The God Species: How Humans Really Can Save the Planet...

All these lines of evidence – of rising temperatures, thawing ice caps, shifting weather patterns and increasingly dangerous impacts – emphasise that limiting CO2 concentrations at 350 ppm in order to prevent substantial future global warming is the only sensible option. Getting back within this planetary boundary would potentially restore the Arctic to health and prevent the complete thawing of mountain glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas that help sustain freshwater supplies to many millions of people. Limiting the speed and magnitude of the future temperature increase to just a degree and a half this century, the most likely outcome of a 350 ppm pathway, would keep global warming slow enough to allow both natural ecosystems like coral reefs and human societies to adapt to climate change.

350: MODELLING EVIDENCE

Observing the present allows us to extrapolate using educated guesswork towards the future. But perhaps a more scientifically rigorous way to project future climate change is to look at the output of complex computer models that simulate the way the climate operates in incredible detail. Taking months of supercomputer time to crunch all their complex equations, these modelling studies allow scientists to simulate changing conditions on Earth as CO2 rises, ice melts and temperatures climb inexorably. Although computer models are always going to be an imperfect representation of the real planet we live on, they are the only way to run experiments into the future – other than sitting back and watching what really happens to the Earth, by which time it will be too late to do anything about it.

The point of setting a planetary boundary on climate is to enable humanity to keep on the right side of potential tipping points that could mark dangerous and potentially irreversible shifts in the way the biosphere operates. With that objective in mind, two members of the planetary boundaries expert group, Tim Lenton and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, were co-authors of a landmark study published in 2008 that tried to identify the different tipping points that might exist in the climate system and get some idea of what level of temperature rise might trigger them.31 Top of the list was Arctic sea-ice loss. This is because the Arctic melt is self-reinforcing: as ice disappears, its highly reflective surface is replaced by darker sea or land, that absorbs more of the sun’s heat, allowing the melt of even more ice. The problem here is that models generally underestimate the observed loss of ice – in other words, what is happening in the real world tends to be worse than anything projected by the models. Given this, the experts concluded, ‘a summer ice-loss threshold, if not already passed, may be very close’. Only a 350 ppm target would likely prevent it, corresponding to 0.5 to 2˚C future global warming. But even this may not be enough.

Second on the tipping points list came the melting of Greenland’s vast ice sheet. Thick enough to raise the global oceans by seven metres if it melted entirely, the stability of Greenland matters hugely to faraway nations like Bangladesh and the Maldives, which face partial or total inundation (in the case of the latter) if it melts because of global warming. So where does the tipping point lie that might doom the Greenland ice cap to eventual destruction? Between just 1 and 2 degrees above today’s temperatures, the experts concluded, meaning that a 350 ppm trajectory is once again the least we will need to achieve to protect it. Here too the process could become self-reinforcing. The centre of Greenland is extremely cold because the thickness of the ice sheet means that it extends into high altitude: Greenland’s Summit Camp is located 3,200 metres above sea level. But as global warming nibbles away at the edges of this enormous ice body, more of it comes into the lower altitude zone, exposing the ice to higher temperatures and increasing the melt rate. Although eliminating a whole continent’s worth of ice will take time, the process could be completed in as little as three centuries, dramatically changing the coastal geography of the planet. Once again, this is a tipping point that humanity would be wise not to trigger.

Greenland is not the only vulnerable polar ice sheet, of course. Third on the list came the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, again of serious concern because – like Greenland – its loss could trigger multi-metre rates of sea-level rise. The West Antarctic also could be subject to a positive feedback process once a serious melt got under way, not just because of the change in altitude but because most of the ice sheet is actually grounded well below today’s sea level. As warming waters penetrate underneath the ice mass they could trigger a collapse that would be unstoppable, and would eventually raise global sea levels by another 5 metres. Here we may be on slightly safer ground, as the experts conclude that a global warming of 3–5˚C will likely be necessary to lead to complete collapse. So the 350 ppm boundary would appear to be well within the safety margin according to the models.

