Features > June 22, 2007

Two Degrees From Devastation

George Monbiot’s book Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning argues that we must cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent

By Phoebe Connelly

Don't let the smile fool you: George Monbiot brings the bad news on climate change.

George Monbiot has a challenge for those concerned about global warming: Stop flying. Of all the harmful things you can do to the earth, it’s hard to top traveling on a plane. Flying from, say, New York to London emits more than one ton of carbon dioxide per passenger.

Consequently, his current book tour might be the British journalist’s last trip to the United States. He’s here to promote Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, which argues that the only way to stop the current climate crisis is to cut greenhouse gas emissions 90 percent, starting immediately. The rationale goes like this: If concentrations of carbon dioxide in 2030 remain as great as they are today, the world will likely experience two degrees centigrade of warming above pre-industrial levels. Two degrees is the point at which, he writes, “certain major ecosystems begin collapsing. Having, until then, absorbed carbon dioxide, they release it. Beyond that point, in other words, climate change is out of our hands.” In Heat, he lays out the science behind this, as well as practicable suggestions for making these cuts.

Monbiot got his start as a journalist, working for a BBC on environmental programs in the late ’80s. That led to two investigative books about the environmental injustices he witnessed around the globe. In 1995, he was awarded a United Nations Global 500 Award for Outstanding Environmental Achievement. He writes a weekly column for the (U.K.) Guardian, and blogs at monbiot.com and turnuptheheat.org.

Ever since I first became interested in climate change 20 years ago, there was something nagging in the back of my mind. I’d heard this story before and I couldn’t pin it down; I just couldn’t. And then one night I was trying to get to sleep, but my brain was racing too fast, and it suddenly came to me. It was Faust. Both Doctor Faustus in Christopher Marlowe’s version, and Faust in Goethe’s version could be metaphors for climate change.

In Marlowe’s version, Doctor Faustus strikes a deal with the devil that if he can have 24 years living in luxuriousness, the devil can then have his soul. He prepares himself for this by denying that hell exists, and at the end, he’s carried off.

Faust is humankind—always striving, curious, restless, never satisfied, wanting to discover more, to explore more, to consume more, create more, destroy more. He is all of us. And, indeed, Marlowe intended that he is all of us.

The years in which he can live in all voluptuousness are the years of extraordinary freedom that we have been granted by fossil fuels; to do things which previous generations have only dreamt of doing; to have magical powers very similar to Faust’s powers.

Now in Goethe’s version, Faust strikes his bargain with the devil, but it’s a slightly different bargain. He says, “You can have my soul after 24 years, but on one condition: only if I become complacent and smug, and stop striving and stop questioning.”

So he begins by living in all voluptuousness, getting everything he wants, the wine, the women, the amazing food and the power to astonish people. He enjoys all that for a few years, and he thinks, “I’m wasting these extraordinary diabolical powers that I have been granted. I ought use them for the good of human kind. I want to create better conditions for people to live in.” And he strives to use these powers—fossil fuels, in my reading—to create a world that didn’t require diabolical powers, in which everybody could be comfortable without having to call on the devil.

There are several problems with them, but the most fundamental one is this: We have very, very little time to deal with this problem. Carbon cuts made today are much more valuable in terms of staving off this problem than a carbon cut made in the future. If you cut the carbon today, you’re less likely to have run-away climate change: climate change that causes more climate change.

Two degrees above the pre-industrial level is when we’re really in the danger zone. Two degrees centigrade that is, so about 3.6 Fahrenheit. Beyond that point, the biosphere, the world’s natural system, stops being an absorber of greenhouse gases and starts to produce far more carbon dioxide and methane than it does today. What I mean is that if you get to two degrees, three degrees becomes an inevitability. Once you hit three degrees, then four degrees becomes an inevitability. Beyond two degrees, we wash our hands of the problem because it’s out of our hands, and we can’t do anything about it.

I’m glad you asked this because people are giving up on two degrees because they see it as too difficult now. They’re not giving up because there is a scientific reason to give up; they’re giving up because there are political reasons to give up. Lately it’s been, “Well, we hope that if we keep emissions down to this certain level, we won’t go beyond three degrees.” Wait a minute! Three degrees is a disaster! We cannot have three degrees! The EU, the British government and other governments have all been saying two degrees is the point beyond which we cannot go. And yet silently, they’ve all dropped that as a target. What I’ve done in my book is show this is realistic, that we can do this.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Al Pacino and Robert De Nero were truly convincing in HEAT, the movie — but this book is a non-starter.
  
