The nation’s leading scientist has a new posting titled “Obstruction of Justice.” I have the greatest respect for Hansen as regular readers know (see links below).
Indeed, Hansen has been right on the climate threat longer than virtually anyone else (see “Right for 27 years: 1981 Hansen study finds warming trend that could raise sea levels“). But he misunderstands climate politics, or else he never would have written about the election and the “climate problem”:
There are differences between Presidential candidates, but neither appears to “get it.”
That puts him in the Ralph Nader crowd, which I just can’t stomach. If Hansen doesn’t understand the difference between the two presidential candidates on global warming, he should simply keep his views to himself.
In particular, McCain has a phony climate plan (see “McCain speech, Part 2: Relying on offsets = Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic“), has walked back on his climate advocacy for a year now, and actually chose a global warming denier for his running mate (see “Turns out McCain doesn’t care about global warming, the greatest threat we face“).
Furthermore, McCain has a track record of opposition for clean energy that is indistinguishable from that of the Senate’s leading global warming denier (see “The greenwasher from Arizona has a record as dirty as the denier from Oklahoma“).
As for climate policy, Hansen writes of the two candidates:
They both seem to think that “clean coal” exists. They both (and special interests) are likely to favor the hidden tax and market distortions of the inefficient “carbon cap and trade” game. For politicians and CEOs the shenanigan potential of “carbon cap and trade” is irresistible — it beats the pants off a simple, honest, effective “carbon tax and 100% dividend” that would put money in the hands of consumers and drive innovations and energy/carbon efficiency in the most economically effective way.
Hansen thinks we must go back to 350 ppm as soon as possible (see “Hansen (et al) must read: Get back to 350 ppm or risk an ice-free planet“). But a [tax and] 100% dividend simply can’t plausibly achieve the kind of deep reductions that Hansen says we need, particularly in the transportation sector, as fast as Hansen says we must (see “Peter Barnes’ Cap & Dividend plan is fatally incomplete” and “A carbon price cannot cure our oil addiction”). It doesn’t promote efficiency in a practical fashion, unless you think businesses and consumers are going to tolerate any carbon taxes so high that it doubles or triples the price of electricity. To Hansen’s credit, though, he does support changing “profit rules and motivation for utilities” — but in the absence of strong government regulations and aggressive technology deployment programs that Hansen appears to oppose, they utility rule-changing is only a partial solution.
Hansen’s policy proposals are bewilderingly inconsistent. Just three months ago he wrote:
Note that I am not arguing against a carbon cap. A carbon cap is useful, but insufficient. The danger of carbon caps and percent reduction goals is that they allow self-deception, a pretense that the climate problem is being solved. Unless they are accompanied by phase-out of coal emissions, they have practically no impact on climate change. By the way, a carbon tax (http://www.columbia.edu/ ~jeh1/ mailings/ 20080604_TaxAndDividend.pdf) is more direct and effective, in my opinion, but either a cap or tax should be accompanied by 100% dividend, so that people have the resources to buy energy-efficient and carbon-free technologies and will recognize an honest way of dealing with the energy/climate problem….
Phase-out of coal emissions is the sine qua non for climate stabilization. Oil and gas, the most convenient portable fossil fuels, are sufficiently abundant to carry the world well into the dangerous CO2 zone, but not irretrievably so. If coal emissions (not necessarily coal use) were phased out promptly (within ~2 decades, which probably would require phase-out in the West within ~1 decade), it would be practical to get back to CO2 levels lower than the present day amount.
This is a stunning statement, for two reasons:
- If you want to phase out coal use in the West within about one decade, say, by 2020, you cannot possibly do that through a price mechanism. How could you possible get a carbon price so high it shuts down every existing coal plant in the Western world in 10 years? Plus, you’d have to replace that electric power with zero carbon electricity in 10 years, and you’d have to have simultaneously install electric power lines to all of these new power plants. All of that could only be done by the the kind of government-led action we took in a World War II. Now I agree that if you want 350 ppm you need a WWII-type strategy starting now, but frankly in that scenario, a carbon price is not even close to your most important strategy.
