Documenting the Train Wreck: Atmospheric CO2 Is Now Higher Than Ever in Human History, and Rising

Atmospheric CO2 levels have now reached 415 ppm. The last time humans experienced levels this high was... never. Human didn't exist.#climatecrisis #climatechange pic.twitter.com/xtRSF2ScGC

— Peter Gleick (@PeterGleick) May 13, 2019

by Thomas Neuburger

The Kochs and their carbon-lobby friends have essentially won.
     –Wen Stephenson (source)

Our betters chose another path for us, and the rest, I'm afraid, will merely be consequences, the train wreck mentioned above, easily foreseen.
     –Yours truly (source)

I wrote the sentence above in January 2018 as part of a backward look at 2017, the first of the years of consequences to follow the crossroads year 2016 — the year when Bernie Sanders was not elected president, was not even allowed to be a choice.

One of the train wrecks I foresaw is a consequence of our already-started revolt against the super-rich who rule us. The other is the coming climate catastrophe.

About the latter, the planet has recently passed a milestone back to which it may not return in our lifetime, or even in the lifetime of our species. For the first time since humans walked the earth — and perhaps since Australopithecus, our earliest post-chimpanzee ancestors, did as well — daily atmospheric CO2 crossed above 415 ppm to 415.26 as measured at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. (As you can see from the chart at the top, CO2 for the previous 800,000 years stayed within a tight range, between about 180 and 300 ppm. It's now well above that range and rising fast.)

Not only that, but every daily reading at Mauna Loa from May 11 through May 18 was above 415 ppm:

Hourly and daily averages for atmospheric CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory for the week ending May 18, 2019 (click to enlarge)

Small dots are hourly averages; large dots are daily averages. Note that the chart's hourly peak, just before noon on May 15, crossed above 417 ppm.

May is usually the peak month for atmospheric CO2 — there's a yearly rise and fall — but each yearly peak is inexorably higher than the last one. It appears that humans, as ruled by its fossil fuel–financed politicians, won't stop burning carbon until they can't — until they're pre-Industrial at best, functionally extinct at worst. The train wreck.

Exxon Predicted This in 1982

Back when Exxon Corporation was studying climate change seriously, its scientists produced papers predicting atmospheric CO2 and global warming under a number of scenarios, including a "high case" scenario in which fossil fuel burning would increase and previously unavailable carbon resources, from shale for example, would become extractable.

Here's a chart from one of those papers (pdf). It projects both projected atmospheric CO2 and global temperature increase from a 1980 baseline:

Chart from this Exxon paper. Annotation by Brian Kahn at Earther (source)

The Exxon prediction was startlingly accurate, at least so far. It put atmospheric CO2 (upper line) just below 420 ppm in 2019 and global warming (lower line) above 1.2°C after we add in the amount of global warming, 0.4°C, that occurred between the pre-Industrial low and 1980 [Hansen, 2018] — about where we are today, in other words.

Fossil fuel CEOs, including and especially those at Exxon, the global moneyed class in general, and their bought politicians — meaning almost all of them — are the reason we're in this mess. They're also the reason we may not get out of it, since I don't see the revolt against death by fossil fuel, even at this late date, happening any time soon.

Which leaves us where we are today. Barring miracles, which do occur, we already know what's coming. The Kochs and their carbon-lobby friends have essentially won. The train is approaching. All that's left is to document the wreck.
  

Vote For Mary Street Wilson On Tuesday

Mary Wilson is a progressive. Kopser is not, not at all

The Austin Chronicle editorial board made its endorsements for the May 22 run- off last week. In the preface they describe themselves as "left-leaning," but their non-endorsement in TX-21 is absurd and, perhaps, sexist:

No Endorsement

We could not reach a consensus of support in this race. The Chronicle issued a dual endorsement in the primary, of Elliott McFad­den and Derrick Crowe, who both lost out on the run-off. (Crowe took 23%, McFad­den 17%.) But we remain split on Mary Wilson and Joseph Kopser, whose run-off represents a litmus test of what a party's nominee in a historically Republican district should be, and what we believe the 2018 electorate will want. Though he classifies his political transition from Reagan Republican to registered Democrat (with two decades of military service sandwiched in between) as "progress" and not opportunism, Kopser remains a centrist Democrat who is pro-business, and whose measured approach to enacting progressive policies raised concerns from some of our Board that he is, in essence, Republican-lite. His political credentials are indisputable-- establishment party support, both locally and nationally-- but what remains open to interpretation is the utility of that support following the 2016 presidential election, when he and his opponent were both galvanized to wage their first campaigns for public office. Kopser believes a combination of that support and a friendly rapport with Joe Strausian Republicans, who care more about economic development than who uses which bathroom, makes him the best candidate for a general election. For those who see irrelevance in that establishment and want the party to move more left, there's Mary Wilson, a dyed-in-the-wool progressive who does not employ a generic campaign staff. She is a lesbian minister in suburban Texas (Cedar Park) with experience bringing individuals from all political stripes together under her congregation and who believes her place on the political spectrum (unapologetically on the social justice left) will be a feature and not a fault in both energizing Democrats and winning over disenfranchised Republicans should she make it to the first general midterm election since America got stuck with Donald Trump.

Blue America originally endorsed Derrick Crowe, with great enthusiasm. When he missed out on the run-off, we had no problem going over to Mary Wilson. Kopser is exactly what the Democratic Party and Texas do not need. Derrick endorsed Mary as well. He sent me this post yesterday about this current state of the race for the 21st, which goes from West Campus, the Drag, Downtown and Claksville in Austin, through Travis Heights, Sunburst, Tanglewood Forest, south though Buda, San Marcos and New Braunfels into northeastern San Antonio and west into the Hill Country beyond Fredericksburg, Boerne, Bandera and Medina.

Yesterday, one of Joseph Kopser’s most visible public supporters requested that I respond to his social media posts about Mary Street Wilson’s public disclosure that her family holds shares in Exxon. Given the issues it raised for both candidates and the fact that voting is underway in the runoff, I initially thought it best not to respond and just stay out of it. However, since subsequent social media posts make it clear that Team Kopser will continue to request that I respond, I’ve reconsidered.

Let me be absolutely, crystal clear: Exxon is a terrible company, and everyone should divest from it. No other corporation is more responsible for deceiving the public about the effects of fossil fuels on the climate, and their actions may have already cost us a livable future in the long term. Prior to running for this congressional seat, I took part in numerous protest actions and public education efforts to hold Exxon accountable. That climate-change-focused activism was eventually what drew me back into politics to challenge climate change denier Lamar Smith in TX-21. So, of course, I was concerned by the prospect that a candidate I support would hold shares in Exxon.

