In print | Published October 22, 2009

As Earthlust organizers and proponents of the 350 Campaign, we wish to add our perspective on the current climate dialogue and the efficacy of 350 in response to Soren Larson’s column, “How to fix the planet — with economics in mind.” We recommend reading the latest Synthesis Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, for those interested in the true depth and gravity of the climate debate.

First, let’s not underestimate (or talk around) the true consequences of global warming. Admittedly, it’s extremely difficult to quantify the social cost of carbon (SCC) for cost-benefit analysis. But even when we try, the IPCC has determined that aggregated figures of SCC are very likely underestimated. What we do know is that the negative effects of climate change are occurring more rapidly than our models predicted. Adaptation alone is not expected to cope with the effects of climate change, and it’s widely understood that any benefits will certainly be outweighed by negative effects. Also, the idea that our concern for climate change is only to “help poor people” is grossly misguided and rife with the hubris of environmental privilege. We need only look to recent deadly heat waves in Europe and the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina to realize that even the most developed nations are not immune to the costs of global warming.

Our greatest threat, however, is a runaway climate where positive feedback systems push the climate into such disequilibrium that extreme changes become unpredictable and uncontrollable. James Hansen, with a team of NASA climate scientists, has determined 350 parts per million, or ppm, of CO2 as the global tipping point, using the latest paleoclimate models. A reduction to 350 ppm is necessary to balance Earth’s energy flux, representing the goal of preventing runaway climate change. This is the goal the Earth has set for us, and no “revision of ambitions” will change that. The question is not if we should strive for 350, but how to achieve our goal.

The take-home message from Larson’s article was that the U.S. should refrain from signing a climate treaty because a Pigouvian tax on carbon would impart net social cost to developing nations by halting economic growth. However, the IPCC offers a wide variety of policy instruments available to create incentives for mitigation action, a carbon tax being only one of them. There are increasing possibilities for synergy related to strategic implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy, which can be extended beyond traditional macroeconomic climate policy to include agricultural policy, forest conservation and insurance practices.

Of course, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change already explicitly provides full consideration to the special circumstances of developing nations. The Framework also supports the idea that developed nations should be willing to take the lead in combating climate change, which we should, given our disproportionate contribution to the problem. In fact, it’s imperative for the U.S. to engage in climate negotiations because of our unique position to lead the creation of an effective treaty, the success of which is in the interest of every nation.

At this point, we would like to introduce the 350.org campaign as a social movement. After all, the role of climate policy in Copenhagen makes up only one piece in a large puzzle that is a complete solution to our climate predicament. Governments will not institute strong legislation without public pressure. Corporations do not alter production and shipping practices without consumer pressure. Furthermore, behavior and lifestyle changes can contribute to mitigation across all sectors. Such puzzle pieces have an important characteristic: they depend on the participation of all of us! The 350.org campaign is an international effort to build a social movement around the solutions to the climate crisis and the goal of 350 ppm. As a tool for education and organizing, it’s succeeding in building a sense of urgency and inspiring new possibilities for our planet, with over 3,500 registered grassroots actions in more than 160 countries so far. Apart from providing political pressure to leaders who will meet in Copenhagen, the campaign joins a myriad of other global grassroots campaign that charge each global citizen to do their part in the struggle against climate change.

Larson claims 350’s solution is simple and wrong.

The science of 350 is not a solution, nor is it simple. It’s our latest scientific estimate for the safe upper limit of CO2 in the atmosphere. The social movement centered on 350 can’t be wrong or right, but its success depends on our ability to welcome change and actively engage in the dialogue of real solutions.

Enter 350 Week. Our understanding of the climate crisis and social change informs us that our solutions are not only in the hands of economists and scientists. Innovations in engineering, design, architecture, lifestyle and how we fundamentally relate to our environment all play a part in the grand solution, even if they’re difficult to quantify. The grand solution is something we can build community around, and is why we will succeed in reaching 350 ppm: our potential for change is only limited by our creativity and will and our ability to come together.

Zein Nakhoda and Hannah Jones

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »