Re-post from World Changing
by Jim Hansen
No longer can we claim ignorance. Denial equates to death on a planetary scale.
(1) Urgency of coal moratorium
A successful strategy to avoid climate calamity must start with a moratorium, and eventual phaseout, of coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2. Other actions are needed, including a carbon price that encourages transition to fuels of the future, discourages scrounging for every last drop of oil, and stymies budding efforts to squeeze oil from the dirtiest fossil deposits (tar shale and its ilk). Also improved agricultural and forestry practices will be needed to draw atmospheric CO2 down. But the urgent, essential action is a coal moratorium.Side benefits of phasing out coal emissions, for human health and the environment, are so great that it will be feasible to spread a no-dirty-coal energy strategy world-wide once it is started. The West must initiate the moratorium, because the West is responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the air today. We have the potential for an immediate moratorium, and the West has much to gain from early adoption and technology refinement.
Energy experts agree that efficiency and renewable energies can handle near-term needs for energy growth in the United States. New coal plants are being built only because coal is cheap (as long as it receives government subsidies and is not forced to pay for environmental and health damages), because utilities make more money if they sell more energy, and because the political clout of King Coal stymies adoption of national energy policies in the public interest.
Wanting Leadership?
(2) Leadership
Political leaders, in both parties, do not yet appreciate fundamental data such as the bar graph of carbon content of individual fossil fuels. It is not rocket science. We cannot prevent use of easily minable reserves of oil or capture tailpipe emissions. But oil reserves are finite, prices are rising, and emissions will peak and decline. The larger CO2 source, the one we must cut off at the pass, is coal (and unconventional fossil fuels, squeezing of oil from tar shale and its ilk).Responses from these three states failed to identify needed leadership. Minnesotans tell me that Pawlenty placed constraints on power plants, making it unlikely that Big Stone II will be built, but he could not go further without offending neighboring governors of his own party. We can reserve judgment in this case, but solution of the climate problem can only be obtained with an unambiguous renunciation of coal except where CO2 emissions are captured and sequestered.
Lest you get discouraged, let me point out two examples of stellar leadership. Last year Florida Governor (Republican) Charlie Crist responded to a similar plea with force and clarity – he canceled Florida’s plans for new coal-fired power plants. And well he may have – most of Florida is as flat as a pancake up to the ocean’s edge.
And there is the Governor of Kansas, Democrat Kathleen Sebelius, perhaps the most courageous of all – living in a lion’s pit of well-oiled coal-fired legislators, she came out firmly against new coal-fired power plants on the grounds that they will push climate past the tipping point and destroy the future of our children and grandchildren!! In her final term as Governor, she is a potential candidate for Vice President or for Senator to replace retiring Sam Brownback.
A recent New York Times editorial on global warming concluded: “…Above all, it will require determined and courageous leadership from a president capable of conveying hard truths and asking a lot of the country. Assuming that Mr. McCain and the two Democratic candidates mean what they say, on this issue at least, we seem assured of such a president.”
“Assuming they mean what they say” is the crux of the matter. How can you determine if they possess understanding and “courageous leadership”? Ask them point blank if they support an immediate moratorium on new dirty-coal power plants and phase-out of existing dirty-coal power plants (none of them has, as yet). Ask publicly and broadcast the response. Because, if they are not ready and willing to act, perusal of fossil carbon reservoirs and junior high school mathematics will together show that Yogi Berra was right: “You can’t get there from here.”
Dr. James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies sees a 10-year window of opportunity to reverse the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. Checking green house gases could limit an increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) while taking no action would result in drastic consequences.
(3) Public Support: Tax and Dividend
Last week the Energy Secretary for the United States, before the House of Representatives, answering questions about global warming and energy policy, provided a response that was so ignorant and foolish as to suggest that he has been living on another planet or is stone deaf to scientific information. He said that the appropriate policy response is for the government to open up more public land for mining, to open off-shore areas for drilling, to open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and to encourage extraction of oil from tar shale.The danger is that such egregiously bad policy, bad for all but the short-term benefit of special interests, might be packaged to sound logical to the public. This danger will increase when a rising carbon price – essential for solving the climate problem – is instituted. For a carbon price to be effective it must, perforce, be large enough to cause a big impact on the public – otherwise it will not help bring about consumer changes that are needed to reduce emissions fast enough. But it must be implemented with care and foresight.