- Hansen writes “If coal emissions (not necessarily coal use) were phased out promptly.” What does he think it means to phase out coal emissions without phasing out coal use? That is “clean coal,” as the term is now commonly used. I have recently argued that clean coal simply won’t be ready until after 2020, even if we start aggressively pursuing it now (”Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution?“) But Hansen needs to figure out whether he believes “clean coal” exists and whether or not he endorses the aggressive pursuit of coal with carbon capture and storage. I just don’t see how anybody who thinks we need to get back to 350 ppm can simply dismiss the possibility of any potentially plausible large-scale zero-carbon power source.
Hansen is clearly the nation’s (if not the world’s) leading climate science expert. I strongly recommend reading everything he has to say on science. That’s why I have blogged more on the work of Hansen than on any other person (see below).
By virtue of being right for three decades and being one of the few leading scientists willing to speak out in public about the urgent, desperate need for action, he has a moral authority that demands attention. We must listen when he writes:
The science of climate change has become clear in recent years: if coal emissions to the atmosphere are not halted, we will drive to extinction a large fraction of the species on the planet. Already almost half of summer sea ice in the Arctic has been lost, coral reefs are under great stress, mountain glaciers are melting world-wide with consequences for fresh water supplies of hundreds of millions of people within the next several decades, and climate extremes including greater floods, more intense heat waves and forest fires, and stronger storms have all been documented.
But I’m afraid his understanding of climate politics and climate policy leaves much to be desired.
Related Posts:
- Drilling off-shore is a “crazy thing” says Hansen on 20th anniversary of his famous testimony
- ‘Tipping Point’ — A non-technical Hansen piece
- Hansen’s plea for leadership to Nevada Gov.
- Hansen: Yankee Ticket Prices and Fossil Fuels
- NASA’s Hansen responds to NYT’s Revkin
- Hansen (et al) must read: Get back to 350 ppm or risk an ice-free planet
- Hansen throws cold water on cooling climate claim
- Hansen: The Shadow on American Democracy
- Dr. Hansen to Dr. Merkel: Carbon is forever — so ban new traditional coal plants now
- Hansen’s op-ed advice to Massachusetts
- NASA: 2007 Second Warmest Year Ever, with Record Warmth Likely by 2010
- Hansen apologizes, warns against “averting our eyes”
- Hansen stands by coal train/death train analogy
- James Hansen, writing on peak oil, gets rejected
- Hansen’s final Iowa testimony
- More swiftboating of James Hansen
- Another “Must Read” from Hansen: ‘Long-term’ climate sensitivity of 6°C for doubled CO2
- A Must Read: “Global Temperature Change,” by James Hansen et al.
- Hansen 1: Sea Level Rise
- Hansen 2: Iowa Edition of Declaration of Stewardship
- Hansen on “civil disobedience”
- Hansen on “Fossil Fuel Subsidies”
- Hansen’s “Two Plus Two Solution” to Global Warming
- Hansen on “Who Killed the Electric Car?”
- NASA’s Hansen on Live Earth, Gore, and Coal
[Okay, that's enough. Yes I blog a lot on Hansen. I probably wouldn't have started this blog if it weren't for him,]
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Joe –
Irrespective of the merits of your arguments and positions vs. Hansen’s, it is, as a voracious student of climate and policy, very disheartening and upsetting to see you take this “attack” posture against James Hansen. JH is a historic figure in and top leader of the climate crisis movement, and you’re well on your way. However your flattering statements in the body of your posting fail to undo the striking affect your piece’s title has on the reader.
To me, at least, you and JH are in a very small club of (5?10?) climate luminaries whose intellectual gifts I cannot fathom, and are who I turn to for truth on the matter. I neither expect nor hope that your findings and prescriptions would be in lockstep. And I’m very capable of disagreeing with James Hansen – I do on Prop 7 in California, for example. But given the gravity of the subject, and the massive continuing success of the opposition, deference and civility are needed between those at the top. To publicly ascribe “understands neither climate politics nor policy” to James Hansen, in those words, rings of an ego or rivalry I would hope doesn’t exist at this level. Or at least wouldn’t be publicly voiced. Save that for S&N, et al.
The title’s aggression, and a good bit of the tone of the post, undermines your argument and objectivity. I can also imagine that any acidic public disagreements between climate scientists of your and Hansen’s pedigree provides excellent fodder for the PR machine of Heartland, CEI, WSJ, GOP, etc. (“What consensus!!??”) Great hay could be made of much weaker statements.
For the record, I very much enjoy the certitude, humor, and occasional vitriol is intertwined with your writing, and hope it continues in the direction of the right people.
