One of the world's top climate scientists has written a personal new year appeal to Barack and Michelle Obama, warning of the "profound disconnect" between public policy on climate change and the magnitude of the problem.
With less than three weeks to go until Obama's inauguration, ProfessorJames Hansen, who heads Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, asked the recently appointed White House science adviser Professor John Holdren to pass the missive directly to the president-elect.
In it, he praises Obama's campaign rhetoric about "a planet in peril", but says that how the new president acts in office will be crucial. Hansen lambasts the current international approach of setting targets through "cap and trade" schemes as not up to the task. "This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity," the letter from Hansen and his wife, Anniek, reads.
The letter will make uncomfortable reading for officials in 10 US states whose cap and trade mechanism - the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative - got under way yesterday. The scheme is the first mandatory, market-based greenhouse gas reduction programme in the US.
Hansen advocates a three-pronged attack on the climate problem. First, he wants a phasing out of coal-fired power stations - which he calls "factories of death" - that do not incorporate carbon capture. "Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen - caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source," the Hansens wrote.
Second, he proposes a "carbon tax and 100% dividend". This is a mechanism for putting a price on carbon without raising money for government coffers. The idea is to tax carbon at source, then redistribute the revenue equally among taxpayers, so that high carbon users are penalised while low carbon users are rewarded.
Finally, he urges a renewed research effort into so-called fourth generation nuclear plants, which can use nuclear waste as fuel.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 39
Yeah trust government! Look how well they managed social security! You can trust them!
More Utopian, pie in the sky, solutions to a boogeyman that doesn't exist. We are freaking freezing up here in Wisconsin and if carbon dioxide really did warm the planet I would recommend that everybody leave their cars run while they sleep tonight!
I agree Hansen's second imperative, a revenue neutral carbon tax.
The procurement of coal is its own environmental disaster. Just ask these residents in Tennessee. And this coal sludge reservoir in West Virginia sits 400 yards above an elementary school. Like the coal sludge reservoir in Tennessee, it has a history of leaks.
Finally, Dr. Chu addressed nuclear fuel reprocessing (Hansen's third point). He said it is not a "perfect" process, and thought that research would continue. However, he did not rule out going forward with new nuclear plants, which are already "in the works". I think nuclear energy is a mistake.
Dr. Chu, however, indicated that the new administration's long-term direction (as soon as possible) would be toward renewables (sun, wind, geothermal, biomass); and the short-term direction would be toward efficiency ("the low hanging fruit").
Well, Jeff, it is January. And Wisconsin ain't Texas.
Jeff: "...if carbon dioxide really did warm the planet I would recommend that everybody leave their cars run while they sleep tonight!"
Just don't sleep with your running car in a closed garage, Jeff. Science would warn against it - but what does science know?
Well they would know that carbon monoxide kills humans. Apparently they haven't figured out that carbon dioxide doesn't melt ice or warm the planet if they used the same logic to weather. But then again I don't worship people who go to college to be a scientist and I would feel weird if people worshiped me for my college degree....
Jeff, don't worry about feeling weird. We may disagree on most issues and may agree on some (I doubt it), but I promise not to worship you. In fact, I'll raise a petition of people who promise not to worship you, just to make you feel better, or maybe I should make it a Gather group. Not for nasty comments, just for the simple statement that we, in our multitude, don't worship you.
As a practicing scientist in the US, but one who was too young to have a professional life in the immediately post-Sputnik era, I can tell you that I have never once felt worshiped, nor have I ever worshiped other scientists, nor do I know any people who worship scientists. I mean, if I were truly worshiped, don't you think I might not have been laid off, might have decent and affordable heath insurance, and might be able to pay for college for my kids? Don't get me wrong, I'm better of than many, maybe than most, but none of us out here, scientists or non-scientists, is feeling worshiped, no matter what we do.
And don't worry, if I manage to prevent cancer in your kids, which I hope I do, I won't expect you to thank me, just like you don't thank all the other scientists who allow you to make ridiculous comments using scientist and engineer-based computer technology, communications technology and materials science. We're equal opportunity enablers, we scientists: we don't withhold the treasures only for those who agree with us.
Have a slice of Utopian pie for desert tonight, you might like it.
Well James I'll go ahead and thank you for your efforts to eradicate cancer in the hopes that you are sucessful.....But I thought AlGore invented the internet?
There's lots of scientists who are joining Jeff and I having a slice of that utopian pie.....It's good the have well credentialed climate scientists as company.
But since you are a real scientist ( and don't just play one on Gather) and I you have posted much information in the past I'd like to throw you a question.
The atmosphere contains approx. 800 gigatons of carbon, we humans produce approx 6 gigatons annually of which 4 gigatons ends up in the atmosphere.
