Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist

[CHIMO]

The scientist who convinced the world to take notice of the looming danger of global warming says it would be better for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in collapse.

In an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen, the world's pre-eminent climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.

"I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it's a disaster track," said Hansen, who heads the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation. If it is going to be the Kyoto-type thing then will spend years trying to determine exactly what that means." He was speaking as progress towards a deal in Copenhagen received a boost today, with India revealing a target to curb its carbon emissions. All four of the major emitters – the US, China, EU and India – have now tabled offers on emissions, although the equally vexed issue of funding for developing nations to deal with global warming remains deadlocked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/02/copenhagen-climate-change-james-hansen

[tabatha]

1. Rec'd an unrec.

[theoldman]

2. And just who voted him the pre-eminent climate scientist?

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. We did

You must have been out that day…

[joshcryer]

10. About 20 years of being 100% dead on right.

His track record is freaking remarkably beyond comprehension. His initial global warming predictions were dead on accurate given that *it could not be detected from noise* in the measurements.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. There is a plague of all or nothing thinking here on the left.

I wonder where it comes from.

[bananas]

5. Hansen is a Republican.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. That explains the all or nothing thinkging.

Thanks.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Now let’s be fair

A lot of Democrats are really quite absolutist in their thinking.

[joshcryer]

8. Source?

If he is a Republican it must be in Name Only because he supports direct action and many progressive actions. He's not a conservative, put it that way. Or a right winger in any useful sense of the word.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. “moderately conservative”

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/TNA12-StateOfTheArt-Hansen.pdf

… Shortly after his resignation, Deutsch complained to reporters that “Dr. Hansen and his supporters have a very partisan agenda and ties reaching to the top of the Democratic Party. Anyone perceived to be a Republican, a Bush supporter or a Christian is singled out and labeled a threat to their views. I encourage anyone interested in this story to consider the other side, to consider Dr. Hansen’s true motivations and to consider the dangerous implications of only hearing out one side of the global warming debate.” (Hansen responded with a statement calling Deutsch’s claims “nonsense” and describing his own political inclinations as “moderately conservative.”) …

[joshcryer]

13. Yeah, I'd rank him left of our moderate Democrats, even.

The Bush admin was and GOPers are no fan of Hansen. Fee and dividend, for example, is completely against their beliefs in every way conceivable.

[bananas]

34. Our moderate Democrats didn't support McCain over Obama

Democrats age 18-29 voted 95% for Obama,
age 30+ voted 88% for Obama.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election

[joshcryer]

41. He was in the 11%, big deal.

Independents broke even. Big deal. You can't judge his climate activism.

[bananas]

15. Registered independent, but

he considers himself "moderately conservative" and wanted to vote for McCain in 2004.
I'll see if I can find anything more.

Here's something he wrote in 2004:

Google html version: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:cHgx0JeCuOoJ:admin.earth.columbia.edu/news/2004/images/DAI.25Oct20041.pdf+%22james+hansen%22+republican+site:columbia.edu&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
pdf: http://admin.earth.columbia.edu/news/2004/images/DAI.25Oct20041.pdf

Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference*
A Discussion of Humanity’s Faustian Climate Bargain and the Payments Coming Due
James E. Hansen
Kintnersville, Pennsylvania
October 26, 2004

<snip>

4. Disclosure

Given the relevance of climate, energy and the environment to national politics and the
upcoming election, I want to disclose potentially relevant personal information. I consider
myself to be moderately conservative, middle-of-the-road. I am registered to vote in
Pennsylvania as an independent. My favorite for the President would be John McCain, but he is
not on the ballot.

Because of all the hoopla around global warming in the 1980s, I had the privilege of
meeting lots of people in Washington. To me the most impressive one, who would have made a
great President in my opinion, was a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, John Heinz
(conceivably I am biased because he told me that he had once protected me from John Sununu).
John Heinz was someone who gave appropriate weight to both economic growth and the
environment, the latter being a passion of his.

Several years ago I received the Heinz Environment Award. I don’t know who
nominated me for that award or how the selection works. I am confident that it has no impact on
my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings.

In the upcoming election I will vote for John Kerry. I have reservations. I don’t like his
appeal to Nevada voters by promising there will be no nuclear waste disposal there. Nuclear
waste disposal is an important technical problem that is not insurmountable, but the more it is
politicized the harder it gets. However, overall, in my opinion, John Kerry has a far better grasp
than President Bush on the important issues that we face.

As for the area in which I have expertise, climate change and it relation to energy use, my
impression is that John Kerry intends to call in industry leaders, tell them that climate change is
something that they must deal with now, and offer to work with them. He is certainly not in
denial of the existence of the climate change problem.