But the affect of this post has not been to weigh your policy views against Hansen’s. And it could have been.
-Alex
a nader presidency in 2000 would have meant no housing bubble, no hidden business in new york. how about a gore presidency: what do you think? chelsea clinton works for a hedge fund. gore is a financier himself. what do you think. housing bubble under gore? or, rubin and greenspan both gone?
until november 5, there’s no way to say that obama “gets it.”
[JR: Hapa, hapa, hapa. Nader was NEVER going to get elected president. All he could possibly do with act as a spoiler. But worse than that, while he promised he wouldn't campaign in swing states and he promised he wouldn't keep attacking Al Gore, that was precisely what he did because it was the only way for him to get media attention. He went swing states and said there's no difference between Gore and Bush. He is as much to blame for everything that Bush has done as Karl Rove.]
Alex –
I am duly admonished.
Nothing bothers me more than the Naderite perspective and so I blogged somewhat intemperately. I have modified the post a tad. I feel pretty strong about this.
I am not a climate scientist. There is no rivalry with Hansen, not even close. Quite the reverse, it is really my disappointment that his foray into politics and policy does not match his methodical scientific style. That explains the tone.
My apologies.
Joe –
I’m floored and flattered at your response, and especially at you modifying the posting.
In retrospect, my commentary should have been sent as an email to you, as opposed to a comment on the article. It really no longer applies or has context, and you wouldn’t ruffle my feathers or lose a fan if you took it and your response down from public view. Your call. Thanks for all you do~
[JR: I'm just glad that you posted what you believed.]
Joe, I submitted my last comment before reading your reply to Alex. Well said, it takes a person of strong character to admit their mistakes so openly and quickly. I admire and respect you all the more for your mea culpa.
[JR: Your first post got caught in the Spam Folder. You still want it posted?]
How can you blame him for not knowing McCain’s actual voting record.
Every day another reliable media outlet from PBS to the NYT — misrepresents it. Even as the media is willing to slam McCain on all sorts of other trivial matters, it still perpetuates the bizarre lies about his energy votes.
McCain is a Republican who has voted just like the rest of the Senate Republicans against ‘piddle power’ for decades. Starting with Gores carbon tax BTU tax, and right on through the multiple attempts to pass the PTC and RPS.
Obama’s votes are the exact opposite.
http://featured.matternetwork.com/ 2008/ 9/ obamas-clean-energy-voting-record.cfm
Hansen probably assumes NYT reporters actually check the voting records.
24 hr rule is a good one to follow!
[JR: Great for emails, not so much for blogs.]
spring has arrived!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/ article-1079966/ Pictured-The-blooming-daffodils-fooled-thinking-spring.html?ITO=1490
I have only read the modified post, so haven’t seen the original. From that perspective, I find it refreshing that Joe speaks his mind and is a “straight shooter” re: policy recommendations he doesn’t agree with. In my mind, that makes his voice much stronger than if he was in lock step with Hansen’s policy suggestions just because he is a brilliant climate scientist.
joe:
disappointed. not surprised you seem to have taken my hypothetical “president nader” as something i thought a real possibility. but not only did you not answer the direct question about democratic culpability — clinton/gore culpability — for the banking meltdown, you went for “stabbed in the back” by the little guy instead of
* “done in by illegal voter purges and other dirty tricks” by the other guy or
• “blatant favoritism and absurd kid-glove treatment of the bush twirp” by the press or
* “forcing through NAFTA after a tight race against perot was begging the reagan-perotistas to go with the republican ‘patriot’ act” all by themselves
or something.
disclosure. i voted for nader then, in a very safe state, no courage required, because i was pissed and he’s very able; not because he’s a hero, maybe the greatest american alive, for all he’s done for us and for our government. there’s no life here he hasn’t touched but that by itself doesn’t make him a good national administrator.
but regardless i gotta say the kind of scorn deep-dem advocates have for nader — to the point that some seem like they have to scratch their heads whether they’d rather have nader or bush — that, to me, shows why they/you/we let these democrats off the hook from protecting our butts from this fire. blaming nader is really weak.
Joe,
I don’t think that Hansen’s statement that “There are differences between Presidential candidates, but neither appears to “get it.”” puts him in the “Ralph Nader crowd” — Hansen is not suggesting that voters concerned about climate change throw their vote away by voting for a third candidate. The issue with that is that the US does not have a preferential voting system.
