Blog post

The Bella centre is a swirl of chatter, the streets of Copenhagen are a swirl of protest. Depending on what hour you listen to the news bulletin, the UN climate negotiations have "come off the rails" or are "back on track" or have "stalled" or are "moving swiftly". Which is why the only people who really understand what's going on may be a small crew of folks from a group of computer jockeys called Climate Interactive. Their software speaks numbers, not spin – and in the end it's the numbers that count.

First number to know: 350. It's what scientists have been saying for two years is the maximum amount of carbon dioxide we can safely have in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million. Those scientists have been joined by an unprecedented outpouring from civil society: in late October, activists put on what CNN called "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history," with 5,200 demonstrations in 181 countries, all rallying around that number. Three thousand vigils last weekend across the planet spelled out the number in candles. Thousands of churches rang their bells 350 times on Sunday, and yesterday the World Parliament of Religions, meeting in Melbourne and representing the "largest interreligious gathering on earth" sent an emergency 350 declaration here to Copenhagen.

The second number: 100. That's (roughly) how many countries are backing a 350 target here at Copenhagen. That's more than half the nations in attendance – unfortunately, they're the small, poor ones. But it's amazing to see them, in the face of enormous pressure, keeping the idea of real action alive. Yesterday Mohamed Nasheed, president of the Maldives, spoke to a roaring crowd of thousands: "We know what the laws of physics say: the most important number in the world is 350."

The third number: 4%. That's how much the US is offering to cut its emissions from their 1990 levels by 2020. Scientists tell us that the developed world would need to reduce by at least 40% to get us back on a 350 track, so the American offer is exactly an order or magnitude off. And they're not alone. All the rich countries, not to mention China, are looking to do as little as possible and still escape here with some kind of agreement they can hide behind.

The fourth number – and the most important one. When the folks at Climate Interactive plug in every promise made at these talks (the American offer on the table, the Chinese promise to reduce "energy intensity", the EU pledges, and so on) their software tells them almost instantly how much carbon they would eventually produce. When they hit the button last night, the program showed that by 2100 the world's CO2 concentrations (currently 390) would be – drumroll please – 770. That is, we would live in hell, or at least a place with a similar temperature.

So that's the scorecard. You may hear a lot of happy talk from world leaders over the next few days as they "reach a historic agreement". But that's how it all adds up.

350.org is calling for supporters to join a one day fast on Thursday December 16, to send a message to world leaders that they need to produce a strong treaty in Copenhagen. Sign-up here on the 350.org site.

Originally published December 15, 2009 in The Guardian, cross-posted on Grist

Like this post?

Keep the information flowing: Donate to Post Carbon Institute
Stay connected: Receive our monthly e-newsletter
Reposting: See our reposting policy


Add Your Comment

(not published)

Reader Comments

3 comments

re: 770 ppm

From: Asher Miller, Dec 27, 2009 09:40 AM

Tony,

You raise an important question. It's true that the IPCC models fail to account for fossil fuel depletion--something that a number of commentators on sites like energybulletin.net and theoildrum.com have pointed out.

While it is unlikely that we would reach 770 ppm CO2E from direct emissions, I'm afraid that at least two likelihoods make this a moot point:

1. The reason why top climate scientists like James Hansen state that 350 ppm of CO2 is the 'safe' level is because we're already seeing the climate destabilize (we're currently at around 390 ppm). So whether we wind up at 450 or 500 ppm (both very realistic even with energy scarcity scenarios) or higher, we're talking about a dangerously unstable climate.

2. The big risk here is climate tipping points. If methane captured in permafrost is released in large amounts or we get massive forest die off, we could be faced with a natural systems cycle that would quickly and lethally increase CO2E concentrations in the atmosphere.

So why raise the possibility of 770ppm? I can't speak for Bill or the other folks at 350.org, but sometimes simplifying very complex realities down to numbers can be critical to getting folks to act. I think the group's success in getting so many people and governments (though, alas, not the world's biggest emitters) to adopt 350 as a target is a testament to the wisdom of that strategy.

Is 770 Possible?

From: Tony Weddle, Dec 26, 2009 11:41 PM

I'm as concerned as anyone about climate change. If 350 ppm is critical then we've got real problems already. Why raise the possibility of 770, if there are serious questions over the possibility of reaching that? I think there are serious questions because there is serious doubt that enough fossil fuels could be burned to produce anywhere near 770. I think it's important to argue the case for 770 (if there is a case) without risk of its being shot down as nonsense. If enough fossil fuels cannot be extracted to produce 770 ppm, then it will seriously damage the credibility of those advocating significant societal changes to avoid serious climate change. There have been several articles over the past year about this. Please check them out and check the data before claiming more serious damage than is possible.

living in hell

From: Tian Harter, Dec 26, 2009 07:55 PM

Ever heard that Cake song where the guy sings "Satan is my motor"? He was talking about the internal combustion engine of his car.

To put it another way, cars and Republicrat incumbents have one thing in common: They both produce hot air. As long as oil and car companies pay good money for that kind of representation we are going to get it.

I say bicycles and green movement politics are better! Be the example in your own back yard!

Tian