A CLIMATE LIFEBOAT AT SEA

Or, When is an Urgency not Urgent?

By Dorothy Cutting
Opinion

Yesterday, I posted the article, “The Wrong Kind of Green” by Johann Hari, which brought to mind an unpublished piece I wrote a year ago, on January 27. I had drafted the short parable below when some of my climate activist friends and I, having come to the same conclusions as Dr. James Hansen and other respected climate scientists about the necessity of lowering carbon emissions quickly enough to prevent runaway global warming, were working to try to encourage other environmental NGO’s to take stronger positions on preventing dangerous climate change.  We considered then, and still do, the global climate crisis as urgent. We were supporters of Bill McKibben’s 350.org Initiative and wanted recognition of it included in resolutions and petitions being circulated at the time.

We weren’t having much luck. Here’s a response from one of the NGO’s.

As the UNFCC’s contact organization for environmental NGO participation and input, our organization has no choice but to use IPCC science, the “official reality” or risk losing all credibility. Until recently this was not a problem, not until the empirical evidence showing rapid changes began flowing.  Since 2005 or so our organization has been in the position of using IPCC science while knowing it is out of date but it won’t move to stronger-than-IPCC targets because it can’t. Our organization will wait for the next IPCC report and then work with those conclusions and recommendations simply because they form the rule-book every signatory country uses to negotiate the next agreement.
What does this mean for the “urgency movement” and groups like 350.org?  I think they play a critical political and educational role.  They are helping scientists like Hansen make their case.  By public supporting the work of leading scientists they are 1) spreading the urgency message  2) supporting increases in government science funding and making it much harder for governments to freeze/reduce their budgets 3) emboldening other scientists to take bold public positions on urgency.
In addition to influencing general public opinion, the urgency movement can influence the work and findings of the IPCC and ultimately the UNFCC and the targets contained in its agreements.  As you know, every word of every sentence in IPCC reports are the product of a grueling consensus process. The movement for stronger-than-IPCC targets can influence the politics around the writing, editing and consensus-seeking processes by bolstering progressive scientists, policy-makers and leaders who support a consensus shift to more urgent recommendations.
The urgency movement IS rewriting the rule book, but it takes time.  And frankly, if humans haven’t enough time to wait for the next IPCC report, I’d say we’re done for.
As for our organization, the urgency movement does not need its endorsement to work effectively.  It does need its own organizational structure for strategic planning and coordination.  Does anything like this exist now?  Are like-minded groups talking regularly?

I wrote at the time, “Well, I guess we’re ‘done for’ then,” and proceeded to write this little parable:

The ferry you have been traveling on has hit a rock and you are in the only lifeboat, crammed with passengers. Someone has put himself in charge, and as instructed, you’re rowing steadily toward a distant shore.

But now you notice that the lifeboat is leaking, and although you point this out to the captain, he tells you all to be calm and keep paddling. The passengers continue rowing, even though it now appears reaching land is impossible.

It gets worse. The boat begins to fill with water. So you ask, “Why don’t we try to fix the leak?”

You’re told, “This lifeboat was like this when we got into it. We can’t fix the leak, because it’s already leaking. We don’t want to lose credibility.

“Furthermore, you’re starting to sound like an alarmist. You must be part of the Urgency Movement. If you’re with that group, you should have got on a different lifeboat.”

The name of the lifeboat was Kyoto. It had been given a fresh coat of paint and re-named KyotoPlus, but it was the same leaky craft that first set off from Japan in 1997.

************************************************************

I noted on that day a year ago that I took strong exception to the remark in the email that the urgency movement is “helping scientists like Hansen make their case.” Dr. Hansen has always based his case on science, not public opinion.

Something else in that email message bothered me, and I’ve been thinking about it this afternoon. It’s the sometimes exaggerated importance given to “credibility.” Admittedly, the need for a certain amount of credibility does exist in civilized society. You don’t show up an appointment with a president or prime minister in a bathing suit and mask and snorkel. Not unless you’re from the Maldives, I guess.

But while compromising your standards in dealing with misinformed, dishonest or incompetent politicians may make you look good to them, this won’t gain you much respect or credibility with your children and grandchildren, who will be forced to live with dangerous future climate change, exacerbated by the lack of meaningful action today. We should approach the great task before us with passion and concern – and not be afraid to show it.

I should add that the email message above came from a organization that has never, to my knowledge, received financial support from industries that do environmental harm. And you can see from reading it, that the writer was certainly well-intentioned.