Hansen's pipe dream - or cold realism?Published by MAC on 2009-12-06
Source: Guardian (2009-11-29)
James Hansen was the first leading scientist to warn about adverse global climate change. Earlier this year, he indicted coal as the "worst single threat" to life on our planet. See: http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=9120
He's now called for all coal exploitation to be phased out within 20 years, and an immediate ban on mining of tar sands and oil shale.
Hansen has also attacked the "Copenhagen approach" to the climate crisis as "fraudulent".
Carbon offsets, he says, are "almost meaningless", while carbon emissions' "cap and trade" would be "ineffectual".
Instead, he's urging that a tax be applied to every tonne of coal produced - either at the mine pit or port of entry - which would rise as carbon emissions themselves increase.
The gains would then be distributed to every citizen, thus "providing the public with the means to adjust lifestyles and energy infrastructure."
It's Possible To Avert The Climate Crisis
By James Hansen, The Guardian
29 November 2009
Absolutely. It is possible - if we give politicians a cold, hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach - "goals" for emission reductions, "offsets" that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual "cap-and-trade" mechanism - must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual.
Science reveals that climate is close to tipping points. It is a dead certainty that continued high emissions will create a chaotic dynamic situation for young people, with deteriorating climate conditions out of their control.
Science also reveals what is needed to stabilise atmospheric composition and climate. Geophysical data on the carbon amounts in oil, gas and coal show that the problem is solvable, if we phase out global coal emissions within 20 years and prohibit emissions from unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands and oil shale.
Such constraints on fossil fuels would cause carbon dioxide emissions to decline 60% by mid-century or even more if policies make it uneconomic to go after every last drop of oil.
Improved forestry and agricultural practices could then bring atmospheric carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm (parts per million) or less, as required for a stable climate.
Governments going to Copenhagen claim to have such goals for 2050, which they will achieve with the "cap-and-trade" mechanism. They are lying through their teeth.
Unless they order Russia to leave its gas in the ground and Saudi Arabia to leave its oil in the ground (which nobody has proposed), they must phase out coal and prohibit unconventional fossil fuels.
Instead, the United States signed an agreement with Canada for a pipeline to carry oil squeezed from tar sands. Australia is building port facilities for large increases in coal export. Coal-to-oil factories are being built. Coal-fired power plants are being constructed worldwide. Governments are stating emission goals that they know are lies - or, if we want to be generous, they do not understand the geophysics and are kidding themselves.
Is it feasible to phase out coal and avoid use of unconventional fossil fuels? Yes, but only if governments face up to the truth: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, their use will continue and even increase on a global basis.
Fossil fuels are cheapest because they are not made to pay for their effects on human health, the environment and future climate.
Governments must place a uniform rising price on carbon, collected at the fossil fuel source - the mine or port of entry. The fee should be given to the public in toto, as a uniform dividend, payroll tax deduction or both. Such a tax is progressive - the dividend exceeds added energy costs for 60% of the public.
Fee and dividend stimulates the economy, providing the public with the means to adjust lifestyles and energy infrastructure.
Fee and dividend can begin with the countries now considering cap and trade. Other countries will either agree to a carbon fee or have duties placed on their products that are made with fossil fuels.
As the carbon price rises, most coal, tar sands and oil shale will be left in the ground. The marketplace will determine the roles of energy efficiency, renewable energy and nuclear power in our clean energy future.
Cap and trade with offsets, in contrast, is astoundingly ineffective. Global emissions rose rapidly in response to Kyoto, as expected, because fossil fuels remained the cheapest energy.
Cap and trade is an inefficient compromise, paying off numerous special interests. It must be replaced with an honest approach, raising the price of carbon emissions and leaving the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground.
Are we going to stand up and give global politicians a hard slap in the face, to make them face the truth? It will take a lot of us - probably in the streets. Or are we going to let them continue to kid themselves and us and cheat our children and grandchildren?
Intergenerational inequity is a moral issue. Just as when Abraham Lincoln faced slavery and when Winston Churchill faced Nazism, the time for compromises and half-measures is over. Can we find a leader who understands the core issue and will lead?
James Hansen is director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. His latest book is Storms of My Grandchildren. James Hansen was the first to point out the perils of climate change to the US Congress.