As with the Arctic sea ice, however, the real world may prove the models of Greenland and the West Antarctic to be overly conservative. The most recent satellite data from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) mission shows a doubling in ice mass lost from both Greenland and Antarctica over the last decade32 – despite a thickening of Greenland’s higher interior where warmer winds have increased snowfall rates. Until recently the massive East Antarctic ice sheet was probably stable, but it too began losing ice in coastal areas after about 2006.33 In total the Earth’s great ice sheets are now shedding a few hundred billion tonnes of ice annually, and sea levels rising by slightly more than 3 mm per year as a result – nearly double the rate for most of the twentieth century.34 A rise in sea levels by 2100 of somewhere between 60 cm and 1.6 metres is now on the cards,35 substantially more than was suggested just a few years ago by the IPCC.36

A more familiar tipping point was examined next, one that has even been made into a dramatic Hollywood film. In The Day After Tomorrow, a sudden ice age is seen flooding and then freezing New York (why is it always New York?) after global warming destabilises the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean. Although the flash-freezing depicted in the movie is thermodynamically impossible, the scenario of a collapsing Atlantic current is not complete science fiction. All the models examined by the expert group led by Tim Lenton showed a tipping point in the North Atlantic where warmer, fresher waters could shut down the circulation pattern that brings comparatively balmy temperatures to the eastern US and high-latitude Western Europe. This shutdown would not trigger a new ice age, but temperatures in these regions could fall for several decades, causing serious impacts on societies and ecosystems alike.37 Again unlike the Hollywood movie, which showed temperatures dropping in seconds, the full transition towards an Atlantic Ocean circulation shutdown would likely take a century or more. More good news is that avoiding this tipping point is still possible: the scientists conclude from studying their models that a global warming of 3–5˚C would be needed to put us in the danger zone, well above the 1.5˚C maximum warming implied by our 350 ppm planetary boundary.

Another candidate on the tipping-point list is the Amazonian rain-forest. For years now many scientists have warned that global warming could trigger a collapse of the forest if rising temperatures lead to severe drought in western Brazil. This scenario seems even more of a danger given the recent droughts experienced in Amazonia in both 2005 and 2010, where entire river systems in this normally wet forest dried up for hundreds of kilometres. The problem here is that models don’t concur: some show a warmer Amazon getting wetter, whilst the most pessimistic forecasts for Amazon die-back are based on the projections of just one model, the HadCM3 model produced by the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre. However, half of the 19 different models examined by a team of scientists led by Oxford University’s Yadvinder Mahli in 2009 did show a shift towards more seasonal forest, and a quarter showed that the rainforest could dry out sufficiently to collapse into a savannah-type ecosystem instead.38 Keeping global temperatures below 3˚C – very likely if our 350 ppm planetary boundary is achieved – should be enough to avoid this transition, but just as important will be respecting the other planetary boundaries on land use and biodiversity loss. The Amazon rainforest today is probably more threatened by deforestation and agriculture than it is by rising temperatures.

If the Amazon rainforest did collapse, huge quantities of carbon would be released in the process, giving a further boost to global warming. But the biggest carbon stores of all lie not in the tropics, but in the sub-polar continental regions where frozen permafrost holds enormous carbon stores tens of metres thick in Siberia and other high-latitude land areas. The threat to permafrost stability is possibly global warming’s biggest tipping point, because if this frozen carbon store begins to thaw, vast quantities of both carbon dioxide and methane will be released. According to a 2008 study in the journal BioScience, the carbon locked up in the Northern permafrost zone totals more than 1.5 trillion tonnes, double the entire carbon content of the atmosphere.39 Even if only 10 per cent of this permafrost thaws, another 80 ppm of CO2 will have accumulated in the atmosphere by 2100, raising the planet’s temperature by an additional 0.7 degrees40 – and making the eventual attainment of the 350 ppm climate change boundary much more difficult.

Scientists have already begun watching with some alarm a recent upward trend in atmospheric methane, some of which may be coming from the Arctic.41 Not all this methane – a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than CO2 – is likely to bubble out of swamps on land; vastly more is contained in subsea sediments in the form of ice-like methane hydrates. If these hydrates melt rapidly as the oceans warm up, then all global warming bets are off – a scenario that has already sparked scary newspaper headlines. So how afraid should we be? Researchers have already reported seeps of methane leaking from the seabed offshore from eastern Siberia and the Norwegian Arctic islands of Svalbard, in both cases possibly in response to warmer ocean waters.42 But the experts are cautious. ‘Methane sells newspapers, but it’s not the big story,’ writes David Archer on the excellent RealClimate blog.43 ‘CO2 is plenty to be frightened of, while methane is frosting on the cake.’

Work by Archer and colleagues modelling the Earth’s response to climate change suggests that methane hydrate release could add another half-degree or so to the total warming, but only over several thousand years, and only if the released methane is not dissolved or oxidised first in the ocean before it has time to escape into the atmosphere.44 This is a ‘slow tipping point’, Archer concludes: it takes a long time for warming to penetrate the oceans, even longer for this to melt and release hydrates, and longer still for this methane to warm the atmosphere and the oceans further in a positive feedback loop. Happily, this is a tipping point we have still not crossed – ‘We have not yet activated strong climate feedbacks from permafrost and CH4 [methane] hydrates,’ reported a team of scientists in 2009.45 In the case of methane hydrates, respecting the climate boundary is not necessarily about protecting ourselves or even our children, but the stability of the Earth system over the very long term – for this tipping point, while slow to activate, would be essentially irreversible once crossed.

350: PAST EVIDENCE

If current observations of accelerating climate change and worries about tipping points in the future make two very good reasons why 350 ppm is the right place for a climate change planetary boundary, even stronger evidence comes from the Earth’s more distant climatic past. Climate models projections such as those published by the IPCC tend to project nice smooth – albeit upward-pointing – curves of likely future temperature trends. But a glance back in time, courtesy of ice-core records drilled in Greenland and Antarctica, shows that gentle, slow changes are far from being the norm in the Earth’s past. Instead, these records of past climate – which now reach back almost a million years – show climatic swings of extraordinary and terrifying abruptness. One extremely sudden warming took place in Greenland 11,700 years ago; it involved a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius within just three years.46 Rapid shifts are observed elsewhere too: 12,679 years ago, according to sediments recovered from a lake in western Germany, the European climate saw a sudden transition to more stormy conditions between one year and the next.47 The lesson is clear. Abrupt climate change is not the exception in the past, it is the norm. As the veteran oceanographer Wally Broecker says: ‘The climate is an angry beast, and we are poking it with a stick.’

Although current CO2 levels are higher than they have been for a million years, if we look even further back into the geological past there are episodes when both carbon dioxide and temperatures were far above where they are now. But rather than suggesting we have nothing to worry about, they further strengthen the evidence for counting 350 ppm as the crucial planetary boundary. For example, during the Pliocene epoch, about 3 million years ago, sea levels were 25 metres higher than today because the major ice sheets were much smaller than now due to a warmer climate. The CO2 concentration then? About 360 ppm – a line we crossed in 1995.48

The Earth was completely ice-free – and sea levels 80 metres or more higher – until about 33 million years ago, early in the geological epoch called the Oligocene. After having been at 1000 ppm or higher throughout the Cretaceous, Eocene and Paleocene, this was the moment when CO2 levels dropped past a crucial threshold allowing continental-scale ice sheets to form on Antarctica for the first time in perhaps a hundred million years.49 This CO2 level was 750 ppm, a level expected to be crossed again in about 2075 if carbon emissions continue to rise unabated. For the following 31 million years, only Antarctica held substantial ice sheets – until, late in the Pliocene, the more recent ice-age cycles began. There was another CO2 threshold at play here, one that allowed Northern Hemisphere ice sheets (such as the current one on Greenland) to form for the first time. That level was 280 ppm, which we crossed right at the start of the Anthropocene at the turn of the nineteenth century. Were Greenland to be ice-free at the moment, in other words, CO2 levels are already too high for an ice sheet to form. Once again, 350 ppm seems to be the minimum necessary to protect the big polar ice sheets over the longer term.50,51

