Prof. Socolow’s bizarre climate comments and the pessimism of Serious People

[n2doc]

BY DAVID ROBERTS
18 MAY 2011 3:17 PM

The blogosphere is all abuzz about recent comments from Princeton professor Robert Socolow, who along with fellow scholar Stephen Pacala developed the famous "wedges" approach to tackling climate change. (A wedge of nuclear, a wedge of solar, a wedge of efficiency, etc., and slowly you get that emissions curve down. That's the basic idea anyway.) Socolow told National Geographic that he now regrets the wedges theory because "the world decided that dealing with global warming wasn't impossible, so it must be easy."

No really. That's what he said: The problem is that the world now thinks dealing with climate change will be easy. And even more bizarrely, some folks -- see Roger Pielke Jr. and Andy Revkin -- seem to have greeted this surreal pronouncement with vigorous nods.

To which my initial reaction is, whaaaaaaaaaaat the FECK are you talking about?! I am rarely struck speechless, but this is like a transmission from Alpha Centauri. I barely know how to respond. But OK. Let's try to back up a few steps.

Start with the obvious question: Who thinks tackling climate change will be easy? Raise your hand. Anyone? Bueller?

I mean seriously, has anyone in the entire world ever said dealing with climate change is easy? I'd like to see just one quote to that effect. (Notably, Socolow, in the process of throwing around these wild generalizations, doesn't actually cite anyone.)

more
http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-05-18-prof-socolow-bizarre-climate-comments-pessimism-serious-people

[kristopher]

1. Roberts is a bit thick isn't he?

Socolow is probably correct, his description of how to deal with climate change does sound simple. It lends itself to the kind of bumper-sticker learning that a huge chunk of the populace depend on to understand complex issues and fit them into their schedule of priorities.

What does someone - for whom AGW isn't high on their radar - take away from hearing about wedges? I think "Oh, we can fix it" is a highly probably and final reaction by lots of them.

[bananas]

2. Socolow about Nat.Geo: "this is the first time...anyone in the audience so misunderstood me"

Socolow says about the National Geographic article:

I have given a similar talk about ten times, starting in December 2010, and this is the first time that I am aware of that anyone in the audience so misunderstood me.

Joe Romm talked to Socolow and posted Socolow's statement in full:

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/18/socolow-wedges-deployment/

Breaking: Socolow reaffirms 2004 ‘wedges’ paper, urges aggressive low-carbon deployment ASAP
Still asserts "existing technologies could affordably limit warming"
May 18, 2011

<snip>

I spoke to Socolow today at length, and he stands behind every word of that — including the carefully-worded title.

<snip>

You’d never know any of that from reading the false narrative industrial complex today. They jumped all over a piece in National Geographic News by a reporter who apparently heard a recent talk of Socolow’s, but perhaps didn’t quite understand precisely what Socolow meant.

Socolow was not disavowing his original analysis in the least — nor providing any comfort to the do-little breakthrough bunch. Quite the reverse. He thinks they are members of a “Cargo Cult” waiting for “pie in the sky” answers (see “The breakthrough technology illusion“).

Socolow sent me (and Revkin) a long reply to the various pieces published, which I reprint in full at the end.

<snip>

edit to add: letter contents removed at request of DU moderators, you'll have to go to climateprogress or revkin's blog to read it.

[kristopher]

3. Socolow is a pistol; he loves to "speak truth to power".

Thanks for posting this.

[bananas]

4. Andy Revkin also has Socolow's letter in full at his blog

Andy Revkin has Socolow's letter as a google docs document which can be read online in the google docs viewer or downloaded as a pdf:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/wishful-wedges-and-the-energy-quest/

<snip>

Socolow has sent a long note challenging some of my conclusions and clarifying points in the National Geographic piece. I've posted it in full.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B88iFXWgVKt-ZDY2YmEyMjUtOTQ4Ni00YzI5LWI0YTItN2M4Nzk5Mzk2MWU0&hl=en

[bananas]

5. Here are some excerpts from Socolow's letter about National Geographic's bad journalism

He also directly directly addresses what Revkin and Pielke got wrong due to the bad journaism at National Geographic, but that's later in the letter, which can be read in full at climateprogress or revkin's blog.

Re the National Geographic blog by Doug Struck.

A. Look closely at what is in quotes, which generally comes from my slides, and what is not in quotes. What is not in quotes is just enough “off” in several places to result in my messages being misconstrued. I have given a similar talk about ten times, starting in December 2010, and this is the first time that I am aware of that anyone in the audience so misunderstood me. I see three places where what is being attributed to me is “off.”

1. “It was a mistake, he now says.” Steve Pacala’s and my wedges paper was not a mistake. It made a useful contribution to the conversation of the day. Recall that we wrote it at a time when the dominant message from the Bush Administration was that there were no available tools to deal adequately with climate change. I have repeated maybe a thousand times what I heard Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy, say to a large audience in Alexandria. Virginia, early in 2004. Paraphrasing, “it will take a discovery akin to the discovery of electricity” to deal with climate change. Our paper said we had the tools to get started, indeed the tools to “solve the climate problem for the next 50 years,” which our paper defined as achieving emissions 50 years from now no greater than today. I felt then and feel now that this is the right target for a world effort. I don’t disown any aspect of the wedges paper.

2. “The wedges paper made people relax.” I do not recognize this thought. My point is that the wedges made some people conclude, not surprisingly, that if we could achieve X, we could surely achieve more than X. Specifically, in language developed after our paper, the path we laid out (constant emissions for 50 years, emissions at stabilization levels after a second 50 years) was associated with “3 degrees,” and there was broad commitment to “2 degrees,” which was identified with an emissions rate of only half the current one in 50 years. In language that may be excessively colorful, I called this being “outflanked.” But no one that I know of became relaxed when they absorbed the wedges message.

3. “Well-intentioned groups misused the wedges theory.” I don’t recognize this thought. I myself contributed the Figure that accompanied Bill McKibben’s article in National Geographic that showed 12 wedges (seven wedges had grown to eight to keep emissions level, because of emissions growth post-2006 and the final four wedges drove emissions to half their current levels), to enlist the wedges image on behalf of a discussion of a two-degree future. I am not aware of anyone misusing the theory.

<snip>

He goes on with "B" and "C" and then directly addresses what Revkin and Pielke wrote.