However, Team Kopser left out an important piece of context: the assets in question were left to Wilson’s spouse as an inheritance from a close family member. That changes things significantly. Since the asset wasn’t left to Wilson, divesting from it is not her decision alone to make-- just like it’s not Kopser’s decision alone to dispose of his wife’s holdings that include significant fossil fuel investments.

According to Kopser’s financial disclosure form, Amy Kopser has personal investments (not received from a deceased person’s estate, mind you) in funds GWX, SPDW, SPEM, SPMD, SPSM, SPYG, SPYV. According to Fossil Free Funds, all of these funds have significant oil, gas, and coal investments, including investments in:

• top owners of coal/oil/gas reserves;
• the largest coal-fired utilities;
• coal-/natural-gas-fired utilities; and
•the fossil fuel industry in general.

Again, a candidate’s spouse is a person who makes their own choices, and how they resolve that kind of thing and how it will relate to the campaign’s climate change platform is a matter for them as a couple. What should be a matter of concern to voters, however, are Kopser’s own investments in those funds. He also holds his own investments in all of them. A self-described “clean energy warrior” ought to go to war to clean up his personal investment portfolio.

This same disclosure document also reveals that Kopser has a lovely $50,000–$100,000 investment in a company, Cross CHX, whose most visible product is Olive, a medical services AI intended to replace workers doing repetitive tasks in the for-profit medical industry! Here’s how Cross CHX introduces your “new employee,” the 24-hour, 7-day-a-week, 365-day, salary-free droid! Sorry, workers!

This AI investment is flabbergasting to me. Kopser and I had repeated discussions and debates about automation, labor, and the minimum wage, and not once did he disclose his financial interest in automation and AI — which I’m sure would have been of note to the labor unions who backed him in the runoff.

Wilson and Kopser have significant, important differences between them on climate change, fracking, and whether and when we should set a deadline for our country’s transition to net-zero carbon emissions. Kopser’s evasiveness on these points and his willingness to accept additional fossil fuel use “for centuries” as part of a “holistic mix” are nonstarters for me. By contrast, Wilson’s support for a 2035 deadline for getting this country to net-zero carbon emissions fits with my own view of the urgency of the climate crisis. Furthermore, her participation in the heroic protests at Standing Rock show me that she’s willing to put herself on the line to fight for a livable future and for environmental justice.

Everyone should divest from Exxon. Everyone should leave candidate spouses out of it (a stance #TeamKopser has hitherto held to, admirably). And Kopser and his supporters have absolutely no standing to make this kind of attack.

Vote for Mary Wilson on May 22.

There's A Tendency To Feel Sympathetic Towards Anyone In Conflict With Trump... Be Careful With That

This week, the New Yorker features an exhaustive piece by Dexter Filkins on Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. It's worth reading it its entirety, probably quickly before Trump fires him or drives him to quit. There was one part of it, however, the swampiest part, I thought worth sharing with you. Tillerson's deep reservations about taking a job with Trump, wrote, Filkins, "turned out to be well founded. His tenure, like that of other members of Trump’s Cabinet, has been marked by strife and confusion. As Tillerson has struggled with diplomatic crises in North Korea, Iran, Qatar, and elsewhere, Trump has contradicted and even embarrassed him, usually by emphasizing America’s willingness to use force instead of diplomacy. In a further slight, he has given Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, a broad portfolio of international responsibilities typically reserved for the Secretary of State. Tillerson, for his part, shows little evidence of holding his Commander-in-Chief in high regard. Last July, following Trump’s strangely political and inappropriate speech at the annual Boy Scout Jamboree, Tillerson, according to NBC, was so offended that he was going to resign, until Vice-President Pence, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and the incoming chief of staff, John Kelly, persuaded him to stay. That same month, Mattis reportedly attended a meeting of national-security officials at which Tillerson referred to Trump as a 'fucking moron.' Those reports have renewed rumors in Washington that Tillerson will soon resign or be fired. Both sides quickly responded with ritual assurances of fealty. Yet few believe that the relationship between Trump and Tillerson is warm or coöperative, or that it will last long. Before taking office, Tillerson ran a corporation whose reach and success have few rivals in American history. In government, he has been uncomfortably subordinate to an unpredictable man."

Now the part I thought worth sharing-- you already know about the "fucking moron" statement.

In February, a few weeks after Tillerson was confirmed by the Senate, he visited the Oval Office to introduce the President to a potential deputy, but Trump had something else on his mind. He began fulminating about federal laws that prohibit American businesses from bribing officials overseas; the businesses, he said, were being unfairly penalized.

Tillerson disagreed. When he was an executive with Exxon, he told Trump, he once met with senior officials in Yemen to discuss a deal. At the meeting, Yemen’s oil minister handed him his business card. On the back was written an account number at a Swiss bank. “Five million dollars,” the minister told him.

“I don’t do that,” Tillerson said. “Exxon doesn’t do that.” If the Yemenis wanted Exxon on the deal, he said, they’d have to play straight. A month later, the Yemenis assented. “Tillerson told Trump that America didn’t need to pay bribes-- that we could bring the world up to our own standards,” a source with knowledge of the exchange told me.

...Last year, before being named Secretary of State, Tillerson made an appearance at the University of Texas, where he was asked about the interplay of Exxon’s global influence and American foreign policy. He suggested that business and politics existed in separate realms. “I’m not here to represent the United States government’s interest,” he told the audience. “I’m not here to defend it, nor am I here to criticize it. That’s not what I do. I’m a businessman.”

In 2002, a year after Congress passed the Patriot Act, a group of Senate investigators wanted to determine whether American banks were complying with the law’s restrictions against money laundering. One of them was Riggs Bank, in Washington, D.C. When the investigators began looking into Riggs’s books, they discovered several accounts, containing hundreds of millions of dollars, linked to Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the dictator of Equatorial Guinea, a tiny African nation with enormous gas and oil reserves. Some of the accounts were receiving deposits from ExxonMobil, which maintained large operations in the country. At the time, Tillerson was Exxon’s senior vice-president.

Since the nineteen-nineties, when oil and gas were discovered in Equatorial Guinea, it has been one of the world’s most corrupt and undemocratic nations, where dissidents are routinely jailed and tortured. Obiang, who came to power in 1979, oversaw the awarding of all the country’s oil contracts. He is estimated to have a fortune of at least six hundred million dollars, while most of his citizens live on less than two dollars a day. His son is notorious for flagrant displays of wealth; he owned a thirty-million-dollar mansion in Malibu (later confiscated by American officials) and more than a million dollars’ worth of Michael Jackson memorabilia.

In some cases, the Senate investigators found, Exxon wired money directly to offshore bank accounts that Obiang controlled. In others, money was carried to the bank in suitcases containing millions of dollars in shrink-wrapped bundles. Exxon also contributed to a fund, controlled by Obiang, to send the children of high-ranking government officials to study in the United States.