NASA’s James Hansen (a member of the planetary boundaries expert group) wrote in the introduction to his landmark 2008 paper ‘Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?’ (published with nine co-authors in the open-source journal Open Atmospheric Science Journal): ‘If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385ppm to at most 350ppm, but likely less than that.’52 Hansen and his colleagues reject a target of 450 ppm, for long the objective of both many governments and environmental groups. ‘A CO2 amount of order 450ppm or larger, if long maintained, would push Earth toward the ice-free state,’ they maintain. And although the inertia of the climate system and slow response-times of ice sheets would limit the speed of this change, ‘such a CO2 level likely would cause the passing of climate tipping points and initiate dynamic responses that could be out of humanity’s control’.

TOWARDS A TECHNOFIX?

Having said all that, solving climate change is actually a lot simpler than most people think. Global warming is not about overconsumption, morality, ideology or capitalism. It is largely the result of human beings generating energy by burning hydrocarbons and coal. It is, in other words, a technical problem, and it is therefore amenable to a largely technical solution, albeit one driven by politics. I often receive emails telling me that fixing the climate will need a worldwide change in values, a programme of mass education to reduce people’s desires to consume, a more equitable distribution of global wealth, ‘smashing the power’ of transnational corporations or even the abolition of capitalism itself. After having struggled with this for over a decade myself, I am now convinced that these viewpoints – which are subscribed to by perhaps a majority of environmentalists – are wrong. Instead, we can completely deal with climate change within the prevailing economic system. In fact, any other approach is likely doomed to failure.

Here are two options that certainly won’t work. First, we could try to reduce the global population. Certainly, fewer people by definition means lower emissions. But getting to 350 ppm by reducing the number of human carbon emitters on the planet is impossible as well as undesirable: at a first approximation it would require the number of people in the world to be reduced by four-fifths down to just a billion souls or less. Short of a programme of mass forced sterilisation and/or genocide, there is no way that this could be completed within the few decades necessary. Certainly there are a multitude of reasons why giving people access to family planning is a good idea, but climate-change mitigation is not among them. The best reason for promoting birth control is that people want it, and everyone should be able to choose how many children they have. The future of the planet doesn’t come into it.

The second option is to restrain economic growth, as GDP is very closely tied to the consumption of energy and therefore carbon emissions. No one disputes that recessions do tend to reduce emissions: the global financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 led to a fall in CO2 emissions worldwide by 1.3 per cent within a year.53 But imagine that the recession had been caused not by solvency problems within financial institutions but by government policies to tackle climate change. Jobless totals would be rising, government cutbacks in welfare services hitting the poor, and a new age of austerity dawning – all because of the tree-huggers. If you thought the debate on climate change was ill-tempered now, imagine that particular future and its implications.

Greens have for years called into question GDP as a measure of true progress, but the reality is that increasing prosperity – measured in material consumption – is non-negotiable both politically and socially, especially in developing countries. This may one day need to change, but that is a different debate, and one that needs to be had for different reasons. As the climate scientist Roger Pielke Jnr writes in his 2010 book The Climate Fix, ‘if there is an iron law of climate policy, it is that when policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time.’ Greens may despair, but I think Pielke Jnr is right. The implication, however, is not that we are all doomed, but that any successful policy to decarbonise the global economy ‘must be designed such that economic growth and environmental progress go hand in hand’.54

