24

Earth's history on a 24 hour scale.

Source: G-100 Introductory Geology at University of Wisconsin via this isn't happiness.

What we know about climate change

Scientists and economists gathered this week in Copenhagen to discuss climate change. At the end of their meeting they posted six messages, one being Earth's climate is warming faster than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected in 2007. The full report from this group is due out in June 2009. This and many other efforts are preparation for United Nations Climate Conference in December 2009, also set in Copenhagen. The goal of that meeting: finding a solution for global warming (see this Independent article for more on December's UNCC).

Earth's climate and human impact on it is a widely complex topic, and that's why I'm grateful for Kerry Emanuel's book What We Know about Climate Change (2007). In a very slim volume, the MIT professor of atmospheric science explains the fundamentals of climate physics and climate modeling in a way that is both sophisticated and understandable. He outlines how we know for certain that human behavior is warming the planet, but he doesn't shy away from acknowledging the limitations of our best projections, noting "computer modeling of global climate is perhaps the most complex endeavor ever undertaken by mankind."

In an endorsement of What We Know, James Hansen of the NASA Goodard Institute for Space Studies says, "Emanuel's words are measured and authoritative. His book should help reduce the huge gap between what is understood by the scientific community and what is known by the people who need to know, the public and policymakers."

You buy 16 tons and what do you get?

When an event like the Oscars declares itself "carbon neutral" does that mean the lights and cameras are powered by renewable energy and the nominees arrive via fuel-cell buses? Not exactly... The "carbon neutral" label typically signals the purchase of "carbon offsets" that represent a reduction in carbon output from other entities. In other words, the event itself really hasn't changed.

Search the web for "carbon neutral" and you'll find to a bevy of outfits eager to facilitate these transactions while pocketing a little something for their effort. Think tree huggers with MBAs.

There's something not-quite-right about such a market, regardless of its good intentions. For instance, Business Week described the practice of selling offsets from projects that would have happened without additional contributions in its March 26, 2007 article, Another Inconvenient Truth. Such a practice hardly seems efficient.


Many outfits in this new industry bundle offsets, combining the carbon-savings from multiple projects into a single fund, making it impossible for contributors to know exactly where their cash ends up. It's also difficult to discern exactly how much of an individual's contribution is applied to carbon-reducing projects and how much remains with the broker. These transactions/contributions should be more transparent, welcoming scrutiny and inspiring trust, such as Kiva's approach to micro-loans.

I also wish these outfits would drop the "neutral" label. As a group, neutral is not the gear we're looking for. At this point, a bit of stunt driving is called for. Let's pull the emergency brake and 180 in the opposite direction in our electric powered whip. Validating neutrality at this stage contributes to a "good-enough" mentality that strengthens resistance to meaningful change.

Offset prices currently run $5 to $10 per metric ton of CO2. It sounds like a bargain, but I'd resist for now.