Exxon officials told the investigators that the payments were made not to acquire oil concessions but to pay for a variety of services, such as security and catering, that Exxon needed in order to operate in Equatorial Guinea. The company had no choice, they said, since Obiang’s family had monopolies on these services. Elise Bean, a former Senate investigator who worked on the case, told me, “It was a wonderful example of paying someone off without paying them off.”

The discoveries helped prompt senators to draw up legislation requiring American resource companies to disclose any payments to foreign governments. According to the bill’s sponsors, the United States had an interest in promoting good governance abroad. “Corruption is a real problem for American foreign policy,” a former Senate aide who drafted the bill told me. Under the legislation, companies would also be required to disclose domestic payments, including taxes paid to the U.S. government, something Exxon has never done.

For years, as Exxon and others in the industry conducted a concerted lobbying effort against the legislation, Congress delayed acting on it. Then, in 2010, following the financial crisis, language calling for a new disclosure regulation, Rule 1504, was included in the Dodd-Frank legislation, which imposed reforms on banks and other financial institutions. Tillerson, as the C.E.O. of Exxon, went to Capitol Hill to argue against the rule, and met with one of the senators who supported it. According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, Tillerson said that if Exxon had to disclose payments to foreign governments it would make many of those governments unhappy-- especially that of Russia, where Exxon was involved in multibillion-dollar projects. The senator refused to drop the rule, and Tillerson became visibly agitated. (Tillerson denies this.) “He got red-faced angry,” the source recalled. “He lifted out of his chair in anger. My impression was that he was not used to people with different views.”

After years of wrangling, Rule 1504 was approved, and scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2017. Following Trump’s election, however, the Republican-controlled Congress singled out a number of regulations for repeal, Rule 1504 among them. But Congress waited until after Tillerson’s confirmation hearing to include the rule in repeal legislation; Tillerson was not asked about it at the hearing. On February 1st, with Exxon lobbyists on the Hill to push Congress, the House voted to rescind Rule 1504, and the Senate quickly did the same. Almost exactly an hour later, Tillerson was confirmed as Secretary of State.

...Tillerson confronts an unstable world and an unstable President, who undermines his best efforts to solve problems with diplomacy. Still, he carries on, conceding by his persistence that the best course is to accommodate Trump’s policies while apologizing for his most embarrassing outbursts. At Exxon, Tillerson was less a visionary than a manager of an institution built long before he took over. With Trump, he appears content to manage the decline of the State Department and of America’s influence abroad, in the hope of keeping his boss’s tendency toward entropy and conflict from producing catastrophic results.

What Does Big Oil Get For It's Political Bribery?

Where did the $1.6 billion bribe to Trump come from?

With Trump and Bannon tearing it up so raucously in the center ring, some people aren't paying close enough attention to what the Republicans are up to in the sideshow. Like "world's best negotiator," Trumpanzee himself, totally buckling to PhRMA lobbyists within minutes. And rest assured, Ryan's foul little Congress is up to no good. As the Washington Post reported yesterday, the oil industry lobbyists are collecting on a debt. Big Oil and Gas spent $29,193,276 bribing politicians in the 2016 cycle alone-- $25,361,577 to Republicans and $3,797,930 to Democrats. (Since 1990, Big Oil and Gas has poured $265,991,602 into congressional races.) The biggest Oil whores in Congress this cycle include Speaker Paul Ryan ($646,683), Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady ($392,050), Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy ($329,750) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise ($273,900). The grateful Ryan, Brady, McCarthy and Scalise have lead the lobbyists to the feeding trough and told them gorge themselves.

One of House Republicans’ first targets for regulatory rollback is torn from the oil industry’s wish list: eliminating recent Obama administration requirements that oil, gas and mining companies divulge more information about business payments they make to foreign governments.

A House resolution this week, which aims to scrap the transparency rule imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, is one of the first measures that seeks to use the Congressional Review Act to undo regulations adopted during the final months of the Obama administration.

And it comes at a potentially awkward moment for former ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, who opposed the SEC regulation and is now awaiting confirmation for the position of secretary of state.

The review act could be used to nullify regulations dating back to June last year, experts on the law say.

In this case, the SEC drafted the regulation in response to directions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. The directive was in an amendment backed by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and then-Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). “Information is power,” Lugar said at the time. “It is power for shareholders and power for citizens living under oppressive regimes.”

The SEC says that it would “combat government corruption through greater transparency and accountability.”

But the SEC’s first version of the regulation was struck down by a federal district court in the District of Columbia after the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit in 2012. That prompted a second attempt by the SEC. Because the final version was imposed near the end of the Obama administration, it now falls within the time frame that permits Congress and the president to use the review act to undo the regulation.

The oil industry has been particularly incensed about the regulation, complaining that the SEC rule would put them at a competitive disadvantage to foreign firms and be unduly expensive.

The SEC has argued that the rule would help fight corruption not only by companies but by governments around the world. It has also noted that global companies have begun to provide, on a voluntary basis, more comprehensive disclosures. In December 2015, then-commission member Luis A. Aguilar said that at least two large resource extraction companies were already providing payment disclosure on a project basis, and at least one other major resource extraction company was voluntarily providing other disclosures.

“Other global companies are also beginning to open their books to permit a window into their resource extraction payments to foreign governments,” he said.

...“Rolling back this law will enable the corruption President Trump told us all he would end,” said Corinna Gilfillan, head of the U.S. office of Global Witness, an advocacy group that targets environmental and human rights abuses. “The oil industry has been striking backroom deals with dictators and tyrants for decades, wrecking developing economies and the environment in the process.”

She added that “this law helps prevent it by making sure people can see how much money is changing hands for their resources, and who is really benefiting from those deals.”

Right wing extremist Ken Buck (R-CO) introduced the resolution, which passed yesterday 235-167, 5 Democrats voting with the GOP-- Gene Green (TX- $727,313), Henry Cuellar (TX- $565,180), Collin Peterson (MN- $117,275), Filemon Vela (TX- $72,800) and newcomer Vicente Gonzalez (TX- $1,000). Big Oil schmeared Buck with $72,950 this past cycle-- $402,329 since he was first elected to his High Plains Eastern Colorado seat in 2014. 

Not that Ken Buck or conservatives in Congress are the only ones Big Oil is schmearing. According to some pretty heavy duty, well-sourced rumors, Exxon gave Trump a nice fat $1.5 billion bribe. Sounds unbelievable? Maybe you haven't been paying close enough attention to what Exxon is and what Trump is. From Jonathan Schwartz:

According to documents recently uncovered in Europe, Exxon paid the Trump Organization $1.5 billion in June 2016 through a money laundering scheme involving banks in Europe, Hong Kong and New York. This payment occurred just days after ex-Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson attended the St. Petersburg Economic Conference in Russia.   It is unclear whether Trump's decision to nominate Tillerson as Secretary of State is in any way connected to the payment.