  Monbiot’s response to a legitimate question is equal to the best Clintonesque diversion/avoidance style.
  
  Q: “Are there still scientists today debating the inevitability of two degrees? Or is there a consensus on this matter?”
  
  A: “The EU, the British government and other governments have all been saying two degrees is the point beyond which we cannot go.”

  This is the same bunch who was so sure Y2K was going to be an international disaster.

  ---------------

  • What do we know?

  — Some recent data indicate a slight rise in world temperatures.
  
  — The issue has gotten a lot of attention lately.

  • What do we not know?

  — We do not know if it is primarily due to human activity.

  — We do not know if this is a new phenomenon or a repeat of a log term cycle.

  — We do not know if there are other unknowns.

  Regardless of the possible warming effects of pollution, we do know the air quality should be improved for reasons much more short term than a rising water table.

  I think he should visit his sister without guilt. Life is short.

  Posted by whattheheck on Jun 22, 2007 at 9:13 AM

  “George Monbiot has a challenge for those concerned about global warming: Stop flying.”

  How funny! One has to hearken back to those horrible days of September 12-14 2001 to know the real irony of this “challenge”. We gained fascinating data due to all US flights being grounded on those sad days. And we learned something of great interest. Condensation trails in the upper atmosphere actually cause an effect called “global dimming’. They reflect a very significant amount of sunlight, causing temperatures to cool on a worldwide basis.

  Furthermore one has to wonder what the sun’s role is on global warming. For those who care about such things, the solar wind influences the amount of cosmic rays that enter the atmosphere. We are in a period of high solar activity and this causes the cosmic rays to be deflected away from the earth. This is important since cosmic rays facilitate cloud formation, which help cool the earth.

  Of course, all that being said, we should still try to tread lightly on this earth for a variety of reasons. And anything we can do to stop giving money (and hence weapons) to the crazies in the Mideast can only be beneficial to us and them. I use compact flourcecents in my house and dream of the day i can install photovoltaics (solar cells) on my house.

  Posted by wolf on Jun 22, 2007 at 9:19 AM

  Sorry to derail, and I’m not commenting on climate change, but I read this:

  “This is the same bunch who was so sure Y2K was going to be an international disaster” and get a little ticked.  It frustrates me when people point to Y2K as the paragon of public and media Chicken Littleism.  It’s easy to say that Y2K was little more than hype as nobody died and elevators didn’t drop, etc, but this conveniently ignores millions of programmers and IT professionals working billions of hours in the years leading up to the year 2000 on preventative measures, testing and of course the recoding/debugging innumerable critical applications.  Obviously there is no way to know what would have happened on Jan 1st, 2000 without the massive technical effort put forth across the globe, but to declare Y2K a bust because no planes crashed and banks still worked is unfair and lazy at best and dishonest at worst.

  Posted by the_seanald on Jun 22, 2007 at 12:47 PM

  the_seanald

  So you are confident that all the computers were upgraded to compensate for the date “problem”? That’s why no calamities.

  IMO the worst thing about that whole “Chinese Fire Drill” was that in the rush to fix a nonexistent problem the US State Dept. allowed eastern European programmers in to work on our systems. Now there’s something to be ticked about.

  Thanks to Madeline Halfbright.

  Posted by whattheheck on Jun 22, 2007 at 1:32 PM

  What the fuck, WTF.  It was a “nonexistent problem” because it was prevented from becoming a problem, before all those greedy, liberal lawyers could march up the courthouse steps and sue the crap out of all those innocent, conservative corporations for ignoring it.  Nobody gets elected for preventing a problem.  People get elected for creating the problem and then reacting to it, like priests who create the guilt and then absolve the sinners for feeling guilty about committing their crimes.  It’s usually more dramatic to convict the criminal than prevent the crime.  Cheaper, too, unless we regard the value of life to be greater than the value of property.

  Posted by Major Major on Jun 23, 2007 at 6:58 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 50 posts.

Member Login

Also by Phoebe Connelly

• The Politics of Everyday
  The political changes for which we've striven have made a material difference in the way women conceive of their lives, writes Katha Pollitt in Learning to Drive and Other Life Stories
• Two Degrees From Devastation
  George Monbiot's book Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning argues that we must cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent
• Portrait of the Activists as Young Women
  
• Women and Their Boxes
  For too long women have dwelled on the categories that box them in.
• SOSing the Vote
  Secretaries of State are essential to making free and fair elections possible
• Hasterts Earmarks: Pork or Politics?
  former Speaker Hastert in land deal scandal that questions legitimacy of federal funding.