Handout image from NASA of ice conditions at the end of the 2007 melt season in the Arctic. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, sea ice extent that year dropped to 38 percent below average and 24 percent below the 2005 record. (AFP PHOTO / NASA AMSRE-E)
UPI Photo/Patrick D. McDermott/FILE
Dr. James E. Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, speaks in July 2008 at the National Press Club to mark the 20th anniversary of the "Hansen Hearing," the Senate Energy Committee's hearing on climate change, which marked the first time a top climate scientist declared that global temperatures had risen beyond the range of natural variability.
James Hansen, one of the world’s most eminent climate scientists, and his wife, Anniek, have written an open letter to Barack and Michelle Obama on the urgency of the need to halt global warming.
The four-page letter [PDF], which Hansen has asked Mr. Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, to forward to the president-elect, warns of the “profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet.”
Mr. Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is an adjunct professor in earth sciences at Columbia University, testified before the Senate in 1988 about the dangers of greenhouse gases and is largely responsible for first introducing the concept of global warming to the American public.
“Factories of Death”
The Hansens propose a three-pronged approach to tackling the climate crisis. First, they call for a moratorium on all new coal-fired power plants that do not effectively capture carbon dioxide emissions (a technology that has yet to be proven reliable). Burning coal, they point out, releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all other fossil fuels combined. Phasing out coal, they say, “is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem.”
They predict that the continued construction of coal plants would raise atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to the point at which one million species would be driven to extinction, which roughly works out to 400 species per plant. “Coal plants,” they write “are factories of death.”
An accumulated burnings tax
Second, they call for a straightforward, revenue-neutral carbon tax, as opposed to cap-and-trade mechanisms. The tax would apply to all oil, gas, and coal at the well-head or at the point of entry, so that it would affect all goods that rely on fossil fuels. One hundred percent of the revenue from the tax would be redistributed equally, with monthly deposits in citizen’s bank accounts. Such a tax, they argue, would penalize those with high carbon footprints and reward those with low ones. They write:
No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.
The Hansens also point out that this scheme would discourage illegal immigration and encourage naturalization “because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.” (They don’t mention that this plan would also penalize foreign students and resident aliens.)
A carbon tax is something of a hard sell in today’s political climate. Obama prefers a cap-and-trade plan as did his rival, John McCain, along with much of the political establishment. And the ball is already rolling on cap-and-trade: On Jan. 1. the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a carbon-trading plan with mandatory emissions caps, went into effect for 10 northeastern states.
But the notion still has some friends in high places. According to the Carbon Tax Center, supporters of carbon taxes include Steven Chu, Obama’s Energy Secretary-designate; Lawrence Summers, who will head the White House’s National Economic Council; and Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, to name a few.
Former vice president Al Gore supports replacing the personal income tax with a carbon tax. “We should tax what we burn, not what we earn,” he likes to say.
A green nuke deal
The third prong in the Hansens’s approach is nuclear power. They propose greatly increasing R&D for so-called fourth-generation nuclear power technology, which is designed to improve safety and greatly minimize nuclear waste.
Most scientists believe that such technology will not be commercially available until 2030, but the Hansens say that stepped-up government support could make it a reality sooner.
As for the dangers of fissionable materials getting into the hands of militants or hostile foreign powers, the Hansens write:
<< How hot was 2008? | MainPotential proliferation of nuclear material will always demand vigilance, but that will be true in any case, and our safety is best secured if the United States is involved in the technologies and helps define standards.
Will Green Nuclear save the world? Here are some challenges that first have to be overcome.
