Full Citation:  David W. Orr.  Down to the Wire:  Confronting the Climate Collapse.  New York:  Oxford University Press, 2009.

David Orr is the Paul Sears Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics at Oberlin College.  His recent book on climate, Down to the Wire, is similar to others in its call for dramatic change in order to avert a global crisis.  However, what distinguishes this book is its breadth of perspective.  Orr argues that in order to effectively address the climate crisis in the U.S., we will need to make far-reaching changes in our politics, common attitudes, and even our spirituality.

Climate science tells us that we have raised the global temperature .8 degrees Celsius since the preindustrial period, and that a further 1.2 degree rise could produce catastrophic results.  There is about a 30-year lag between release of carbon emissions and their full effect upon global temperature, which means that our current .8 degree rise in temperature is the effect of emissions levels from the late 1970’s.  Even if we were to hold emissions at present levels, temperatures would continue to increase another .5 to 1 degree due to the greenhouse gases that we have added over the past three decades.  This will lead to a total post-industrial increase of somewhere between 1.3 and 1.8 degrees, leaving very little margin for error in averting catastrophe.  A 2 degree post-industrial global rise would mean a 4-6 degree rise at high latitudes, which could thaw tundra, releasing large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, creating a much faster rise in global temperature.  Feedback loops like this accelerate climate change, threatening to raise temperatures enough to create massive changes in sea level, drought in continental interiors, loss of glaciers that provide summer water for global river basins, and acidification of the ocean.

Orr warns that we are seriously mistaken to think that this crisis can be averted through relatively simple technological fixes – buying solar panels, hybrids, energy efficient bulbs and such.  Rather, massive cultural, political, and economic shifts will be necessary.  We are accustomed to taking a short view, confusing the habits of mind we have acquired over the past 200 years with eternal truths.  We have assumed, for example, that economic growth spurred by consumption is both good and possible to continue indefinitely.  We assume that natural obstacles to growth can be overcome through technological advances.  But the modern economy has depended upon unlimited, cheap energy resources and a market that externalizes environmental costs.  These costs have been piling up, creating an environmental debt far greater than our national debt.

Confronting the climate crisis will require political leadership capable of challenging free-market assumptions and corporate interests, which are driven by short-term returns rather than what is best for the public in the long run.  We have little chance of saving ourselves as long as corporate concerns continue to dominate our politics and media sources.  The magnitude of this challenge requires uncommon leadership similar to Lincoln’s guidance through the secessionist crisis, not so much the ability to manage competing interests as the ability to communicate an ethical vision, a larger story within which people see their place, feel a sense of common purpose, and become willing to make considerable sacrifices. 

Because we have little room for error and the stakes are so high, rational evaluation of alternatives for controlling climate change will be essential.  We will need to weigh alternatives in terms of the amount of energy required to acquire, process, and transport new energy sources; assessment of dollars invested per unit of carbon removed; costs of government subsidies; potential costs to insurance companies; and additional health and social costs.

But there will be enormous political obstacles to basing future political choices on such rational assessment.  In order to remove excessive influence of corporate lobbying from the political equation, the president will have to make a case for federally financed elections, restoration of “fair and balanced” standards for public use of airwaves, and removing subsidies from the coal, oil, gas, and nuclear power industries.  Moreover, we cannot meet our future energy and climate crisis while continuing to unwisely spend enormous sums on military defense.  The Pentagon’s budget will have to be reduced by perhaps half.

Orr agrees with Bill McKibben that much of the work ahead will need to occur at a local level.  Creating local food and energy sources will produce more resilient results because they are less susceptible to disruptions caused by global fluctuations in price, interruptions of supply chains, or terrorism.

In light of recent political events on the national level, Orr’s public policy recommendations may sound naïve.  Since the publication of his book, the Supreme Court decided to extend corporate rights to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns.  There has been a resurgence of conservative opposition to federal action, and a current Senate proposal for addressing climate change calls for an anemic 17% reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2020.  Given the current state of national politics, Orr's remarks on local action may be most relevant for creating change in the near term.