I do not have access to enough information to determine whether Obama “gets it”, If his policy is for an 80% reduction by 2050, that would be consistent with a global stabilisation target of 550 ppm at the very minimum. What matters of course is policies now, and nearer targets such as targets for 2020. Obama’s proposal for 100% auctioning is a good one, but I have heard little about a proposed start date. If there is no carbon pricing until 2015, or any good policies in the meantime, that would be a very serious problem. Although McCain would be a disaster, that does not imply that voting for Obama will be sufficient to avoid dangerous climate change.
On whether to have a tax, or whether to have cap and trade, that depends on what the tax or cap is. On the dividend, I agree that a 100% dividend would not solve the question of funding infrastructure, avoiding market failures (such as electricity transmission network market failures), or mitigation in sectors not covered by carbon pricing (such as agriculture and land use). A 100% dividend would only work if there was also money from elsewhere to address these issues.
I was wondering, could you elaborate further on the “Nadar Crowd” thing? In that letter he does say he thinks there should be a third candidate, but just because neither candidate “gets it” doesn’t automatically mean he is suggesting everyone vote for a third candidate.
Secondly, do you think zero-emission coal is likely (or desirable) in a 350ppm world? If we disallow new plants without capture, then as you say, we are unlikely to see any new coal plants before 2020. In the mean time, old coal plants are going to go out of commission, and their capacity must be replaced somehow, either with efficiency or new non-coal energy. Unless that new energy is Natural Gas (which would partially defeat the point), the old coal will be replaced with carbon free technology. By the time carbon sequestration hits the market, wouldn’t it be likely that new renewable (and/or nuclear) energies are more economical? As Hansen points out, the environmental issues with coal extend far beyond just carbon emissions, and so it would seem to me ideally we would replace all coal with cleaner technology.
I do believe we should continue to fund capture and storage research. Even if we decide to cut coal, the odds of the rest of the world doing so are not good, and thus we should work to make coal as clean as we can. But on the other hand, from what I know about coal, even when you sequester all the CO2 emissions, coal is still not clean.
You omitted the first and most important line from the paragraph you quoted:
“Don’t expect the election to solve the climate problem.”
What Hansen is really saying is that the measures proposed by both candidates are way, way too weak. And I agree. I can absolutely guarantee that there will have been no progress on emissions in the US in 4 (and
years time. Globally the rate of emissions will still be increasing. Joe, if you are honest you know this too.
Solving the politics of climate change is proving well nigh impossible. Any well argued viewpoint should be considered on its merits and nobody (that definitely includes you Joe!) should stridently claim they have the “solution”, because the chances are that history will rapidly prove them wrong.
The first test for Obama when he becomes President is whether climate change will even stay on the agenda in the face of much cheaper oil. I doubt it. I suspect the real agenda was always economic not environmental.
[JR: I omitted that line because I thought it was silly. If Hansen were elected president November 4, he couldn't solve the climate problem. That will require the effort of the next 10 presidents along with Congress plus the other leading nations of the world. That said, the choice is clear and if Obama is elected, clean energy will be his top priority as he said and climate change will be at the top of the agenda. Take that to your bank and put it in a money market fund.]
“But a 100% dividend simply can’t plausibly achieve the kind of deep reductions that Hansen says we need-”
Joe,
Why? I tend to agree on a tax, but not with a strong cap. A strong cap is the key (I think) and everything else flows from there. If we have to give all the auction money back– so be it. There are other places in the Federal Budget to support the critical infrastructure we need.
Maybe I’m missing something?
[JR: The tax can't achieve the kind of the reductions Hansen says we need for the same reason a cap can't. Price alone just can't do the trick. The link on the Barnes plan explains why.]
Brendan: If we are going to go back to 350, then we need a large-scale effort to pull carbon out of the atmosphere. One of the most obvious possibilities is to gasify coal with cellulosic biomass and bury the CO2. That would be carbon-negative electricity.
Is that a slam dunk? No. But it is on the very short list of strategies since gasifying biomass with coal is straightforward (and has been done) and burying CO2 is straightforward (and has been done). Combining the two hasn’t been done, and whether it can be done at scale practically remains unknown.
Anyone who is against R&D and demonstration for clean coal — coal with carbon capture and storage in deep underground geologic repositories — is pretty much taking this option off the table.
