“GAME OVER” - The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America's Future - page 93

hit ing 350 would require promptly mothballing a large slice of the world's
infrastructure and replacing it with even more expensive equipment. h e
steps that one might envision for reaching 350 ppm aren't simply more
ambitious versions of those required for other frequently discussed goals;
they are radically dif erent measures that are nowhere close to becoming
politically possible. h is doesn't mean that people should stop thinking
about what the consequences would be if 350 ppm turned out to be a
truly critical threshold. But it would be dangerous to direct too much
at ention away from other goals.
Where does that leave us? A good starting point in assessing whether
or not big fossil-fuel developments are exceedingly dangerous is to look
at what they do to the prospect of holding greenhouse gas concentra-
tions below 450 ppm. h at line, though, should not be the end of the
story. Holding concentrations below 550 (or some point in between)
is also a laudable goal—and it's important to know how developing
new sources of carbon dioxide af ect the world's ability to meet it. It's
also useful to occasionally check developments against 350, but for all
practical purposes this target is beyond reach, unless huge changes in
technology appear.
By the way, in case you're curious, here are two other numbers for
context. h e current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is
nearly 400 ppm. Because of ever-rising fossil fuel consumption around
the globe, most projections expect the world to eventually blow through
1,000 ppm, with or without U.S. oil and gas. 21

m m m

Burning all the oil in North America, or even in the United States alone,
would be catastrophic for climate change. h e Canadian oil sands con-
tain enough carbon to raise atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 by
about 60 parts per million beyond where they are today, blasting right
through 450 and making 550 nearly unavoidable. 22 Colorado oil shale
contains even more. Even tight oil and of shore oil and Alaskan oil, each
providing a smaller increment when considered alone, add up.
Nonetheless, the logic that equates tapping these resources with
destroying the climate is awfully weak. What mat ers isn't how much