Great idea. Should definitely be tied into the next round of climate talks aimed at coming up with a new framework by 2012.

As Luke says, China would not accept it as their per-capita emissions are so low compared to the US (see page 8 of this letter by James Hansen).

http://www.columbia.edu/ ~jeh1/ mailings/ 20080401_DearPrimeMinisterRudd.pdf

Equally, would the US be prepared to contract to current Chinese levels, never mind post-coal Chinese levels (i.e. far lower than today). Not a chance.

Robert and Luke,

First, agreed that an end to coal mining must be part of non-proliferation. If you agree to stop building coal plants, it seems one then should’nt be allowed to export coal to countries that haven’t.

Regarding China and US: we must believe that the Chinese leadership will stop growing coal emissions at a much lower per capita level than developed nations and that the US, China and all nations will reduce coal emissions to near zero in the next twenty years. If we don’t believe it’s possible we’re wasting our time and we might as well just book our joy ride on Virgin Galactic along with James Lovelock.

The Chinese leadership is rational and it is very possible that they will do what’s necessary – but the garden must be properly cultivated. Many tools must be utilized to help it happen.

Hansen is smartly pushing at the “soft-points” - to get sympathetic leaders to take bold action and lead – potentially breaking the log jam.

My suggestion is in some way to universalize that opportunity – let small, advanced countries take a stand first - those with the least to lose. Then pressure can be applied to the next batch of “attainable countries” and so on. It could build momentum, and those countries on board can lead in decarbonizing the power supply.

At the same time China will surely soon become the dominant leader in clean technology production (like the production of everything) and I believe they will have the means to make the switch (they have the means to do just about anything, they just need to want it) when it’s convinced the rest of the world is taking serious steps. I might add with trepidation: while a short term humanitarian disaster – the fact that the Communist Party retains monopoly control means that such drastic change is not only possible but realistic – and as disturbing as it is, the ability of central control, properly asserted from Beijing may save humanity in the end.

The bottom line is that coal mining needs to become as unacceptable as asbestos or cocaine - worldwide. Perhaps permit its use as a chemical feedstock, but never a fuel.

It’s not going to happen is it? See you on the Virgin Galactic.

But I don’t agree that you need to initially ban goods from coal users - it will be a multi-step process (if accelerated). While we can move much production to China, we can’t actually export our coal power based homes/communities to China.

My sense is that making coal power unacceptable will lead to coal mining being unacceptable - with allot of effort of course. I think asbestos and cocaine, while on the right track aren’t unacceptable enough and why coupling it with nuclear oblivion - through the non-proliferation frame - seems a much stronger propaganda tool.

That would really show the utilities and China we mean business. They’d rush out and apply the ‘best available’ CCS technology. Which would be? Well, ‘meaningless.‘ We have no idea what it would be since no power station on Earth uses it. And it won’t be learned until stations with different Carbon Capture methods are built, tested, ‘costed’ and modified for a 2nd try. By about 2025 the power industry expects to have a good idea which CCS technology(s) would work best.

In the meantime, we can trash any project or firm that tries to bring CCS online. . . Or the Bush Administration can kill a promising long-term project (FutureGen) that might have been first. Possibly since IGCC it is an expensive (and efficient) option (with little retrofit potential). But also because Bush has been so good at dragging his feet, IGCC might have become the ‘best available’ technology, by default.

Anyway, utilities will want clear signals on what the rules will be. I’m still looking for such a proposal.

Jay Alt,
I agree about the building code issues (I’m an architect) - Although I’d prefer to leave the former Gaza home clearance methods out of it. ) The building codes are part of the avalanche of actions that must be taken in short order. But the “nut of the matter” as Lincoln might say, is what Hansen is driving at - we must leave as much coal in the ground as possible. To get a handful of countries to agree to start on the path with such a treaty and expand seems like a potentially organic global approach.

You have only got to look at China - double digit growth - consumer of over half the world’s cement and apparently now the biggest CO2 polluter. Does this look like a country that is about to change course and suddenly stop emissiting CO2 just because Joe says they ought to?

If there was some sort of catastrophic event that really brought home to people the gravity of climate change (without actually killing everyone) then the required masive global political shift might occur. In the meantime we will suffer the fate of the slowly boiled frog.

“…the projected annual increase in China alone over the next several years is greater than the current emissions produced by either Great Britain or Germany.”