Gore is a financier? Gimme a break?
He is it now a partner in one of the most successful venture capital funds in the world, which has decided to focus a significant amount of its investments in the clean tech space, as I have blogged.
Do you seriously think we are going to deploy thousands of gigawatts of carbon free power without financing? Do you seriously think we are going to get below 450 ppm without a major clean tech push by VCs?
But I know I have as much chance of moving a Nader voter as I do a mainstream conservative, so let’s just agree to disagree.
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that the policies needed to achieve 450 ppm (let alone 350) are a long way from being politically viable. If we had a visionary and inspirational president, that might just what we need to start on the path towards the necessary political change.
hapa, lets get this straight!
You said:
[there’s no life here he hasn’t touched]
Are you referring to Iraq? Nader undercutting Gore in Florida is the direct connection between US attacking Iraq and US not attacking Iraq.
Nader doesn’t have a clue about his culpability regarding US in Iraq but a lot of us do.
John McCormick
joe: ask a straight question about beltway dems’ share of responsibility for the bubble-and-crash and get… red-baiting. seriously what else should i call you reading anti-capitalism into calling a VC a finance operation? would you have been happier if i’d called them “IP gamblers”? but look: where will those VCs be next year? five years? economists left and right now are saying the US treasury is the last bankroll standing. several are predicting A MARKET SHUTDOWN LASTING MORE THAN A WEEK, world-round. are they all “nader voters”? all worth ignoring?
john: the problem in florida had a name and that name was katherine harris and it was also jeb BUSH. looking beyond that is ludicrous and maybe explains why democrats have not fought to the death to separate secretaries of state from political campaign involvement.
[JR: I confess I don't understand your argument. This country has been in the grips of a conservative revolution since Ronald Reagan was elected. Should the Democrats have done more to fight the deregulatory wave? Of course. But don't tell me that insufficiently competent firefighters share anywhere near the culpability of the GOP arsonists.
And now you seem to be suggesting that somehow Gore is linked to the financial crisis because he works pushing green technology investment at a VC firm. That is one leap I don't get. It seems like you have to attack Gore to feel better about your vote for Nader.]
i had a long internal debate about making my disclosure. i decided i wanted to be arguing from an open stance but i knew what i was risking and it looks like i lost the bet.
or did you? all this smoke lying around, it’s hard to see anything, eh? let alone find the fire?
Hapa,
whatever gets you through your day.
John McCormick
john: what i expected.
joe: the argument could stand some unpacking.
on the finance side, there was collaboration. the DLC put finance first. many dems followed. what that faith in markets as foremost creators of value had to do with the rise of republicans you have to tell me.
the question was: do you think al gore, as president, would have stopped the housing bubble or brought sunlight to wall street. both of those would have been within the power of the president. that’s all i’m asking. you don’t want to answer the question.
i pointed to his partnership at kleiner perkins as a signal that he believes change takes place through markets. i didn’t mention his repeated advancement of the “Connie Mae” idea — putting the housing bubble to work for the good of the future — or his several statements that coming to terms with the environmental crisis is beyond the ability of the government — one wonders if coming to terms with the finance crisis was similarly beyond mr gore.
it doesn’t take a genius to recognize the relationship between debt and change.
this is called projection.
[JR: Yes, I think Gore would have done a better job of managing the economy. You can't legislate against greed, but you can at least try to keep an eye on the foxes.
P.S. For it to be "projection." I would have to have voted for Nader. As if!]
But Joe- a cap is not a price alone. I agree with you that a tax is silly in the real world. But I do think a cap is critical.
(I’m not sure why a scientist like Hansen would choose a tax over a cap)
You seem to conflate the two in your comment–when they really are different. A cap, done right, also creates a price but it is the reductions that are driving the price not vice versa.
So–with a strong cap–why would returning the money be wrong?
Of course, there are other things that need to happen, but that doesn’t mean a cap isn’t a priority.
no. for it to be projection you’d need to be putting on me an impetus of guilt and disappointment that you yourself felt. how’s your party been living up to your expectations? getting your money’s worth of “opposition,” as it were? hmm. actually you’re probably repressing this feeling. we should schedule more regular sessions.
The only projection going on here is that I am projecting my disgust with what Bush and Cheney have done to this country over the past eight years onto Ralph Nader and all those who voted for him.