The documents were discovered by a European intelligence consulting company, headed by former European intelligence officers. The company was working with European intelligence and law enforcement agencies monitoring attempts by European companies to bypass US and EU sanction on Russia.

The documents state that on June 16, 2016, Exxon signed an agreement with MCC Holdings, a subsidiary of MCC (Metallurgical Corporation of China), a Chinese company owned by SASAC (State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council), the Chinese government agency responsible for managing government owned corporations.

Both MCC and its subsidiary, MCC Holdings have been rated by Moody's. The CEO of MCC Holdings, Mr. He Ting Shen (aka Heting Shen) is one of the signatories on the contract. According to public records as confirmed by several news sources, Shen is registered as the CEO of the company.

Кукольный! Кукольный! Нет кукол!

According to the contract agreement, Exxon and MCC holdings entered into what they defined as a "$1.6 billion joint participation agreement". The agreement, a 35-page document, is remarkably opaque, and can be described as a legalese waffle without any tangible deliverables or any other viable basis for a normal large scale business deal. The sole purpose of the agreement appears to obfuscate the payment by providing a cover that could be claimed was a plausible justification for the $1.6 billion payment Exxon made to MCC.

...On January 11, 2017, information regarding this payment was shared with the Department of Justice, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and several Senators.

Rex Tillerson visited Russia in June 2016, and then, just days later, the Exxon payment took place. Six months after that, Trump nominated Rex Tillerson, who was still Exxon's CEO at the time the agreement was signed and the payments made, as his nominee for Secretary of State, despite his lack of pertinent experience. Clearly, it is vitally important that this matter be investigated assiduously before the Senate confirms Tillerson.

In addition to the circumstances regarding the actual payment, two other issues need looking into. One is the source of the money. If it did not come from Russia, but from Exxon sources, Exxon, as a publicly traded company is required to report a $1.5 billion to the SEC, and list it in the relevant quarterly report. If this did not happen, then either the money originated from a third party, probably Russia, or Exxon is guilty of gross violations of banking laws and regulations.

...Unlike the Russian dossier recently released in the United States, the documents in this matter are available and include the contract agreement, the wire transfer document from Paris to Hong Kong, the HSBC “Payment Advice” document, passports from signatories, and emails describing the transactions.

Yesterday 3 right-of-center Democrats-- Manchin (WV), Warner (VA) and Heitkamp (ND)-- plus 1 independent-- Angus King (ME)-- voted with the Republicans to confirm the Trump-Bannon-Putin pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. All 4 of them are up for reelection in 2018. This is how much each has received from Big Oil:

• Manchin- $290,150
• Heitkamp- $259,379
• Warner- $161,920
• King- $17,800

Some Bridge Fuel — Energy Emissions from Methane Surpass Coal, But Oil Emissions Still Rising

Emissions from methane (natural gas) are replacing emissions from coal, but not petroleum (source; click to enlarge).

by Gaius Publius

Methane ("America's clean natural gas") is being touted and sold as the "bridge fuel" from carbon emissions from all sources, including oil. In fact, methane is turning out to be a bridge fuel away from coal only. See the charts at the top and note the rise of emissions from petroleum as methane emissions replace coal emissions.

In the meantime total CO2 emission in the U.S from all sources is essentially flat:

Total U.S. CO2 emissions, 1990–2014 (source; click to enlarge)

Methane may be a bridge fuel from coal, but it's not a bridge to fewer overall emissions, not by a long shot.

This news comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (which is touting methane, by the way):

Energy-related CO2 emissions from natural gas surpass coal as fuel use patterns change

Energy-associated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from natural gas are expected to surpass those from coal for the first time since 1972. Even though natural gas is less carbon-intensive than coal, increases in natural gas consumption and decreases in coal consumption in the past decade have resulted in natural gas-related CO2 emissions surpassing those from coal. EIA's latest Short-Term Energy Outlook projects energy-related CO2 emissions from natural gas to be 10% greater than those from coal in 2016....

In 2015, natural gas consumption was 81% higher than coal consumption, and their emissions were nearly equal. Both fuels were associated with about 1.5 billion metric tons of energy-related CO2 emissions in the United States in 2015.

Three points about this announcement.

First, it's good that coal is being used less and less, but coal still has a large emissions footprint, as this 2006 chart shows.

Second, reducing the use of coal is a mixed blessing. Coal emissions (poisonously) contain particulate matter (various kinds of soot, or as scientists say, "aerosols") that in part act to reduce global warming because they tend to reflect some of the sun's energy back into space before it hits the earth and becomes heat. Dr. Michael Mann has a fuller explanation here.

Bottom line, if we don't reduce coal use, Mann estimates we "lock in" +2°C global warming likely in the early 2030s, as atmospheric CO2 reaches 450 ppm. If we (somehow, miraculously) do eliminate coal use, we lock in +2°C global warming as soon as atmospheric CO2 reaches 405 ppm, a level we've already crossed on the monthly chart (source and discussion here). Climate people call the use of coal a "Faustian bargain."

Third, look again at the total emissions chart above. People, especially in government and the energy industry (like the EIA), like to tout the CO2 emissions reduction "since 2005." That reduction was (a) caused almost completely by the global slowdown in economic activity due to the financial crisis that followed, and (b) not much of a reduction, unless you eliminate most of the bottom of the chart to exaggerate the change (as here).

Is It an Emergency Yet?

Yes. For one thing, methane is not a bridge fuel. I'm willing to bet money that no prospective investor in a methane-burning energy facility is being told that the facility will be torn down in 10 years and replaced with something else, like a zero-carbon power plant. On the contrary, I think investors are being told that putting money into new methane (natural gas) infrastructure is a long-term profit-maker. No bridge fuel for us; just the words.

And it probably doesn't hurt the industry's future that Exxon is the "largest natural gas producer in the U.S."

But more to the point, we just don't have the time, even if methane were used as a true bridge fuel. Atmospheric CO2 is accelerating, with 2014 and 2015 being named, successively, "the hottest year on record." Also, the 10 warmest years in the historical record all occurred since 1998. If we don't put the brakes on now — the real brakes, not just the rhetorical ones — it won't matter who's president for the next eight years, Sanders, Trump or Genghis Khan. They'll all be powerless to stop what everyone can see coming and is panicked about.

For more on why a "WWII-style mobilization" is both possible and necessary, see the section "The Zero Carbon Economy, a Rationing Regime that Works" here. To work to build a Mobilize Now awareness, you might start here.

GP
 

Is Obama About to Nominate an Exxon Lawyer to the Supreme Court?

