After Gutenberg

In a critique two days after Hansen recommended a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, Jim Fraser noted that “power companies have about 150 conventional coal powered power plants planned for the next few years.”

Recently, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, who is generally acknowledged as one of the leading U.S. climate scientists, offered a set of five recommendations intended to ameliorate a most dangerous increase in global temperature. Taken from a World Changing post, they are:

1. Place a moratorium on all new coal-fired power plants until technologies for carbon capture and sequestration are further developed, likely within the next 5–10 years.
2. Implement a gradually increasing carbon tax that could be used to fund investments in clean technology. Unlike wildly fluctuating gasoline prices, he said, a predictable, steady carbon tax would not be detrimental to the U.S. economy. And new technological investments would promote innovation and efficiency while also creating high-tech, high-paying jobs.
3. Increase energy efficiency — the most imperative and easiest challenge for both Congress and the public to take on, Hansen noted. Technology already exists to make buildings and vehicles significantly more efficient, he explained, and implementing these technologies more broadly is a key factor in reducing carbon dioxide emissions quickly.
4. Assemble the best scientists to execute a study on the stability of ice sheets, a serious issue that remains under-researched.
5. “Address threats to American democracy.” People have a right to know the truth about climate change and effective campaign finance reform is needed for this end. Why? Because “as long as politicians are getting support from special interests,” observes Hansen, “then special interests are going to have special privileges.”

More significant melting of polar ice caps has alarmed climate scientists. Meanwhile, as Dr. Francesca Grifo testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently, information from more than 120 scientists was suppressed. “Such suppression of the public service performed by government scientists,” observed one environmental advocate, “amounts to reckless endangerment of public health and welfare.”

With greenhouse gas emissions rising, the last decade has had the five hottest years on record since the 1860s. We are already seeing the effects: melting glaciers, rising oceans, and more cases of extreme weather (droughts, floods, hurricanes). One observer noted that the primary reason that Hansen has refused to be muzzled is “because of the high probability of positive feedback on CO2 emission, i.e. run away climate change.”

There is still a huge gap between what is understood about global warming by the scientific community, and what is known about global warming by those who need to know—the public and policymakers.

We must close that gap and move our energy systems in a fundamentally different direction within about a decade, or we will have pushed the planet past a tipping point beyond which it will be impossible to avoid far-ranging undesirable consequences.– James Hansen “NASA scientist wins WWF medal“

It would be difficult to find any greater effrontery by the Oily Administration to the concern expressed by growing numbers of the Public over global heating.

A carbon tax would seem to be the most controversial policy issue relative to Hansen’s recommendations and to be most resisted by special interests. On the other hand, we are risking dangerous consequences for our economy, natural heritage and every citizen by continuing to ignore the fact that our nation continues to emit more global warming pollution than any other country in the world. Furthermore, our nation, already a global pariah, faces the risk of increasingly more severe consequences fueled by the increasing number of reports citing the callousness of the United States toward greenhouse gas emssions.

WC commentator Dan agreed with idea of a predictable, steady carbon tax.

Because a carbon tax provides a certain price signal, preferably increasing at a steady rate, business and individual consumers will be able to make rational financial decisions to reduce their carbon emissions through increased efficiency or use of lower-carbon energy.

E-Blog commentator Engineer-Poet is unsure that a ban on coal plants is the most efficient way to go, yet notes that a stiff carbon tax would be a de facto ban on un-sequesterable coal-steam plants. With even a modest carbon tax of $25 a ton, notes E-Blog commentator Ronald Brak, renewable energy sources become must more competitive.

Rather than a ban, I suggest a ceiling on coal-fired generation combined with the carbon tax to encourage power generation companies to de-commission their worst polluting plants. I would disagree with the courageous climatologist as to an outright ban since it would seem impractical to halt the replacement of old plants with better plants, especially where coal is an important source of energy.