For this reason I strongly favor a “tax and dividend” approach. The entire carbon tax should be given back to the public, an equal amount to each person. No bureaucracy is needed to figure this out. If an early carbon tax averages say $1200 per person (it can be collected in various ways – at the well-head, carbon emission permit auctions, etc.) a monthly $100 deposit can be made automatically in everyone’s bank account.
Although energy prices will rise, you can bet your bottom dollar that lower and middle income people will figure out how to reduce energy use enough that, overall, they come out ahead. And in doing so, moving to more energy-efficient products, they will spur economic activity and create jobs. The tax-and-dividend approach not only minimizes public backlash against climate and energy policies, it also has the characteristics needed to make those policies work.
Footnote: I suggest limiting the number of dividends to four per family. Climate scientists have no special expertise related to the family planning issue, but common sense dictates against a policy that stimulates population growth.
Carbon Capture is a Scam
Other Similar AG Posts Possibly Related(4) Dilemma
Inability to influence governors, and the finite number of hours in a day, raises a question about the effectiveness of opposing individual power plants. The dramatic change of emissions that is needed requires national policy changes, and that requires public pressure, and/or pressure from enlightened “captains of industry”. Are there better ways to inform those players?On the other hand, a single large coal-fired power plant burns ~ 100 rail cars of coal in a day, each with ~ 100 tons of coal. Multiply this by ~3 to get the mass of CO2 produced and by the number of days in 50-75 years, the typical expected lifetime of a power plant. Thus construction of a single coal-fired power plant obviates actions by millions of people to reduce their emissions. Blocking a single coal-fired power plant is important in itself, and it may help lead to a tipping point by demonstrating that efficiency and renewable energies can carry the load.
Automatically Generated
2 Comments
Green Car Congress informs that now more climate scientists are saying a 50% reduction in GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions by 2050 is insufficient.
“The authors, Martin Parry, Jean Palutikof and Clair Hanson—the co-chair, head and deputy head, respectively, of the Technical Support Unit of Working Group II—and Jason Lowe, a climate scientist in the UK Met Office who provided the underlying scenarios, argue that we are now probably witnessing the first genuinely global effects of greenhouse gas warming.”
Those 3 IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, who led the Impacts Assessment, have re-posited their argument in Nature Reports Climate Change. Martin Parry, Jean Palutikof, Clair Hanson, along with Jason Lowe, a climate scientist in the UK Met Office, in their commentary stress the reality that a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases, which now is being discussed as a global target, is far from sufficient to avoid dangerous climate change.
Meanwhile, JAB (Just Another Blogger) Dave sarcastically expresses some difficulty in understanding the debate on whether anthropogenic emissions have, are and will contribute to global heating and disastrous climate change.
American readers might think the US delegation took a proper stance for a world leader at the Bali conference in December 2007. While in terms of anthropogenic GHG emissions, the United States is the leader, in the Climate Change Performance Index for 2008, which was released in Bali, the U.S. ranked down near the bottom, 15 steps below China.
The GCC posts provides some background, “At the UN climate change conference in Bali last December, more than 200 members of the climate science community, including many involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), issued a declaration calling for global emissions to be cut at least 50% by mid-century.” However, the authors of Fourth Report from Working Group II, “Climate Change 2007 — Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”, strenuously objected. Instead, they called for support of the position taken by Germany, to wit, an 80% cut by 2050.
Referring to the tables of expected impacts in the 2007 IPCC assessment report, the authors note that:
The data now clearly support the 10-year old contention of one of the authors, Martin Parry, that adaptation would be unavoidable.
While it is preponderant upon the United States to take responsibility for addressing such significant change, we have been the laggards when it has come to efforts at mitigation. Rather than leading the world, the US ranks down near the bottom (#55 out of 56 possible).
GCC Recommended Resource
Martin Parry, Jean Palutikof, Clair Hanson & Jason Lowe (2008) Squaring Up to Reality, Nature Reports Climate Change Published online: 29 May 2008 doi: 10.1038/climate.2008.50
3 Trackbacks
[...] to other strategies suggested for getting off coal, the PEGE scenario is as [...]
[...] UN Dispatch, On Day One, and Grist “are partnering to discuss ideas the next president can adopt to take on climate change.” As After Gutenberg readers can tell you, such discussion is critical if we are to make any effort to save life on the planet as we know it and get off coal. [...]
[...] to 10 years).” And, Romm’s reminder is no less chilling for those of us in agreement about No Coal: Humanity’s task of moderating human-caused global climate change is urgent. Ocean and ice sheet [...]