Is James Hansen a member of the UCS?

Dear James "The Don" Hansen-Quixote:

It is certainly heartwarming to see our scientists who are working at our publicly funded institutions taking seriously the messages derived from their own work.

However, you have neglected my first rule: all politics is local.

The good people of Minnesota get cold in the winter, and they desire artificial lighting by which to read, and power to operate their computers by which they have access to such websites as Gristmill.

Can they plug into the claimed "solar power" of the deserts today?   If not, then how do you expect them to find the solution to their needs?   Fortunately their good neighbors in the Dakotas are willing to provide them with a solution that can be made available within a few short years.   And the good people in Wyoming and Montana will be able to provide the people in the Dakotas with plenty of coal to supply their power plants which in turn supply the good people of Minnesota with their electricity.

The citizens of Minnesota, the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana thusly will be able to carry on productive lives for decades, working hard and feeding their families (whether of 4 or 14.)

And what do you have to offer them?   Pretty vugraphs, promises of something called "carbon capture" that does not yet appear to exist in industry, and fancies of magic from out in the Californian desert that gets delivered to Minnesota over a network that does not yet exist...

Until you can offer the good citizens of these locales something more concrete, and tractable in the near future (remember, Congressional terms are 2 years, most governors 4 years) do not hope to change their behavior.

Regards,
Tip

Thanks for Dr. Hansen' reality check.

Yes, Cap and Dividend would be a HUGE ($5 trillion) improvement!  It's a tax that recycles revenue back into the economy via dividends to each of us instead of into give-aways to big industry (as Lieberman-Warner would do).      

Economists (and the Congressional Budget Office) agree that a revenue-neutral carbon tax with a dividends to individuals would work even better at reducing emissions.  

Tax and Dividend is better than Cap and Dividend because it's easy to implement, avoids price volatility, traders, rigged markets and doesn't disadvantage US business.  In fact, AEI's economists (Kevin Haslet and Ken Green) say it would make the economy more efficient.  

Hansen's urging us to demand improvements on the Lieberman-Warner (climate security) bill.  Let's keep going.  The best medicine to avert climate disaster is a CARBON TAX with DIVIDEND.  

Lieberman-Warner just isn't nearly good enough.  

This is a great column with two exceptions.

As a previous poster pointed out, there's no such thing as clean coal, so let's stop bowing to the coal industry.  Even if all emissions from burning coal were somehow magically captured and placed somewhere where they'd do no harm -- a pure fantasy that has no basis in reality -- the mining of coal is so ecologically and environmentally destructive that coal can NEVER be seen as "clean."

Second, the concept of providing most of the U.S. energy needs from the Nevada desert is a result of myopically obsessing on climate change, as if that's the only serious ecological or environmental problem -- it's not by a longshot!  Just building the infrastructure that would be necessary to transmit the power around the U.S. would cause massive environmental and ecological harm, not to mention contribute many tons of greenhouse gases.  And the infrastructure itself would be very ecologically destructive and ugly, as it would undoubtedly pass through relatively previously natural areas.

The leadership that Dr. Hansen seeks must be used to tell people in the U.S. that they're going to have to greatly simplify their lifestyles, beginning with far less driving and use of electricity.  Solutions to energy problems need to come from local sources, not from energy that is transmitted around the country.  Until and unless rich people, who comprise the vast majority of Americans and people in Canada, Australia, and western Europe, are willing to "sacrifice" things they shouldn't have or be doing in the first place, no ecological or environmental problems will be solved, including human-caused climate change.

On a related note, Ghost's post raises the problems caused by humans living too far from the tropics.  In addition to greatly lowering human population, we need to move people back toward and into the tropics, with the possible exception of the milder areas with a Mediterranean climate.  It takes far too much energy for humans to live where it freezes every winter.  Humans evolved in the tropics, which is why we have no fur.  The farther from there we go, the more ecological and environmental destruction we cause, all else being equal.  Time to move back home and stop destroying the planet in our selfish desire to do whatever we want.

With sufficiently high forest density and low population, it is no problem to live in frosty heights, even comfortably so and with stone age tech. I've tried it in an Indian tipi and good supply of beech tree branches (except that I used steel pots imported from India and modern boots).

Make a char pit under your fire place and voila you get good ashes-char to add to the garden, plus hotter and brighter fire from the pyrolysis gas. If you only use dead Beech branches, this can account to C-negative living (sequestering char).

I had a micro 2-man sweat lodge integrated in the Tipi. With some snow outside to jump in naked, winter can be real fun.