Collide-a-scape

In 2008, it was shaped by Copenhagen and the proposed U.S. congressional cap & trade legislation. That makes sense, since major political events (especially protracted ones) tend to propel narratives. (Ordinarily, climate science drives the global warming narrative, but 2008 was akin to a presidential election year for climate change.) Sure there were new public opinion polls and plenty of fresh, alarming scientific findings that fueled media coverage, but the master narrative flowed from the political dealmaking done in the U.S and on the international stage.

The storyline in 2009 is shaping up to be something much different. Marc Morano can continue to insist that global warming is a hoax because of the hacked emails or the latest IPCC screwup, but no amount of screaming headlines on Climate Depot is going to alter the firm scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is real, or the minds of a majority of people who think it’s real (if not an urgent problem).

So there’s still going to be a debate on how to curb greenhouse gases this year. The question is, will cap & trade remain a central theme? I’m guessing no if the U.S. climate bill gets put on the shelf with healthcare legislation.

What does that mean for the next round of international talks in Mexico City? Remember, it’s a given that a world treaty hinges on the U.S. passing a climate bill. So what happens if cap & trade is eliminated from congressional legislation, which seems increasingly likely? What if the whole bill is scuttled? What’s the climate narrative then, leading up to Mexico City? How do you negotiate an international cap & trade mechanism with carbon reduction targets if the world’s second largest emitter isn’t on board?

I thought that Mike Hulme laid out an intriguing scenario in this recent Nature piece.  Hulme speaks to the growing sense that a clearer path emerged from the chaos of Copenhagen, one that

reflects a new political reality [where] politics and power will win out. My view is that this was a good outcome from Copenhagen. I think that people may well now see that there is more progress to be made by pursuing options outside of the formal structure of the UN.

Along these lines, Hulme said he would

like to see more radical thinking. Different climate forcing agents might be best attended to in different ways. One could have two separate treaties: one controlling short-lived agents such as black soot and methane, and one concerned solely with carbon dioxide.

So far so good. I can imagine climate advocates in the U.S  signing up for that. But then Hulme suggests a mitigation strategy that would require a whole new institutional and political mindset:

I don’t hold out a great deal of optimism that market-based mechanisms — especially with [only] a proportion being auctioned — provide a strong enough downward pressure on emissions. For that reason, I wouldn’t mind too much if [the climate bill] doesn’t get through the Senate if it forces other types of thinking. I’ve come around to the view that we need to set near-term targets that are pragmatic and technology-based, and they should be achievable on the basis of credible social, technical and economic analysis, not aspirational targets driven by IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] science. It’s better to be pragmatic than to be overly aspirational; surely the lessons of the 12 years since Kyoto tell us that?

Now if this perspective catches on, we got ourselves a whole new climate narrative.

UPDATE: Soon after writing this post, I recalled the news last year of Republican Senator Inhofe’s concerns about black soot. Hulme raises the idea of a separate treaty on this noxious pollutant. Perhaps there is common ground between climate advocates and skeptics on black soot?

UPDATE 2: David Roberts of Grist is becoming a true climate realist:

It’s now fairly clear that the long-time environmentalist dream of having a binding international treaty that imposes ambition on participating countries is forlorn. The iron law of geopolitical relations is asserting itself here: countries will do what is in their own best interests based on their own circumstances … and no more.

In a short, snappy video interview with Nature, Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider veers between hope, resignation, and realism. He makes a good case for what can be salvaged from Copenhagen, and why that matters. Along those lines, he offers this clever twist on an over-used phrase:

We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the mediocre.

In other Copenhagen news, I see there’s been some leakage that Bill McKibben calls a “smoking gun. Speaking to what’s revealed in the leaked document, McKibben is quoted at Dot Earth:

There’s a parade of world leaders standing up here today and speaking on and on and on about proposals that’ll keep us below 2 degrees and pretending that the stuff on the table has any hope of doing that.And the U.N. itself knows that it’s going to go at least 50 percent hotter than they’re pretending.

So if he’s right, that got me thinking: forget about all the sideshows outside, wouldn’t it be great if there was an actual reality show about the negotiations. It might not be as entertaining as the Osbornes, but it sure would be illuminating.

The seething anger directed at Andy Revkin (and the NYT)  from climate scientists and climate advocates continues to amaze me. On Saturday, Eric Steig at Real Climate vented through gritted teeth. On Sunday, Joe Romm got back in touch with his old self and let it rip.

That same day, we saw the, ahem, unauthorized disclosure of an email from Michael Schlesinger, who warned Revkin that he was in danger of being shunned by climate scientists for his “gutter reportage.”

One of Andy’s supposed transgressions is that he’s been quoting too much from Pielke Sr. and Pielke Jr. of late. So if that’s really it, which is quite an incredible charge, then I can only imagine the paroxysms triggered by today’s NYT story co-authored by Andy. The piece not only dares to again reference a Pielke, but it also dares to suggest that “climateagate” may complicate the Copenhagen talks. I have a feeling that this story will gall some especially for its timing–it comes on the summit’s opening day.

My Friday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up. The conference starts next week, obviously, and will be covered in detail by Nature’s staff.

My Tuesday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up.

My Tuesday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up:

My Friday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up.

My Tuesday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up.

Aside from David Roberts, there’s only one other notable voice who has put a positive spin on the big Copenhagen news. No surprise there from CP, though his first sentence probably got coughed up like a hairball by even his most devoted fans.

Guess what, he’s right. But for the wrong reason. At least I’m guessing that’s what the green movement’s anti-cap and traders are telling themselves today. If they’re serious about getting a do-over in Congress, this is their time to pounce. Is the die already cast? Almost certainly.

Still, they have a second chance to make their case, if they have the fortitude.

My friday post at Nature’s Climate Feedback is up.

The Sci Am geoengineering piece I flagged is worth reading in its entirety, especially by that environmental ethicist in Boulder, Colorado who is having way too much fun with his new blog toy.