* Note: For more consideration of a carbon tax, read the commentary to a forecast in Green Car Congress, “US and Canada Will Regulate CO2 by End of Decade” and “The Carbon Wars (PDF)“.

I also would quibble with two other points made within the recommendation: 1) the issue of carbon sequestration and 2) carbon trading

Whereas he seems to distrust the potential for clean coal power plants, Hansen would seem to be optimistic about the promise for carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Yet a primary reason for banning even cleaner, more efficient coal power plants is that generation of electricity from coal plants is, after the transportation sector, the greatest source of greenhouse gases and Old King Coal has a poor track record when it comes to protecting the environment. This is a trend that must be reduced significantly.

As to a cap-and-trade system, WC commentator Dan argued that it will lead to volatile prices as the cost of carbon allowances fluctuates with changes in demand for energy caused by unpredictable weather and economic growth. He saw a carbon tax as less detrimental to the U.S. economy. Also, as previously noted in this blog, there is well-founded concern that a carbon trading scheme would slow “social and technological change needed to cope with global warming by unnecessarily prolonging the world’s dependence on oil, coal and gas.”

Other commentary focused upon conservation. Yet what I understand Hansen to be advocating is what some other global analysts say, use “less fuel” rather than “less energy”. Rather than privation or discomfort, use smarter technology. Yet, in the United States, we are finding it difficult to proceed with even the easiest challenge.

Sebastian Blanco writing for Autoblog Green reported on a joint study done by 40mpg and Civil Society Institute:

Only two vehicles (but the study doesn’t include hybrid vehicles, as far as I can tell) sold in the U.S. that “achieved combined gas mileage of at least 40 miles per gallon,” down from five two years ago. Is that progress? Certainly not. 40mpg says “America is now stuck in reverse when it comes to fuel-efficient vehicles.” Especially when compared to 40mpg+ vehicles for sale outside the U.S., when the numbers rose from 86 to 113 in the same time period. 40mpg deftly points out that it’s not life American manufacturers don’t know how to make these kinds of cars: “Adding insult to injury, nearly two thirds (74 or 65 percent) of the 113 highly fuel-efficient car models that are unavailable to American consumers are either made by U.S. auto manufacturers (e.g., Ford and GM) or foreign manufacturers with substantial U.S. sales operations (e.g., Volkswagen, Nissan and Toyota).”

But while adding electric drive to vehicles that could get their power from the Grid is now possible, and the largest car maker has announcemed that development of a flex-fuel, plug-in hybrid platform is underway, GCC commentator Matt notes, “GM still isn’t giving any solid timeline on when we can see these cars on the road or how many cars are actually going to be produced.

The commentator, who has been working with the Freedom From Oil Campaign to make automakers honestly prioritize fuel economy and move beyond oil further notes:

I have to admit I’m a little concerned that they will use the announcement of these concept cars more to clean up their image than clean up their product line. There is a lot GM can do between now and when we may see these concept vehicles actually on the road.

We all know increasing fuel efficiency is the direction automakers need to head – so let’s get past the hype of a handful of concept vehicles and look at what they are doing with the rest of their fleet. Overall average fuel economy from the Big 6 is worse today that it was 10 years ago and GM is still heavily dependent on its gas guzzling truck lines. In addition to that they are still fighting tooth-and-nail against increasing fuel economy regulations, suing states that try to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and in December argued before the Supreme Court that carbon from tailpipe emissions was not even a pollutant. GM is still planning to expand their Hummer line to become 25% of their overall sales. Consumers still have limited options to find fuel-efficient cars that are affordable, well-built, and fun to drive. There are plenty of things automakers can do today to increase fuel economy – and I’m tired of being shown distracting concept cars that we won’t see for 3-4 years, if ever.

Furthermore, it should be noted that Hansen is not saying that following his recommendation would stop global heating, rather such action would slow the increase to less than 1 degree Celsius. The special interests want to go on with business as usual, investing in ways to counteract the mounting arguments, rather than invest in the momentous change needed.