A comment about 350.org and Bill Mckibben

[GliderGuider]

This comment was posted on Guy McPherson's "Nature Bats Last" blog. I didn't write it, but I agree with every word. It's a succinct assessment of what I think is wrong with 350.org in particular and modern "environmentalism" in general.

It (350.org) seemed a good idea when it began, and respected McKibben’s End of Nature book, years ago, but as far as I can tell, what 350 are saying and believing is simply unrealistic. I don’t pay attention to them anymore.

Firstly, the idea that they, or any, campaigning group is going to reduce ppm back to 350 is a fantasy, when the governments and corporations and bankers who have the power, have no intention of doing any such thing, and most of the world’s population don’t see the point. The time to do it was 30 years ago.

We’re already almost at 400ppm and no sign of any serious moves to check the rate of increase, no known means of significantly reducing the levels, methane and other feedbacks likely to see the rates increase steadily if not dramatically, so the whole ‘get back to 350? thing is tilting at windmills, and telling people that they are going to achieve something effective, is basically, telling a lie, which will leave them disappointed and disillusioned and hurt.

However, assuming that their efforts have SOME effect, and reduce the rate of increase of CO2, then that’s good, I suppose, isn’t it ? I used to think so, once, that it was a good thing. If we could slow down, or delay the disaster, then that buys some time, to think, to invent measures, to transition….

But now my view has changed, all of that is old thinking, no longer appropriate.

The 350.org people still seem to be under the impression that if, by some magic, we can rewind the film, back to where we were, at 350ppm, then everything will be fine again. But that’s nonsense. Even if we could rewind back to pre-industrial, which I think was 280 ppm, we’ve still got total disaster.

That’s because we have destabilised the system. The Holocene is gone. We don’t get it back, just by returning the CO2 levels to what they were. You know, once you set the ball rolling downhill, it keeps going, however much you shout at it, makes no difference. That’s what we’ve done. It’s going to take tens of thousands of years before it finds a new balance, and there is NOTHING we can do about that.

Even if we have a revolution and collapse industrial soceity, even if it collapses itself because of a financial implosion or nuclear war or pandemic, or if we find a magic technofix that replaces coal and oil, the planet still keeps warming for many decades, because of what’s already in the pipeline, the sea level still keeps rising for centuries, the climate still remains chaotic forever, the stability we HAD has GONE, and cannot be retrieved.

Afaik, Bill McKibben is not telling that to his followers. He’s still saying that if they do this or do that, then everything’s going to be more or less ok. That’s a LIE.

It’s like talking to children, telling them that grandma is going to get better and then we’ll all go on holiday to the seaside, when you know grandma is going to be dead in the morning. Right, it’s good to be kind and sensitive to children, so white lies are appropriate, but adults need to understand reality so that they can make adult decisions.

[truebrit71]

1. Nope, that's not what 350.org or Bill McKibben are saying at all...

...The name 350.org was chosen because that was the level at which most scientists had previously said would be the most the earth could handle before things got really out of control. It's sort of an ironic title.

Secondly in his book Eaarth, Bill McKibben clearly states that the earth as we know it is gone. Game over, done and dusted. One sentence that stuck with me most from that book was that even if everyone on the planet switched to riding their bikes to work TOMORROW, we would STILL see massive increases in C02, well over the 400 level we have already breeched and overall planet heat because of the delayed reaction from the last 30 years of industrial ramping up in the "modern world", most especially from India and China coming on-line as major pollution producers.

To my knowledge Bill McKibben has NEVER said " if they do this or do that, then everything’s going to be more or less ok." Not remotely. He has said that we need to prepare for a new world, one that is potentially radically different than we currently live in, one that will have vastly more powerful, and much more frequent, storms and major 'weather events'. We will have to get ready for a world in which crop growth will be vastly different than it is now, as well as quite possibly wars over water.

IIRC Guy McPherson is the chap that is predicting massive heat increases and radical water shortages but lives in the middle of a fucking desert...

I think that they will both ultimately be proven right in their predictions, the only question that remains unanswered is how long before it becomes our everyday reality...

(I agree with Bill McKibben in another area, we have always heard, and in many ways still do hear from politicians that we have to fix the problems "for our grandchildren". At the rate we're going we'll be fortunate if there's an even remotely recognizable planet for these future grandchildren to live on...)

[GliderGuider]

2. From their mission statement

The first two points of their mission statement:

350.org is building a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis. Our online campaigns, grassroots organizing, and mass public actions are led from the bottom up by thousands of volunteer organizers in over 188 countries.

350 means climate safety. To preserve our planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 392 parts per million to below 350 ppm. But 350 is more than a number—it's a symbol of where we need to head as a planet.

They don't sound like adaptationists to me.

Guy has admitted that his decision to leave academe and take to the desert was a mistake, and has said that given what he knows now he would not do it again. He had a more naive understanding of the crisis back then, and a totally different view of where the danger would come from. As a result he missed the full significance of rapid climate change until it was too late. We're all human, I guess.

[JWMchew]

3. What do you do?

You decide to walk across a train trestle. Half way across, you realize a train is coming. If you jump, you die. If you stand there, you die. If you turn and run, you die. Or is it more like you almost certainly die? Maybe you probably die.

Whatever.

I turn and run.

[GliderGuider]

4. Yes. We each get to choose how to respond.

There's no single right way.

I deeply believe that each one of us has to decide for ourselves whether we want to try and "save the world". Some people feel a deep need to do that, while others don't. The path the world takes is the result of the dynamics of 7 billion people each doing what they think is right. The activist mindset holds the fight to save the world as the highest value, and denigrates anyone who declines to participate.

I try to promote the idea that not attempting to save the world is a valid response, especially if one sees the situation as irreversible. I don't think that "we" should stop trying. To stop trying is a very personal decision, and not many people in Western culture feel comfortable doing that. There are many other worthwhile things a person can do besides "fighting". I don't believe in telling other people what to do or how to think. If someone wants to try and save the world, that's fine with me. If someone else wants to raise their family as best they can, or even rob banks for a living, that's also fine. There is no best way for the world to be, there is just the way it is.

I have undertaken to remove the word "should" from my vocabulary, whether it refers to things I do or things others do. I think the attempt to place an obligation onto someone else (or even oneself) to behave in a certain way is fundamentally illegitimate, and ultimately pointless. Others do it of course, it's the standard activist approach, and again that's fine - it's just the way they are. But I will continue to promote the decision to not try and save the world as a legitimate personal choice.

I'm happy being a witness to the unfolding of the world. YMMV.

[uppityperson]

5. Crawl over the edge to the supporting structure underneath as train trestles need more than just

tracks.