Build Rates? Even if we could begin building plants at the rate we did in the 1980’s, our peak decade, at this point we would not be able to do more than replace most of the plants slated for retirement. Engineers? Most of the available nuclear engineers are retiring. Since the 1980’s we have not been replacing them fast enough with younger men and women. My brother is one of the youngest nuks I know, and he turns 50 later this week. Fuel? Better find more. Known reserves of uranium are not handling the worlds running plants now. For years now we have been supplementing our fuel with recycled material from the nuclear weapons disarmament programs. We have six to eight years of that source left, before the existing plants are going to experience shortfalls. Commercial Grade Reactor Vessels? I’ve been told that the one plant left, in Japan, already has a 30-year backlog in orders. Time to Bet the Farm? Who will bet their company on a twelve year permitting and building process and expect to sell their 25 cent per kilowatt-hour electricity, when wind and solar are expected to reach “grid parity” of 15 cents per kilowatt-hour within three years?
Not impossible, just improbable.
Claude Williams, PE Seattle, WA
Claude, you seem to have fallen into the same logical fallacy that many “greens” do. It goes something like “Nuclear can’t solve the whole problem so why bother?” But EVERY energy source has this problem. You’re claiming that an industry that has been somewhat dormant (nuclear) has insufficient manufacturing and engineering capacity but that an industry that barely exists (wind/solar) can magically ramp up in no time at all. Fuel is sufficient for a large expansion of nuclear power http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/DDGs/2006/sokolov01062006.html
The plant that makes heavy forgings is Japanese Steel Works and they are upping their capacity. Additionally other forges are being modified to produce reactor vessels.
The cost estimates you provide are uncited and frankly, wrong. Wind and solar are intermittent power sources and require backup or storage to be a baseload power source. No one except Greenpeace expects this to be competitive with nuclear within a decade. In any case it’s a pointless debate, industry will build whatever is cheapest.
In pointing out that the capacity of nuclear to solve the climate crisis is limited, you are correct. Renewables and energy efficiency are expected to play a large role in solving the climate crisis but they suffer from the same capacity limitations as any idustry, and there simply isn’t time to wait.
Brian Wagner
Nuclear Engineer, DC
Brian, you’re making the mistake that assumes we can’t waste less power.
Many people have mobile phones that can surf the web, access email etc. You can recharge these with a hand winder costing $5. Really, we don’t need PCs at all, but could still retain communication.
Similarily, in the UK houses are now, by law, required to be very efficient in terms of insulation, and so heating requirements are small. If we retrofit older houses to the same extent, our energy requirements will fall.
New York city is about to move to LED lighting which will not only save $1 trillion over 10 years, but massively reduce CO2 emissions.
In terms of transport, people will drive for 2 hours to get to work simply because it is possible, and financially viable (coupled to house pricing). This is madness.
Of course, using less is not enough, since this will reduce the cost of energy, and various people will seize on the opportunity to waste lots of energy for low expenditure, so the government will have to control this market to some extent.
In the US of course, legislation for the common good can and has been enacted, eg: clear skies legislation, and FCC EMC emissions restriction, not to mention the basic illegality of theft and murder, so there is clear precedence for legislation to encourage people to do the right thing.
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
In the Bright Green Blog, Environment editor Judy Lowe and blogger Eoin O'Carroll help you sort through the news, ideas, opinions, trends, challenges, and – especially – solutions along the road to an environmentally sustainable future.
Judy Lowe is the editor of the Monitor's Environment section and the author of 10 gardening books.
Eoin O'Carroll, a member of the Monitor's Web team, has been blogging here since spring 2008. His first name is pronounced "Owen."
It’s almost like cars are the sea within which we live and we’re so attached to them, it’s so habitual. . . We are trying to lead the way, to set an example about how to get away from cars altogether."
Andrew Brown, founder and CEO of New Amsterdam Project, a Cambridge company that hauls cargo via industrial tricycles
07.02.09
07.01.09
06.30.09
06.30.09
06.29.09
1. bob arbuckle | 01.07.09
One problem with the carbon tax is that poor people have the most ineffienct houses and automobiles. It would also punish people with larger familes. Cap and Trade would create jobs and incentives. A carbon tax would create massive inflation and leaves very little room for creativity. Coal fired plants would just pass the expense along to consumers.