How can we effect global warming by reducing our carbon output? The math doesn't seem to work.
I have yet to see any proof that the scientists that are warning us about global warming is phony and the ones that do not back it are just using the denial circle to go on and on with useless comments. You already were shown the list of dead scientists and non scientists that were paid off by the GOP to present their propaganda based on no scientific evidence at all.
Their is no such thing as clean coal so why are we not putting into action the technology available now to help us become independent of oil and coal?
I have not problem with anything that James Hansen has ever said or done. You don't need Nostradamus to understand this problem. You need James Hansen. He has been doing his job. Government has not. Do we need to blame him for proposing ideas to government, since for 20 years government has ducked the issue?
Jack, your point about coal is spot on, and your points about big business and corruption, while they seem just a bit exaggerated to me (only a bit!), are definitely on target.
Dan, good question, but I'll have to check the numbers before I respond (I don't carry them in my head).
However, Dan, one thing to consider is that is that warming and cooling can be self promoting This is part of why some ice ages came on so suddenly, etc. There can be a point beyond which further warming (or cooling) becomes faster and faster (as seems to be happening now!). Take one case: a hotter earth melts more ice, decreasing the reflective surface area of ice and converting it to the heat-absorbing substance, liquid water (this actually happens right now). The increase in liquid water surface area and quantity makes the earth hotter in a direct manner- more heat is absorbed every day. The process can be self-accelerating, especially once pushed to a certain point. I'm sure you've heard this argument- it is well known. Do you discount it?
No scientific organization in the world disputes the IPCC Reports - not one. The following scientific organizations endorse those reports:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
American Society for Microbiology
Institute of Biology (UK)
World Federation of Public Health Associations
American Public Health Association
American Medical Association
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Water Environment Federation
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Wildlife Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
I don't think you were commenting on the list I posted, but in case you were, kindly look closer. And if you have a link of the list you're referencing, I could use it. Regards.
If you really want the environment protected you will have to change the nature of our money. Without that you will inevitably fail.
Visit www.nopom.info for a no-ads description of the nature of the problem and it's solution or read Invisible Hand here on Gather. (That way you can read the comments of others to see if I am lying or crazy in their opinion.)
"James Hansen does his job, he explains science."
Me thinks he goes farther than just doing his "job",
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ1vBca0Dic
Hansen is a radical global warmist using propaganda to push his agenda.
The delusional false choice of economy vs. environment has been successfully challenged for some time. An "unsustainable" economy means "unsustainable", and 'unsustainable" environmental practices also make for an "unsustainable" economy. In case no one has been paying attention, the economy ain't doing so well.
Many sources and companies have demonstrated that money can be made sustainably:
Natural Capitalism
The Ecology of Commerce
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) took the next step in its sustainability journey by hosting an unprecedented gathering of more than 1,000 leading suppliers, Chinese officials and NGOs in Beijing, China.//The company outlined a series of aggressive goals and expectations to build a more environmentally and socially responsible global supply chain.
Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC) Member Companies
I think that arguement has been settled. Now, it is a matter of what public policies are going to incent companies to further what they are already willing to do.
Patagonia
I would thank you for coming up with a cure for ANYTHING! When was the last time you s called geniuses cured a major disease? I think you guys have been quite disappointing in your accomplishments over the past 2 decades..... It's no wonder why scientists have clung to "global warming" as some form of "look at us! We are heroes that are going to save us all!" nonsense.
""" We're equal opportunity enablers, we scientists: we don't withhold the treasures only for those who agree with us.""""
No of course you don't hold "treasures" for your own benefit. that explains why you guys have come up with so many EXPENSIVE drugs that alleviate symptoms of diseases but can't seem to possibly find a cure. Hmm. I suppose those that don't worship your points of view will just have to trust you.
Also just to push you off of your self righteous indignation plight, I don't have a problem with science or scientists that make our life better. I have a problem with scientists that come up with doom theories and those that think that just because they are scientists, we have to obey.
"How dare I question scientists?"
How dare we all not question them when they are trying to change our lives over theories.?
It's you who seeks to change things, Jeff. You support an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Over the years, the change in greenhouse gases has been dramatic, even unprecedented in recorded history. What's worse, you haven't even got a theory to suggest that this change was beneficial in any way.
Dan: "Me thinks he goes farther than just doing his "job", . ."
What is the "job" of scientists? Scientists have a duty to inform the people about their findings, especially when the findings show there are risks that something can go wrong dramatically. More scientists should follow Hansen's example and speak out. That doesn't mean that each and every policy proposed by Hansen was good. More people, scientists and non-scientists, should get involved in discussions how best to reduce greenhouse gases. Where we should agree on is that greenhouse gases should be reduced. Obama should now present himself to the international community as a leader who seeks a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.