Is Nicolo Machiavelli about to whisper into Obama's shell-like ear? (Source; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

When we talk amongst ourselves, we leftie writers and activists, I sometimes hear it said that Obama should nominate someone very liberal to replace Antonin Scalia. I also sometimes hear that if he doesn't do that, it's because he feels pressured not to. Immediately after hearing these things, the next phrase going through my head is this one, the phrase that took up residence during the 2009 health care process:

Occam's Switchblade (n. ph.) — "He does it because he wants to." A way to explain a person's otherwise confusing behavior.

Which brings us to Obama's rumored list for Supreme Court justice, the one who will replace the newly departed Scalia. (Side thought — Did Antonin Scalia depart while accepting favors from someone with prior business before the Court? Was he there to be hobbed and nobbed with by any of the 35 other guests, who may also have past or future business before the court? Maybe we'll find out. It's not like he hasn't done it before; Scalia, I mean; accepted gifts, I mean.)

Topping every nomination short-list, printed, rumored and trial-ballooned, is Sri Srinivasan. Mr. Srinivasan is almost always named first (and out of alphabetical order) in lists with more than one name (example here; another here, first paragraph). And, as noted above, it appears he's being trial-ballooned by none other than Joe Biden. 

So let's take a look at Sri Srinivasan as a potential nominee. We'll start with Srinivasan and the climate, the one that Obama dearly loves. If he becomes the nominee, we'll take a look at other aspects of his biography.

Greens Are Wary of Sri Srinivasan's Fossil Fuel Past

This takedown of Srinivasan comes via Politico of all places. (But wheels within wheels. This doesn't look like a pro-administration article, a placement as it were, but it could be — a media placement that tanks apparent corporate favorite Srinivasan and allows Obama to nominate someone like Loretta Lynch, for example. Perhaps we'll look later at the many-layered chess game in this nomination, as Obama fends off his opponents, both left and right, prevents a possible anti-corporate Sanders nominee, notches another ... er, notch ... in his duel with McConnell, and pockets an E-ticket spendable at his post-retirement theme park party. Wheels within wheels.)

Here's Politico (my emphasis):

Greens wary of Sri Srinivasan's fossil fuel past

His work as an attorney representing Enron's former CEO and ExxonMobil raises hackles among some eco-activists.

The prospect of President Barack Obama tapping Sri Srinivasan for the Supreme Court is spawning a sharp debate among at least one part of the Democrats’ liberal grass roots — environmentalists turned off by his high-profile defense of giant fossil fuel companies. ...

Srinivasan’s work on human rights cases in which he defended ExxonMobil and the mining company Rio Tinto have raised particular objections from environmentalists. He also represented that enduring symbol of corporate excess, former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, in the appeal of the executive’s fraud and conspiracy convictions.

"Any judge that sides with Big Oil over the American people has no place on our Supreme Court,” said Jane Kleeb, a Nebraska activist who helped lead the grass-roots campaign that killed the Keystone XL oil pipeline, in an email to POLITICO on Tuesday.

“Corporate interests have trumped citizens’ concerns for too long,” she added. “Folks in the heartland will not look the other way of Srinivasan representing both Enron and Exxon, which denies climate science and pollutes our land and water.”

Jane Kleeb, if you haven't yet heard of her, is entirely reliable on the subject of the climate. A Nebraskan, she's one of the national heroes behind stopping the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have run through her state.

The Exxon Supreme Court Nominee

Assuming Obama does nominate Srinivasan, would Exxon say thank-you in, say, another year or so, for putting an Exxon lawyer on the nation's highest court? Especially if doing so would also block a Sanders appointee, one who might take a dimmer view of the self-dealing insider game played by corporations and both parties alike?

Not sure, but if they did want to thank him, there are ways. I keep thinking of this:

One proposal for the Obama Presidential Library. Like Starfleet Academy, only pricier (source).

These presidential libraries don't build themselves. A person needs friends to help with some of the lifting.

GP
 

Clinton Refuses to Pledge Not to Take Fossil Fuel Money

These are the agents of money. We call them lobbyists today, powers behind the throne. Size is a clue to relative importance (source; click to enlarge).

by Gaius Publius

Hillary Clinton has rejected a Greenpeace challenge to pledge not to accept campaign contributions from the coal, oil or natural gas industries. The Greenpeace pledge is here. In part it reads:

I will prove that I work for the people by refusing money from fossil fuel interests...

While her response to Greenpeace affirms the general goals of the pledge, she has refused to take it.

Greenpeace had argued (my emphasis):

“While Secretary Clinton’s commitment to reversing Citizens United and restoring the Voting Rights Act is admirable, she doesn’t have to wait that long to have an impact on our country’s money in politics crisis. She can start right now by rejecting fossil fuel money,” said Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard. “That bold move would prove to everyone that Clinton not only knows that our democracy is broken, but that it is fixable.”

Instead, Clinton offered this:

In Clinton’s statement to Greenpeace, she says, “The fossil fuel companies know my agenda is to stop their agenda. I will take them on and win—and make sure America leads the fight against climate change.”

You can read Clinton's full statement at the end of the Greenpeace report.

How Much Money Has Clinton Taken from the Fossil Fuel Industry?

In these dark money days, it's hard to know for sure how much she's taken. According to OpenSecrets.org, in her career Ms. Clinton has reportedly received $1,784,943 in individual and PAC contributions. This does not include contributions to super PACs supporting her three elections. (According to a recent Maddow show, Clinton at the moment has roughly the same cash on hand from campaign donations and as from super PACs — roughly $35 million from each source — implying that the contributions to each may be somewhat roughly balanced.)

And then there's her strong ties to fossil fuel lobbyists. From Paul Blumenthal writing last July at the Huffington Post (my emphasis throughout):

Hillary Clinton's Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists

Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.

A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.

Clinton, the former secretary of state, has called climate change the most “consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world” and says it would be a major focus of her administration if she wins the White House. But having so many supporters who have sold their services to fossil fuel companies may complicate her emphasis on pro-environment policies.

About those lobbyists, Blumenthal writes:

Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, have been registered to lobby for the Southern California-based oil giant Chevron since 2006, with contracts totaling more than $3 million. ...

The two Clinton bundlers also were part of a much-criticized campaign by Chevron to manipulate Congress into inserting language into the Andean Trade Preferences Act that would require Ecuador to dismiss a longstanding lawsuit against the company for polluting the Amazon jungle. Democratic lawmakers pushed back against the campaign and the lawsuit is continuing.

About the natural gas industry:

One prominent lobbying topic embraced by Clinton bundlers is the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports and federal approval of new LNG [liquified natural gas] terminals.

Ankit Desai, vice president for government relations at top LNG exporter Cheniere Energy, bundled $82,000 to the Clinton camp, with much of it coming from Cheniere Energy executives. Cheniere executives, including Desai, have donated $38,800 to Clinton’s campaign.

