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?

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.]

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.]

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….

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.

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.

[JR: Sorry, Sam, this comment is way too cryptic.]

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?

“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?