That is certainly unfair to the extent that each individual Nader voter hardly warrants the unending wrath that all rational people should direct at Nader.
Now, of course, he has become a sad self-caricature of himself, running in 2004 and 2008 to prove, what, that his run in 2000 didn’t destroy the entire legacy of his career but was somehow a principled move? Hmm. Here’s a parallel. McCain’s 2008 campaign has destroyed the legacy of goodwill he had built up over the course of his career.
Sam — A cap is basically a price, but one set by the market rather than the government.
Entities must paying money for allowances to emit CO2. If made by the allowances they can pollute, if not, they can’t.
I am not sure what else a cap does.
Politics cannot solve this physical problem.
I agree with Hansen – neither candidate understands the science or seems to see the scenarios.
And Hansen, like Nader, may understand the problem, but neither is politically adroit enough to attain political power to find a solution.
Pity.
Joe,
A cap limits the amount of polution that can be dumped into our atmosphere. A cap creates a price, but it’s not just a price (if done right).
When you limit something you increase it’s value. But regardless of how much someone wanted to pay, there is still be a hard limit on what was available. For exampl;e, if I capped the number of apples available each day in New York at 100 and auctioned them all off, than just because someone came in at the end and was ready to pay a million dollars wouldn’t mean that a 101st apple would become available.
So while a cap creates a price, it isn’t just a price. The price is an effect of the cap but not the only one.
Now, I know you understand this, so I feel strange describing it to you.
[JR: You can't "limit" fossil fuels unless you seize them and ration them off. Was that your plan? You can issue permits for burning fossil fuels and enforce those permits, though again that is fundamentally the same as charging people. That's why capping utility emissions is easy.
Now please explain to me how you cap emissions from the transportation sector in a meaningful fashion. Do you intend to restrict people's access to gasoline or to cars?]
what about joe biden, are we allowed to talk about his complicity with the bankruptcy law, and his total allegiance to the credit card industry? or was he forced to be a delaware senator by republican malfeasance.
i’m starting to wonder if democrats claim any agency at all, this year, or is it like, france, 1946.
It is quite possible to include transport in an emissions trading scheme and this is what is planned for Australia. How this will be done is discussed in a Green Paper here. Liability for emissions will be applied upstream to about 200 upstream fuel suppliers. There may eventually be direct liability for large emitters such as freight companies whose emissions exceed 25 kt CO2-e/year (which will include 30-40% of transport emissions). There will also be netting out arrangements for fuels that are not combusted but are sequestered in products (for example, plastics). Unfortunately because of some very silly domestic political reasons, increases to petrol prices for the first few years will be offset by reductions in fuel excises. This will all be part of an ETS that will also cover stationary energy, industrial processes, fugitive emissions, and waste.
Because of the market failures and infrastructure issues, it would not make sense to address transport emissions through carbon pricing alone. Wide scale deployment of freight and public transport infrastructure is the key policy measure that is required.
More generally, reducing greenhouse gas levels to somewhere between 350-450 ppm will require a combination of carbon pricing, technology policies, addressing market failures, policies associated with land use, and sustainability.
Joe–
“in the absence of strong government regulations and aggressive technology deployment programs that Hansen appears to oppose”
Why do you say Hansen appears to oppose strong government regulation?
Why do you say he appears to oppose aggressive technology deployment programs?
The most important test for the next US president will be what sort of position does he take to the Copenhagen UNFCCC conference in December 2009. It is extremely important that we get the right sort of comprehensive international agreement at this conference.
Will the US advocate a position consistent with a stabilisation target of 450 ppm or less? Will the US advocate a position consistent with the polluter pays principle, where high per-capita emitters must pay low per-capita emitters for the right to pollute? Or will the US advocate a position that is developed country biased, and continues to perpetuate the unequal use of the atmosphere?
You cap carbon where it comes into the economy. It’s called an upstream cap and it’s been discussed for a long, long time.
[JR: Sorry, Sam, this comment is way too cryptic.]
Peter
One glance at the UNFCCC website is enough to depress almost anybody:
http://unfccc.int/ meetings/ cop_14/ items/ 4481.php
How can any process as complicated and cofused hope to achieve anything? The whole structure appears to have been constructed to fail.