The company has lobbied hard in Washington and maintains close ties to the Obama administration. The company won the first approval to export gas to countries outside of U.S. free-trade agreements. The company is seeking approval to open additional terminals to export LNG, and will likely need a friend in the White House come 2017.

ExxonMobil is not left out:

ML Strategies’ David Leiter lobbied in 2014 on behalf of Sempra Energy when the company received approval for its LNG export facility in Hackberry, Louisiana. Leiter, who bundled $36,550 for Clinton’s campaign, also is a lobbyist for ExxonMobil. Steve Coll noted in a New Yorker article derived from his book on the oil giant, Private Empire, that Leiter, an ex-staffer to former Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), was retained, along with a host of others, to increase the company’s reach into the Democratic Party it had ignored for years.

ExxonMobil’s top lobbyist in Washington, Theresa Fariello, may not be a bundler for Clinton’s campaign, but she is a donor. Fariello, who was a Department of Energy official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, gave $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign. Another Washington-based Exxon lawyer, Judith Batty, donated $2,700. ...

Does Hillary Clinton know that "Exxon knew," that in fact that whole industry knew? So far we don't know. But do read the rest. There's more like this in the piece than I can reasonably quote.

Hillary Clinton, Fossil Fuel Lobbyists & the Donald

Yet Clinton gives us her word: "The fossil fuel companies know my agenda is to stop their agenda."

It's entirely possible she means it, but I guess we'll have to wait until after she's elected to see those words, that agenda, in action. I hope if she's the nominee, she gets that far.

Fair warning, though — it's not just the left that's all over this seeming contradiction. This is grist for the higher-traffic right-wing sites as well (example here). I can't imagine, therefore, that this won't be brought up — again and again and again — in a campaign against Donald Trump.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP
 

It Wasn't Just Exxon — They All Knew

American Petroleum Institute spokesmodel Brooke Alexander (aka Lying Pantsuit Lady) saying the one true thing she knows — "America is number one in bringing planet-destroying carbon to the world." She thinks that's a good thing, which is false.

by Gaius Publius

More excellent reporting by Neela Banerjee at the award-winning site InsideClimate News on the "Exxon Knew" story. Turns out, they all knew, all the big oil companies. Their industry group, the American Petroleum Institute (API), had been running a task force for years in the late 1970s and early 1980s, at which scientists from all of the big oil companies shared their information.

(Side note: Of course that had to be true. Just like any industry, Big Oil is a very small club at the top. What matters to one of the companies, especially one as big as Exxon, matters to all of them. Their execs all know each other, go to each other's parties, ride each other's jets to St. Andrews and Val-d’Isère, share names of the best Confirmation and Bar Mitzvah caterers — so of course when one gets a bug in the behind about maybe CO2 is dangerous, they talk about that bug until they've decided what to do. This story was just waiting to be dug out. Kudos to Ms. Banerjee for doing the digging.)

InsideClimate News with the details (my emphasis):

Exxon's Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too

Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and Shell.

Beginning in 1979 the American Petroleum Institute, the nation’s most powerful lobbyist, together with the country's largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research.

The American Petroleum Institute [API] together with the nation's largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was aware of its possible impact on the world's climate far earlier than previously known.

The group's members included senior scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil, the predecessors to Chevron, according to internal documents obtained by InsideClimate News and interviews with the task force's former director.

An InsideClimate News investigative series has shown that Exxon launched its own cutting-edge CO₂ sampling program in 1978 in order to understand a phenomenon it suspected could harm its business. About a decade later, Exxon spearheaded campaigns to cast doubt on climate science and stall regulation of greenhouse gases. The previously unpublished papers about the climate task force indicate that API, the industry's most powerful lobbying group, followed a similar arc to Exxon's in confronting the threat of climate change.

Just as Exxon began tracking climate science in the late 1970s, when only small groups of scientists in academia and the government were engaged in the research, other oil companies did the same, the documents show. Like Exxon, the companies also expressed a willingness to understand the links between their product, greater CO₂ concentrations and the climate, the papers reveal. Some corporations ran their own research units as well, although they were smaller and less ambitious than Exxon's and focused on climate modeling, said James J. Nelson, the former director of the task force.

"It was a fact-finding task force," Nelson said in an interview. "We wanted to look at emerging science, the implications of it and where improvements could be made, if possible, to reduce emissions."

The group was initially called the CO₂ and Climate Task Force, but changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task Force in 1980, Nelson said.

A background paper on CO₂ informed API members in 1979 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily, and it predicted when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt, according to a memo by an Exxon task force representative.

In addition, API task force members appeared open to the idea that the oil industry might have to shoulder some responsibility for reducing CO₂ emissions by changing refining processes and developing fuels that emitted less carbon dioxide....

Those prediction weren't far off. The whole ICN report is worth reading, but this, however, is especially damning:

At [the urging of task force member Henry Shaw, Exxon's lead climate researcher in the late 1970s], the task force invited Professor John A. Laurmann of Stanford University to brief members about climate science at the February 1980 meeting in New York. Shaw and Laurmann had participated in the same panel at the AAAS climate conference in April 1979.

Like many scientists at the time, Laurmann openly discussed the uncertainties in the evolving climate research, such as the limited long-term sampling data and the difficulty of determining regional effects of climate change, according to a copy of his presentation attached to the meeting minutes [pdf].

Still, Laurmann told his audience several times that the evidence showed that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is likely "caused by anthropogenic release of CO2, mainly from fossil fuel burning."

In his conclusions section, Laurmann estimated that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would double in 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperatures with "major economic consequences." He then told the task force that models showed a 5 degrees Celsius rise by 2067, with "globally catastrophic effects."

Here are those conclusions in full, from the next-to-last page of the report linked in the quote:

CONCLUSIONS

• AT A 3% PER ANNUM GROWTH RATE OF CO₂, A 2.5°C RISE BRINGS WORLD ECONOMIC GROWTH TO A HALT IN ABOUT 2025.

Even if this estimate is grossly wrong it is still probable that

• WHETHER THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO THE THREAT DEPENDS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE LONG MARKET PENETRATION [of new energy sources] TIME CONCEPT.

• EVEN IF THE LATTER IS APPLICABLE, PRESENT DAY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IMPACT DEPENDS STRONGLY ON CHOICE OF A FUTURE [social] DISCOUNTING FACTOR.

• NEED FOR IMMEDIATE POLICY ACTION HINGES ON THESE LAST TWO FEATURES.

Page 10 of the pdf is damning as well. This behavior borders on the criminal, wouldn't you say? Or maybe crosses it, given the consequences we now face, by the distance of a hemisphere or so. About those consequences:

Climate translation:

"I know what you're thinking, Mr. & Ms. American. You're thinking, 'Do we have until 2020 to stop making Big Oil richer, or can we wait till 2040 to take them on?' Now, to tell you the truth, no one really knows. But being this is civilization-ending CO2 emissions we're talking about, which will blow your grandchildren right back to the stone age while you watch, you've got to ask yourselves a question — Do you feel lucky?"

