Climate is no game, and it is never over
Dave Roberts had a wonderful post on August 30th, 2013 titled “Hope and Fellowship”, which addresses the question “Is there any hope? Or are we just f*cked?” Here’s his brilliant summary:
And really, what else are we going to do?
Remember, there is no “too late” here, no “game over” — it will be a tragedy to shoot past 2 degrees to 3, but 4 is worse than 3, and 5 is worse than 4. Being unprepared for any of those will be much worse than being prepared. The future always forks; there are always better and worse paths ahead. There’s always a difference to be made.
When we ask for hope, then, I think we’re just asking for fellowship. The weight of climate change, like any weight, is easier to bear with others. And if there’s anything I’ve learned in these last 10 years, it’s that there are many, many others. They are out there, men and women of extraordinary imagination, courage, and perseverance, pouring themselves into this fight for a better future.
You are not alone. And as long as you are not alone, there is always hope.
Awhile back KC Golden had an hilarious post that makes a similar point (reposted on Climate Progress) titled
“Dad, Seriously, WTF Is Up With ‘Game Over’?!”
Dad, isn’t Jim Hansen that NASA mega-whiz you call “America’s pre-eminent climate scientist,” which is like geezerese for the smartest guy in the room? And what is brain dude thinking when he says “Game over for the Climate”?
“Game”? You call this a game? When losing it means“billions of people will be condemned to poverty and much of civilization will collapse”? K. Ceee, I know you’re super-busy but I need you to pay attention.
Which part of this sounds like a game to you? The billions? The people? The poverty? The civilization? The collapse? Daaad, back away from the smartphone. I mean it. Focus! You can’t just go “game over for the climate… New game!”… like there’s an app for what happens after you lose this one.
Dad, dude, Angry Birds is a game. Climate disruption is just dumping on your kids’ head. Are you laughing? Because if you’re laughing, I can find an assisted living facility in Siberia. Don’t push me.
The basic message is right on: "It’s no game, and it is never over". It resonated strongly with me because of the evolutionary approach I lay out in Cold Cash, Cool Climate:
“I advocate instead an evolutionary approach to this problem, implementing many different technologies, failing fast, and doing more of what works and less of what doesn’t. This approach, which the National Research Council dubs “iterative risk management”, recognizes the limitations of economic models and puts such analysis into an important but less grandiose role: that of comparing cost effectiveness of different mitigation options in achieving a normatively defined target (like the 2 degrees C warming limit).
I call this approach “working forward toward a goal” and it’s a more business-oriented framing of the problem. It mirrors the way companies face big strategic challenges, because they know that forecasting the future accurately is impossible, so they set a goal and figure out what they’d have to do to meet it, then adjust course as developments dictate. It also frees you from the mostly self-imposed conceptual constraints that make it hard to envision a future much different from what exists today.”
This is why I’m somewhat critical of Fatih Birol of the International Energy Agency declaring that “the door to a 2 degrees C trajectory is about to close”. While I agree that there is real urgency to the climate problem, and it gets harder and harder to meet that limit with each passing year of inaction, we won’t be able to identify a moment in real time when it was possible before but it is now impossible. Of course, we can say that if we continue on our current path for several more decades, we will indeed overshoot the 2 Celsius degree warming target, but there is significant uncertainty about exactly when we reach that point. We won’t know until we’re well past the point of no return.
Each assessment of what is possible is flawed because of our imperfect foresight, and they all embody assumptions about what is possible and what isn’t. The most common error is assuming that because we’ve built a capital stock we need to use it until it reaches the end of its life, but we probably won’t have that luxury. The analysis of stock turnover I did in Chapter 5 of Cold Cash, Cool Climate convinced me that we’re going to have to scrap some capital even if we start aggressively reducing emissions tomorrow, but of course the more we build now the more we’ll have to scrap later.
That in itself should clarify things for those now fighting to build more emissions intensive infrastructure–there’s a real business risk to them because once the world finally accepts that rapid reductions of emission are required, those investors will lose their money. This change of situation will occur in the next decade or so (it really must if we’re to turn this around–reality is a harsh mistress). Some investors have already gotten that message and are starting to divest from fossil fuels. Once markets turn, they move very rapidly, and this situation will be no exception.
I also like Golden’s and Robert’s framing because there are always people eager to throw up their hands and say “we’re doomed!”. That’s not helpful, of course–better that we give it our best shot even if we think it’s going to be very difficult to succeed. Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future, for some very good reasons, so better not to be paralyzed by forecasts that are very likely to be wrong in any case.
So have hope, and be optimistic. There’s every reason to believe that we can make more rapid changes than conventional wisdom would indicate. The future is ours to create. With every choice we make, let’s ensure the future we create is a hopeful one.