If the parties involved really wanted to control emissions they would set up an independent body which simply allocated each country an allowance of coal, oil and gas they could burn each year, based on some baseline figure (say 1990) and with a contraction and convergence factor built in.
That’s it. Now cancel the conference and save a few thousand tons of CO2 flying everyone over there.
alex — Even your proposal would require a conference (or several) to iron out the details.
Alex
I agree that achieving a comprehensive international agreement will be difficult, and that some form of contraction and convergence approach will be the best solution. There are two key factors associated with contraction and convergence, the contraction rate (which will determine the eventual stabilisation target) and the convergence date (which has very important equity issues). There is a much better change of a good comprehensive international agreement if the US would be willing to accept C&C, and accept a high contraction rate and an early convergence date. This will be the crucial test of whether the next US president is serious about climate change.
The convergence date is the date at which all countries are allocated the same amount of per-capita emissions. A late convergence date, such as 2050, rewards high per-capita emitters by giving them more emissions allocations. Earlier convergence dates mean that high per-capita emitters, such as the US and Australia, will have deeper reductions in their 2020 allocations — if these countries pollute more than their allocation, they will have to purchase emission allocations from other countries.
For stabilisation at 450 ppm and a convergence date of 2050, the US would have to have an allocation in 2020 of approximately 28% less than 2000 levels. Greenhouse gas levels will depend on carbon cycle feedbacks, worse feedbacks would require more reductions in allocations.
I think the key factor is “simplicity”. For any agreement to actually WORK it needs to be extremely simple, easily monitored and able to be implemented immediately.
Kyoto failed because countries totally ignored their committments. This was easy because of the long timescales, the lack of penalties, the difficulty of monitoring and all the loopholes.
It would be far easier to control carbon at source. i.e. restrict the supply of coal, oil and gas, partcularly coal. This IS something that individual producing nations could manage in a transparent and verifiable way and could be implemented immediately.
Of course, it won’t happen because no-one really wants it to happen….
Joe,
You don’t know what an upstream cap is?
** http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/6/16134/64885**
No trying to be a smart a**…
[JR: I know what it is. I just don't see how it is any different from the proposals that I have already explained can't solve the transportation problem. The upstream cap works through the price mechanism -- and price just won't get you where you need to go on transportation.]
An upstream cap could limit emissions by limiting the amount of carbon-based fuels that come into the economy (including gas).
Again, I know you understand that a cap is not a price alone. I guess what you’re saying is that there is no way we could pass a hard cap–is that it?
[JR: What I'm saying is that a hard upstream cap is not a direct rationing scheme. It drives the fuel price up and utterly destroys coal long before it seriously hits oil. To get oil, however, requires an absurdly high price for carbon, one that is almost unimaginable.]
James Hansen knows that we are going to burn all of the available easy oil and gas and probably develop the oil sands of Canada to around 5 mbpd. All of this will take us too around 450 ppmv of CO2e and that means a 2C rise which could eventually mean a 25 meter sea level rise. it is therefore seemingly imperative that coal use is phased out or CCS is developed in order to stop emissions from exceeding 450 ppmv.
if the west manages to develop alternative technologies to fossil fuels such as plug in hybrids and flex fuel cars, solar, CSP, Wind, wave, tidal, geothermal and 4th generation nuclear power then we can phase out coal so long as we can sell this technology to the rest of the world, especially China and india. Barak Obama has ideas about tacking both fossil fuel addiction and AGW and if he can develop and coherent strategy for reducing fossil fuel usage but a significant amount by the middle of the century then we can mitigate AGW to no more than 2C. However as we have 1.4C in the pipeline and another 0.5C in the present fossil fuel infrastructure with more to come as we are continuing to build more fosil fuel burning infrastructure this strategy needs to come online within 5 years time politically it is going to be a very difficult thing to achieve especially as the oil and coal companies have a lot of lobbying power politically.
James Hansen knows how difficult tackling AGW is going to be. The IEA/EIA are projecting 50% gloabal energy use come 2030 so any plan is going have to grow quickly and cost a lot of taxpayers money. One other question is that of can renewables meet fossil fuel replacement energy needs and can ordinary people wise up and use a lot less energy and improve energy efficiency in time and without too much financial pain.
None of this is a certainly, James Hansen knows this and hence we all spout contradictions in this realm. Until politicians come up with a coherent global energy strategy anything can happen. After all we are not consuming less fossil fuels are we?