earth Policy Institute
Lester R. Brown
and books like
Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization
Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble
Thanks for the good discussions.
Greg
-
very important books!
-
As inportant as carbon emissions are (extremely) they are only one side of the coin. The other is carbon sequestration. I first became concerned about global warming in the 1980's. It was immediately obvious to me that the more logging we do, not only in tropical rainforests but in the forests of the northern hemisphere, the more we are crippling our planet's ability to absorb CO2. My arguments regarding the need to cease logging old-growth forests initially fell on deaf ears, but more recently the inportance of old-growth forests as a means of carbon absorbtion and storage has enjoyed wider recognition. In the 1980's and 90's (and even today) some people (such as some politicians from Alaska) were arguing that we should clearcut old-growth and replace them with fast growing seedlings which would absorb carbon more quickly. There are two things wrong with that idea: First, when old-growth forests are logged an enormous amount of carbon is released into the atmosphere; second, even very fast growing seedlings require many years to equal the rate of carbon sequestration of the old-growth they replaced. We need to curb our reliance on fossil fuel AND cease logging old-growth forests in the northern hemisphere AND work to stop the cutting and burning of tropical rainforests. If there is any hope of putting the brakes on global warming all of these concerns (and more) must be addressed.
-
I am a student at the Art Institute of Portland studying Interior Design. I took a class on Sustainability in which I learned about 350.org. I created a music video for 350 using my song entitled "Mother Nature's Genocide". I informed many many people about 350 and then took their pictures. The pictures were compiles into the video. This video can be seen on YouTube, just type in "Smile for 350". This was my little contribution for spreading the 350 word, and all of the people I spread it to, continue to spread the word. My name is Sarah Albert and I play in a band in Portland called "The Oh My Mys" and also have a solo act as the "Tree Thugger". So glad you had Bill on here, we really need to take action NOW!
-
many many many thanks for this--it's great!
-
Dear David,
Don't the greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change all mean three diffent things though? The greenhouse effect refers to gasses in the atmosphere that cause warming. Global warming refers to the overall warming of the planet, particularly near the poles. Climate change refers to changing climates over time, something unavoidable when you have plate techtonics, convection, etc. Shouldn't we just call what is referenced by all three "The Human Effect"? I think you missed one in your list, environmentalism.
-
I think using the term "Global Warming" was an unfortunate mistake because what we are really dealing with is mankinds effect on the surface of our planet, oceans, and atmosphere.
We live in a very small physical range of our entire planet and in a very small range of possible conditions of temperature, pressure, and the like, in the universe.
Right-wingers have grabbed onto the "Global" part and mis-used it to discount the problems. We humans don't affect the entire globe much, we only affect the part that sustains life as we know it.
So you're right about the Human Effect.
-
Alexander,
Yes, definitely, those three phrases all mean different (if related) things, technically. But as far as my own memory goes, there has been a clear progression from GE to GW to CC as the common catch-all term to describe human-caused changes to the climate that are results of the greenhouse gases we're pouring into the atmosphere. That's all I was getting at: the progression of the messaging.
-
Dear David,
Right, I just meant that you missed environmentalism as the original term. Funny how language evolves. I suppose I'm just being a prescriptionist (in the liguistic use). I do think our understanding of things is being muddled by the terms.
-
Dear Tom,
Right, life as we know it, as an example, if it weren't for our prehistoric methane atmosphere we wouldn't have all those stinky cow farts.
-
Eat Soylent Green!
Henh.
-
In response to the gentleman who was looking for affordable, residential wind turbines... they are right around the corner!
http://www.earthtronics.com/honeywell.aspx
-
Would like a follow up show by interviewing Hazel Henderson or another person involved with the Climate Prosperity Plan, a global effort by economists and such to fund clean energy development around the world. Very practical and doable, proponents claim 5 years into ten year program would make oil, and nuclear not cost effective, even without the carbon cap! Goes hand in hand with 350.org's focus on carbon cap/price. I'll email 350 as well; heard about on a workshop type call with Hazel.
-
It is great to hear McKibben advocate for conservation when the contemporary focus is identifying alternative resources (more, more, and more!) I believe that we have, or soon will have, titrated our atmosphere to an unrecoverable point. Titration: remember in High School chemistry when you add one more drop and, “Poof”, the color ( a reaction) would occur.
Absent sound national/global policy, my personal action is to not fly, not drive, eat local, consume less, and help my friends towards the same goal. I hope others can do the same.
Craig Larson, PE – Civil Engineer.
-
The correct term is Global Climate Change, not warming, just change
-
Comments are now closed.
Why do people think so-called clean coal is an important part of the climate change solution? I've read that it's not clean, it's not cheap and it's almost tapped out.