Please think and learn from history. (Easter Island for example.)
Well, Jeff, apparently not enough has been said about this, because you appear to defend nonsense with nonsense. Your nonsense is not supported by science, my views are. The fact that your nonsense isn't supported by science is why we should disregard it. The fact that my views are supported by science is why they should be noted.
Its obvious that Jeff has either been brainwashed or is just to stubborn for his own good.
The glaciers are melting at a very fast rate and so is the arctic sea ice. You do not have to be a scientist to see this all you need to do is take a look for yourself, if you can't go there just compare photos of the same areas at different time periods but the supporters of the corporate cons that say their is no global warming will not change until its to late and will not matter , all they are doing is condemning their future generations to misery and poverty by their hardheaded thinking.
Stubbornly making proclamations based on nothing other than ideological positions is part and parcel of "conservative" die-hards. No doubt, Jeff is among the 27% still supporting w. But why appeal to science, when he has already told you what he thinks of science?
Jeff (to Sam): I don't have a problem with science or scientists that make our life better. I have a problem with scientists that come up with doom theories and those that think that just because they are scientists, we have to obey.//"How dare I question scientists?"//How dare we all not question them when they are trying to change our lives over theories.?
Enviros have known, but industries and their politicians have carried public opinion that environmental responsibility would mean economic cost. They still try and make that case, environment vs. economy, especially re: climate change.
Larry: "You can't stop pollution and the destruction of the environment until that is the *only* way to make money. Until any harm to the environment costs you money."
That's what I think has begun to happen via markets (I'm not a "free marketeer"). Green is increasingly cool. The issue now is to level playing fields, so that green products are affordable. I think the key to that is through taxing pollution (we might be saying the same thing) and switching incentives. I think that's going to happen in the new administration/congress. We'll see.
But I also think that many companies have seen the writing on the wall, here. Not all - but increasingly.
Larry: "And you can't do that with law and enforcement because both can be bought off."
That's been much of the history, but it's changing. Partly, I think, through years of educationg the public by environmental groups, and partly because enough people have been affected - kind of like that learning curve with the tobacco awareness. At any rate, I'd be interested to see this played out over the next 8 years.
No I don't.
But I find it funny that James doesn't see the hypocrisy in his "silence" after I called him out on science profit taking on the ill. Does anybody besides me find it funny that diseases aren't cured anymore? The symptoms are just covered covered up and death is prolonged by expensive drugs. James sent me an e-mail saying that if I think the drugs are too expensive I shouldn't take them. He supports greed and condemns it in the same breath. Typical liberal.....
We should also replace fossil fuel by clean and safe energy, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Obvious ways to do this are to install more solar and wind facilities. Pyrolysis can also produce fuel to power transport. Hansen calculates that this and using carbon-negative biofuels could bring carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm well before the end of the century.
To see the exact wording of Hansen's proposals, go to:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20081208
I differ with Hansen on two points. Firstly, I believe we should put more emphasis on solar and wind energy. I reject nuclear and I believe we should be careful with bio-fuel, learning from the mistakes made with ethanol.
Secondly, instead of a "carbon tax and 100% dividend", as Hansen proposes, I advocate feebates. To see how feebates could stimulate the economy and develop new clean and green industries, have a look at my most recent article The Four Cycles of a Sustainable Economy. The article pictures the importance of the interrelations between those industries.
Ethanol was a corporate scam from the start and also puts to much strain on the food supply.
I am all for solar and wind power but it has to be done in a way that it takes advantage of every separate area, for instance where I live in New England solar does not work as efficient as it does in the warmer sunny parts of the country because we experience almost 6 month of cloudy weather but wind power would be suited to our area.
Replanting areas that have been devastated by the lumber companies and even private land owners has to be a good idea and the only real question is who is going to foot the bill. It would probably be the public as usual but we have to start acting and stop talking. Once we clean up an area and make it more environmental friendly we need to keep big business from coming back and trashing things again.
Jack: I share your concerns about ineffective regulation of nuclear power plants. They are a lot more dangerous than people trying to board airplanes are, but homeland security seems to be about the perception that something is being done, while all the old, insecure weak points remain in place. There hasn't been adequate supervision of nuclear plants for a long time, if ever.
Jack: You are also right about ethanol. I would add "gentleman farmer/legislators" to the list of ethanol scam artists. Talk about conflict of interest: they vote themselves subsidies. This shouldn't be allowed (and isn't allowed in many areas- doctors doing clinical trials can't have financial ties to the drug company like big equity stakes, etc.; I have to fill out conflict of interest paperwork every year at my job, and it is not ignored).
I do not know if we could ever trust the government on nuclear oversight but I know we can't trust it now or tomorrow when Obama is installed as president.