Nope, still not feeling lucky. Perhaps it's time to act decisively and treat this like the emergency it is. After this gets going, life won't be fun for anyone, even the wealthy who caused it. After all, if Val-d’Isère is all melted by then, where will they ski?

GP

Fossil Fuel Companies Risk Wasting at Least $2 Trillion of Investors' Money

Alan Cumming tells you why you can't have nice things

by Gaius Publius

The reason we won't have nice climate — until we fight for it — is money. Rich people's money. And frankly, the money of mainly old, soon-to-be-dead, rich people, like this one from Exxon, or these two from god knows where. People, in other words, with no future of their own and a pathological reason to sacrifice ours.

Because it turns out, if humans ever wrest control of the climate-fix process and kick the moneyed bottoms out of the decision room, those moneyed bottoms stand to lose a ton — by this news account, trillions. From Damian Carrington in The Guardian:

Fossil fuel companies risk wasting $2tn of investors' money, study says

Paris climate deal could render oil, gas and coal projects worthless with US, Canada, China and Australia most vulnerable to losing billions

Fossil fuel companies risk wasting up to $2tn (£1.3tn) of investors’ money in the next decade on projects left worthless by global action on climate change and the surge in clean energy, according to a new report.

The world’s nations aim to seal a UN deal in Paris in December to keep global warming below the danger limit of 2C. The heavy cuts in carbon emissions needed to achieve this would mean no new coal mines at all are needed and oil demand peaking in 2020, according to the influential thinktank Carbon Tracker. It found $2.2tn of projects at risk of stranding, [i.e.] being left valueless as the market for fossil fuels shrinks.

The report found the US has the greatest risk exposure, with $412bn of projects that could be stranded, followed by Canada ($220bn), China ($179bn) and Australia ($103bn). The UK’s £30bn North Sea oil and gas projects are at risk, the report says, despite government efforts to prop up the sector. Shell, ExxonMobil and Pemex are the companies with the greatest sums potentially at risk, with over $70bn each.

The failure of the fossil fuel industry to address climate change is laid out in a second report on Wednesday, in which senior industry figures state there is “a significant disconnect between the changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the [2C] level and efforts currently underway”.

Lord John Browne, former BP boss, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, former Shell and Anglo American chair and others say there must be “fundamental reassessment of the fossil fuel industry’s business models” and that companies should seize commercial opportunities in low-carbon energy.

Here's why that number — $2.2 trillion in stranded-asset losses — is too low (my emphasis):

The Carbon Tracker report looked at existing and future projects being considered by coal, oil and gas companies up to 2025 and determined which could proceed if carbon emissions are cut to give a 50% chance of keeping climate change under 2C. Many high-cost projects, including Arctic and deepwater drilling, tar sands and shale oil are unneeded and therefore uneconomic in the 2C scenario, the report found, although some are required to replace fields that are already depleting.

“Business history is littered with examples of incumbents – like Kodak and Blockbuster – who fail to see a transition coming,” said Anthony Hobley, chief executive of Carbon Tracker. “Our report offers these companies a warning [about] avoiding significant value destruction.”

You read that right. Those are losses from stranding only part of their assets and agreeing to let them monetize and burn the rest. (The amount "allowed to be burned" under a given scenario is called our "carbon budget.") In other words, what happens if humans agree to burn just enough to give them a 50% chance of keeping global warming under 2°C. In other words, what happens if humans agree to play Climate Russian Roulette with a gun with just two chambers, one of them loaded.

If We Increase the Odds of Success to 90%, There's No "Carbon Budget" at All

But what happens to oil and gas reserves if humans decide to up the odds of success, to, say, 90%? Answer: There's no carbon budget left at all. 100% of carbon reserves must be stranded. If you can't wrap your head around that fact, you're not seeing the problem, and without seeing the problem, you won't recognize the solution.

You can see the relationship between the carbon budget and the odds of success in this chart:

Source: David Spratt at the invaluable Climate Code Red

To read this chart, let's first get oriented:

• The Y-axis represents cumulative carbon emissions since pre-industrial times.
   
• The gray area under the 515+ level represents emissions through 2011 — a part of the “budget” we’ve already spent. Everything above that, as shown by the green, orange and red arrows, is "allowed future emissions" — our remaining "carbon budget" — under a number of scenarios.
  
  Two notes: First, we're burning carbon worldwide at the rate of more than 10 GtC per year, so for cumulative emissions through 2015, add 40 GtC to that 515 number and mentally raise the top of the gray area. Second, about the units on the Y-axis above — 1 petagram (1 Pg) of carbon is the same unit, the same amount, as 1 gigaton (1 Gt) of carbon. This is two ways to say the same thing.
   
• The X-axis shows odds of success from 0% to 100% for the emissions scenarios shown in the Y axis. In other words, for each amount of cumulative emissions (on the Y axis) there's a corresponding "chance of success" (on the X axis).
   
• The blue line plots those points that connect Y-axis emissions to X-axis odds of success. The result shows that, as cumulative emissions (and the "carbon budget") become smaller, the odds of “success” increase.

Note that at the 90% success point, the blue line crosses below 515 GtC. In other words, if we want to improve our chance of failure to 1-in-10 — to play Climate Russian Roulette with a ten-chambered gun — we must stop emitting carbon, completely, now.

Do you see why people like me are sounding urgent, and why climate scientists, when you get them alone, are freaking out? (Be careful, by the way, when listening to news out of Paris and their expressed "carbon budget" number. The IPCC is using a 60% chance of success — Russian Roulette with a three-chambered gun — to derive their recommended carbon budget. Even Clint Eastwood offers a six-chamber chance.)

Again, this isn't over, but we've got just five years maybe, and at most ten, by my estimation, to stop, something that's entirely possible if the mass of people want to. Will they want to? They're starting to wake up. Let's see what the next Hurricane Haiyan brings, say, if it appears in the Atlantic this time.

What You Can Do

As I wrote recently, you can help in two ways. These are things you can do now. First, contribute to Bernie Sanders campaign, and optionally, to the campaigns of all candidates who have endorsed him. (Adjust the split any way you like at the link.)

Second, understand that moving quickly means just that — a World War II-style national mobilization. Consider adding your name, voice and effort to this group and signing the pledge to mobilize. We've done this before, and when enough people want to — something that's well within imagination — we'll do it again.

Beautiful Miami Beach. If the "big one" hits here next and developers flee like rats from the wreckage of their property values, will "let's mobilize" be the cry of the day? It's not unthinkable.

Even the right wing will beg for "daddy" to save them, because, well, that's what they do. And we'll be glad to have them on board.

