I think that once the science, economics, and politics come together we’ll pursue best solutions. What might sound best to a working scientist might well be tempered by economic or political realities.

Based on what I know at this point in time nuclear will not be part of the solution. But I don’t know it all, certainly not as much as those with access to the ‘best informed’ have.

Perhaps the stuff that the pro-nuke people say has some truth to it. If so, dealing with nuclear waste and doofus-created nuclear contamination might be less damaging than global climate change. If building hundreds of new reactors is our only hope, then we have to go for it.

(My odds on the pro-nuke people are correct? Lower than a worm’s belly….)

As long as you keep messing around with wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, the coal industry is safe. There is no way wind, solar, geothermal and wave power can replace coal, and they know it. The coal fire has to keep on burning in case the wind dies or the sun goes down. If you quit being afraid of nuclear, the coal industry is doomed. Every time you argue in favor of wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, or against nuclear, King Coal is happy. ONLY nuclear power can put coal out of business. Nuclear power HAS put coal out of business in France. France uses 30 year old American technology. So here is the deal: Keep being afraid of all things nuclear and die either when [not if] civilization collapses or when H2S comes out of the ocean and Homo “Sapiens” goes extinct. OR: Get over your paranoia and kick the coal habit and live. Which do you choose? I put quotation marks around “Sapiens” because it is not clear that most of us have enough brains to avoid extinction when it is clearly predicted and the safe path has been pointed out. Nuclear is the safe path.

YES WE CAN replace every coal burner on earth with a nuclear reactor in 8 years, AND WE CAN MAKE A PROFIT ON THEM. We can provide electricity to the Chinese peasants for AT LEAST 30% LESS than what they would pay for electricity from coal. Want a high paying green job? Work at the nuclear reactor factory that we have to build, or at a Canadian nuclear reactor factory.

Of course, a much nicer scenario should have happened: Americans should have replaced all coal fired power plants with nuclear reactors long ago. That would require that Americans had been educated properly. ALL high school students should have taken 4 years of physics, 4 years of chemistry, 4 years of biology and 8 years of math, starting in 1930. If that had happened, the coal industry would have had no hope of driving Americans paranoid of all things nuclear.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. I have never had any connection with the nuclear power industry. I am not being paid by anyone to post on Alternet. My sole motive is to avoid death in the collapse of civilization and to avoid the extinction of humans due to global warming.

John Holdren has no doubt about why policy is needed: “climate change is the most dangerous of all human impacts on the environment from any origin”.

He believes that a successful energy policy should start to:”help society identify and deploy a suitable mix of energy supply and energy end use options from the currently available menu”

He puts this point first, after all his years of study and thought.

I’d agree. This goal alone, because to achieve it you would need to achieve some greater unity in society than there is now, so that it believed it needed a new mix, would seem to be a pretty big goal for the first 100 days. But, let’s say the Obama Administration is capable of leaping over buildings in a single bound, flying faster than a speeding bullet etc.

Holdren, in that same speech, states what to do at the same time: “promote technological advances that improve that menu over time”

He stressed technological improvement for 5 reasons, 2 of which are controversial among climate activists. That is, he said if technology was improved, it would be possible to

“use the world’s abundant coal resources without intolerable impacts”

and it would be possible to

“expand the use of nuclear”.

A decision to junk the existing coal fired electricity generation industry worldwide based on the opinion of many activists that carbon capture can’t be developed for ten or twenty years AND to junk nuclear and not develop new forms of it as Hansen advocates for instance, seems to clash with what John Holdren believes must be done.

Stephen Chu is also on record as signing off on the desirability of ramping up development of carbon capture. The report he co-chaired for the IAC which said that about CCS, was less definite about nuclear than Holdren is, but said this about nuclear: “A transparent and scientifically driven re-examination of the issues surrounding nuclear power and their potential solutions is needed”

Will the great enthusiasm for these two Obama appointees turn to disillusionment when it becomes apparent what they stand for?