In a related sense, although Greens often insist that energy is too cheap, this too is incorrect. Energy is actually too expensive, certainly for the 1.5 billion poor people in the world who lack access to electricity because they do not have the purchasing power to demand it. Well-fed campaigners in rich countries may fantasise romantically about happy peasants living sustainably in self-reliant African villages, but the fact is that people across the developing world are desperate to increase their economic opportunities, security and wealth. They want to have enough to eat, they want to have clean water and they want their young children not to die of easily treatable diseases – and that is just for starters. They want the benefits of being part of the modern world, in other words, which is why so many young people across the developing world are moving to cities in search of a job and a better way of life. And this better way of life is coming, as the soaring rates of economic growth in China, India, Brazil and many other developing countries demonstrate. The fact is that most of the world needs more growth, not less: China has lifted 300 million people out of poverty in the last couple of decades due to its economic miracle. Hundreds of millions more, in Africa now too as well as Asia and Latin America, are determined to follow, as they have every right to.

By mid-century, in other words, we will see a world of many more, much richer people. Most Greens view this prospect with dread, for how can the world possibly reduce carbon emissions under such a scenario? The London-based New Economics Foundation (NEF), for example, writes in a recent report: ‘If everyone in the world lived as people do in Europe, we would need three planets to support us.’55 This is nonsensical, for everyone in the world is going to live like Europeans within this century (and Europeans too will also get richer) whether NEF likes it or not, and we will still only have one planet. NEF’s ‘Happy Planet Index’ was recently topped by Costa Rica (with the Dominican Republic in second place and Jamaica in third), apparently suggesting that the best country in the world to live is one where 10 per cent of the population still survive on just $2 a day.56 Certainly, the fact that GDP does not necessarily equate to happiness is an important point to make. But it won’t cut much ice with the billions of people – a majority of humanity – who are poor, insecure or malnourished in today’s world. For them economic growth is not a choice but a necessity.

So reducing human population and economic growth is neither possible nor desirable. Luckily there is a third way: we can reduce the carbon intensity of the economy, so that for each unit of GDP produced, less and less carbon needs to be emitted. This means deploying low-carbon technologies across the board so that the energy that is needed to drive economic activity can be generated without additional greenhouse gases. What we need, in other words, is an economy-wide technofix.

TECHNOLOGIES FOR 350

My own perspective on tackling climate change has shifted since I was appointed adviser to President Nasheed of the Maldives in 2009. The president, whose country is of course early on the list of those liable to be wiped out by rising sea levels, had just announced his ambition for his nation to become the first carbon-neutral country in the world, by 2020. Suddenly, having spent most of my life as a journalist, I was confronted with the challenges of real energy supply in a real developing country. All my Green ideology – of tackling corporate power, reducing consumption, challenging economic growth and so on – was going to be of little help with this intensely practical challenge. To be carbon-neutral the Maldives would have to stop burning diesel in electric generators on every one of its 300 or so inhabited islands, and shift instead to an energy system entirely based on renewables. It would have to do this in a way that would not raise people’s energy bills, and would provide opportunities for new business. I found myself in a world where discussions of wind and solar hybrids, battery storage options, biomass and waste-to-energy, and electrical grid load-balancing came to the fore. I began to think less like an ideologue and more like an engineer.

This, on a far grander scale, is the same challenge that confronts the world. To achieve the planetary boundary of 350 ppm, the global economy needs to be carbon-neutral by mid-century and carbon-negative thereafter. Meeting this target means we all – Greens included – need to start thinking like engineers. This is a huge industrial building project, converting the energy basis of civilisation from fossil fuels to a variety of cleaner sources. If we do it right, it will not be a burden or a cost to the world’s economy, but a source of enormous potential future growth, innovation and job creation. The sheer amount of economic activity implied by the transition is staggering: to reduce the emissions of the United States by a third, for example, would (using current technologies) involve constructing 145 nuclear plants, 33,000 solar thermal power stations and 130,000 large wind turbines. In Germany, the same ambition of a 30 per cent emissions cut implies 21 nuclear plants, 4,800 solar stations and 20,000 additional windmills.57