GP

What Passing 400 ppm CO2 Means to Climate Scientists

NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2 (source). Note first that emissions are greater in the industrialized northern hemisphere, which probably explains why the Arctic is melting first. Then note the difference between winter emissions in the north, which remain airborne, and summer emissions, which are partially withdrawn by growing vegetation.

by Gaius Publius

This is written for anyone who is climate-concerned, but specifically for our DC readers in the policy-making community. This is the issue at which cautious incrementalism collides with urgency. If a meteor were headed for earth and due to crash in a year between 2020 and 2040, I doubt our policymakers would be talking about how long to delay before acting.

The climate emergency is that meteor. 2020 is five years away. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not feeling lucky. Neither are these folks.

What Passing a Key CO2 Mark Means to Climate Scientists

From Andrea Thompson and Brian Kahn at Climate Central comes this, a series of comments from prominent climate scientists on our passing a key climate milestone, a persistent 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

As the animation above shows, CO2, one of several greenhouse gases and the longest lived, passes into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (primarily), then is partially draw out by the activity of plants in the summer, and other factors, such as dissolution in the ocean. More remains in the air than is drawn out, however, which counts for increasing atmospheric concentrations, year by year.

Here is the authors' introduction to the scientists' comments:

Humans have burned enough fossil fuels to drive atmospheric CO2 to levels that world hasn’t seen in at least 400,000 years. That’s driven up temperatures, melted ice and caused oceans to acidify. Some extreme weather events around the world have become more likely and stronger because of it, and some will likely only get worse as the planet continues to warm. [Note the unnecessary conservativism in the use of "likely." The word they want is "certainly."]

Because CO2 sits in the atmosphere long after it’s burned, that means we’ve  likely lived our last week in a sub-400 ppm world. It also means that the reshaping of our planet will continue for decades and centuries to come, even if climate talks in Paris in two weeks are successful.

To get some perspective on what this means for the world, we asked leading climate scientists for their insight on passing this milestone as well as what it means for their particular areas of research. Below are their answers, some edited lightly for clarity or length.

And now a few of the comments:

How Do You Feel About CO2 Levels Passing This Threshold?
 
Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 Program: “It will take some getting used to psychologically, like a round-numbered birthday. For someone who remembers when CO2 was only around 330 ppm, it's a pretty big change.”

Jason Box, ice researcher at the Geologic Survey of Denmark and Greenland: “I feel very concerned because the last time atmospheric CO2 was this high, global sea levels were at least six meters higher. You can see a recent study by Andrea Dutton and others on sea level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods.”

Katharine Hayhoe, atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University: “As a scientist, the difference between 399 ppm vs. 401 ppm is negligible.

As a human, though, passing both the 400 ppm and (potentially) the 1°C threshold within such a short time period makes it clear we are already living in a different world. We have blown past targets that were being considered as viable when I entered graduate school. We have significantly reduced the options available to us in the future. If we aren’t going to blow past the next set of thresholds — 500 ppm and 2°C — within just a few more decades, we have a lot of work to do in Paris in two weeks and beyond.”

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute: “In some ways, the number 400 ppm is no different than 395 ppm or 390 ppm — it is just that we like watching our odometers turn over at even numbers with lots of zeros. But this feels far more important than pure symbolism. The truth is, when I was born, atmospheric CO2 levels were around 300 ppm. Today — maybe even this week — will be the last time anyone alive experiences a level below 400 ppm, and no one born in the coming century or even longer will ever see less than 400 ppm again. That is a deep, deep observation, with ramifications for our children and for every future generation.”

Pieter Tans, head of the Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Group at the Environmental System Research Laboratory: “What do I feel about this? Awe! To me, it demonstrates the continuing and unavoidable rise of CO2 as long as mankind continues to burn coal, oil, and natural gas in quantities so large that natural systems are being overwhelmed.”

There are more questions and more comments, all of them interesting. The questions include "What Does Reaching This Level Mean For Your Area Of Climate Science?" and "Do You Think This Milestone Will Spur Action On Climate Change?" Please read the rest.

Four Takeaways

To make it simple, here are four takeaways from the article:

1. From Jason Box, quoted above: The last time atmospheric CO2 was this high, global sea levels were at least six meters higher.
    
2. Katherine Hayhoe, above: If we aren’t going to blow past the next set of thresholds — 500 ppm and 2°C — within just a few more decades, we have a lot of work to do in Paris in two weeks and beyond.
    
3. John Church, from an unquoted part of the article: The oceans, glaciers and ice sheets are all out of balance so sea level will rise for centuries, and more.
    
4. Julienne Stroeve, from an unquoted part: Any action on climate change will be driven by economics; sadly that's the way the world currently works.

All four statements are true — "we have a lot of work to do" is of course a huge understatement — but the fourth statement is only conditionally correct. In "incremental times" the fourth is spot-on. In revolutionary times, however, times in which the villagers opt for an "Easter Island solution," there are choices other than protecting the wealth of our "leaders":

You're a villager on Easter Island. People are cutting down trees right and left, and many are getting worried. At some point, the number of worried villagers reaches critical mass, and they go as a group to the island chief and say, "Look, we have to stop cutting trees, like now." The chief, who's also CEO of a wood products company, checks his bottom line and orders the cutting to continue.

Do the villagers walk away? Or do they depose the chief?

There's always a choice ...

Six meters or more of sea level rise before 2100 is at least 19 feet. The seas continuing to rise "for centuries" is the end of coastal living worldwide, the absolute end, except in easily moved villages. Me, I like the Easter Island solution more and more. Simply depose the chief.

What Does "Depose the Chief" Mean?

Until the Democratic primary is over, "depose the chief" means replacing the "carbon friendly" and "solution at the margins" Barack Obama with only Bernie Sanders, at least until Hillary Clinton stops being a carbon candidate herself.

You can help in two ways. First, contribute to Bernie Sanders campaign, and optionally, the campaigns of all candidates who have endorsed him. (Adjust the split any way you like at the link.)

Second, understand that moving quickly means just that — a World War II-style national mobilization. Consider adding your name, voice and effort to this group and signing the pledge to mobilize.

Otherwise, we could end up here:

Climate translation:

"I know what you're thinking, Mr. & Ms. American. You're thinking, 'Do we have until 2020 to stop making Exxon and Big Oil rich, or can we wait till 2040 to take them on?' Now, to tell you the truth, no one really knows. But being this is civilization-ending CO2 emissions we're talking about, which will blow your grandchildren right back to the stone age while you watch, you've got to ask yourselves a question — Do you feel lucky?" 

Me, I don't feel lucky.

"You are here" and rising at >2.1 ppm/year. Atmospheric CO2 across a span of time longer than our species has existed (source; click to enlarge).

Not lucky at all. (One solution here.)

GP