Obama is calling for an approach that is based on science. The enthusiasm for Holdren and Chu seems to be because after the long darkness of the Bush years science will no longer be abused in this country. But at some point climate campaigners will need to make stronger arguments than they have so far as to why they reject these particular solutions, i.e. nuclear and carbon capture, that scientists repeatedly put forward.

The arguments I’ve heard, on anti CCS for instance, seem like people repeating what they believe to other believers: people pick out and even modify sentences from pro CCS reports and use them to back up their anti CCS assessment as if the pro CCS report was anti, etc. But the pro CCS reports are as gold plated as reports get, put out by organizations like the IPCC, MIT, and the IAC. The IAC is the joint creation of every science academy in the world.

People like Holdren and Chu are coming to power after many years of study and thought. You want to change what people like this think and you’re going to have be the best at making the argument you’re making that there is.

Whatever carbon tax you propose, I’ll vote for double. But you and me together plus every single reader of ClimateProgress won’t be enough overcome the votes of republicans and blue dogs. And the howls of “tax and spend” and “wreck the economy” and “save Joe the trucker” would be wall-to-wall on cable TV.

The silver lining is that they’d stop talking about Blagojevich and Caroline Kennedy for a couple minutes, but that’s not worth sinking a presidency.

Unless we could sell the idea of a carbon tax. Tom Friedman has a good idea for selling a gas tax.

Then, I was disappointed not to see any of the others make this *as* clear (although Taylor also mentioned it).

Finally, I got really sad when I realized that only 4 of you even mentioned coal.

But then again, what if all 14 of you had coordinated your messages? Would Yale Environment 360 have published all 14?

Do we, on purpose or otherwise, individually dilute our common message, in order to be heard at all?

Is this part of the communication problem?

0.6 tonnes of coal gives rise to (44/12)x0.6 = 2.2 tonnes of CO2, close enough.
So the fee is 2.2×35 = $77 per tonne of coal; that is $70 per ton of such (Central Appalachian) coal. That is about half the recent spot price so will definitely add to the cost of coal powered electricity.

And if I had my way, nobody would escape through a grandfather clause.

So I suppose we could call a fossil carbon tax a ‘fossil carbon dispoal fee’. I would suggest that this be collected a point sources such as gas wells, refineries and coal mine heads.

I want one big enough to not only remove all current emmisiions but also start removing some of the 500 GtC of past emissions. If everybody paid their share of current emissions, then $15 per tonne of CO2 emitted would do. But not everybody will, so maybe $20 from those who can be required to pay a fossil carbon disposal fee. The 500 GtC is almost entirely the airfill from developed countries. Maybe the fee should be higher in developed countries, sat $35 per tonne of CO2 emitted.

You might like to work out how much this would raise the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Some tens of cents is all. For 60% carbon bituminous coal that is $53 per short ton of coal which is currently selling on the spot market for about $130–140 per short ton. That will raise the price of the electricity so generated by a very few cents per kilowatt-hour.

Right as usual.

David –

The carbon tax could not be too high for my taste, but is using the word “tax” without the word “cut” immediately before or after even possible politically?

I would push the “all hands on deck” idea and say that the more we conserve (earning tax-free income for individuals) and the faster we reduce emissions, the lower the need for a tax.

In other words, conservation is a two-fer: you get tax-free income immediately and reduce the “risk” of a carbon tax.

And keep reminding people of all the ways they can conserve.

What might we do “right now” that would help the economy and help the environment?

Weatherization projects. Put a lot of unemployed house builders to work and get money flowing into companies that make insulation and caulk.

Inefficient appliance buybacks. Create sales of efficient refrigerators and help both retail merchants and manufacturers.

We could also call up every under-construction wind farm and solar “ranch” and ask if they needed any help – either low rate loans or wheels greased.

We could also fund college scholarships for those going into green energy. Some people who need to retool could head to a junior college for quick training on how to work the wind farms. Those people are hurting for good help. How about “family support” scholarships rather than extended unemployment payments?

Those are the sorts of things that can get some money flowing around our communities ASAP.