[joshcryer]

16. And? Are you really trashing Hansen because he thinks nuclear can work?

Is that the extent of the critique?

[bananas]

18. No.

I'm not trashing Hansen.

[joshcryer]

20. You called him a Republican, are you sure you're not trying to discredit him?

[bananas]

23. Nope - I'm a big supporter of Hansen

He's registered independent, but he leans Republican.
On NPR in 2008, he said he supported McCain over Obama.
He describes himself as a moderate conservative.

[joshcryer]

24. Yes, but he's certainly left of many of our moderate Democrats.

On climate he is progressive.

[bananas]

35. Here's some of my threads supporting Hansen

Read the replies - people saying that Hansen wasn't really calling for civil disobedience, etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3509639
Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x272681
Susan Sarandon: Join climate action civil disobedience March 2 at Capitol Coal Plant in DC

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x273552
Dr. James Hansen calls for Civil Disobedience at the Capitol March 2nd

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x188535
NASA's Chief Climate Scientist Stirs Controversy With Call for Civil Disobedience

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3763723
Live from DC: Thousands Converge for Capitol Climate Action Against Dirty Coal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x199763
Daryl Hannah and James Hansen arrested protesting coal - pics and video

[bananas]

21. James Hansen: "Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term"

"and they both have serious issues even over the longer term."

April 2008: James Hansen writes to Duke Energy on coal: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/1/16055/76057

Near-term demands for energy can be satisfied via a real emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term, and they both have serious issues even over the longer term. But Massachusetts and California have demonstrated the tremendous potential of efficiency aided by appropriate incentives.

[joshcryer]

22. "[fourth generation nuclear power] deserves your strong support"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/01/scentist-letter-hansen-barack-obama

[bananas]

25. Yeah - he supports R&D on 4th gen reactors - I do too

and I've said that in the past.
But I don't think it's going to live up to the hype.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. He wants 3rd generation nuclear reactors too

From just a few days ago:

At the top of the list has to be energy efficiency, but you do need energy. The next thing on the list has to be renewables, but I don't think renewables can do the job at a cost the public is willing to pay. Germany is now getting seven percent of their energy from renewables and it's affected the energy prices enough that some companies are moving to other countries. Renewables are not yet as cheap as fossil fuels.

I think you need to include nuclear power in the mix, and you need to do it in a way that allows nuclear to compete economically with coal for baseload electrical power. The truth is the next generation of nuclear power, the third generation which companies are proposing now, is inherently safer than the second generation.

Yet even with the the deficiencies of the early generation, the safety record of nuclear power is not matched by any other major industry in the United States. Even wind power there have been 30-some deaths in the making of wind turbines. Nuclear critics, anti-nuclear, have been so effective in the U.S. it has just not been possible here.

But for China and India there is just no way the Sun and wind are going to provide the energy they need. We've got to allow nuclear energy to be in the mix, and the United States should be in a leadership role. We still have the best nuclear experts in the world and we should take advantage of that at this point.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/12/james_hansen_the_interview_in_its_entirety.html

[bananas]

17. Aug 2008: Hansen supports John McCain over Obama for President

Obama became the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee in June 2008.
Two months later on NPR Hansen said he supported McCain: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x167552

[joshcryer]

19. OK. So?

Does this change his environmentalist record? Or what are you trying to say?

[bananas]

26. Post #4: "There is a plague of all or nothing thinking here on the left."

My point is that Hansen is not "on the left", he describes himself as "moderately conservative".
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

[joshcryer]

27. I consider him environmentally progressive.

I think environmentally speaking he is very far to the left.

[bananas]

28. John Warner said Jimmy Carter was right - does that make him a leftist?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x165384
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x374252

[joshcryer]

29. I didn't say Hansen was a leftist.

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

9. Hansen is a grandfather.

His track record should give him at least some bit of credibility. His urgency is self-admittedly because he doesn't want his grandchildren to inherit a really different planet from now.

[kristopher]

31. He has a great deal of credibility

Bananas never said for an instant anything that could be taken otherwise. You're confused by reality again; it tends to clash pretty harshly with that radio talk show style of study you use.

[joshcryer]

39. This is DU, bananas called him a "Republican."

Like you, bananas is very quick to call respectable people Republicans.

[kristopher]

42. HE called him a Republican because he IS a Republican

That's what I meant by you having trouble with reality.

When I read the exchange I could just see your eyes first glazing over, then lighting up with a flashing "Tilt, tilt, tilt" warning. It was a vision of a pinball game where the tidbit that he was a Republican was bouncing off the neat little categorizations you assign to everything in order to keep from having to actually think for yourself.

You have many, many dead spots like that in your mind where you have (ala talk radio's level of discussion) used any convenient excuse to dismiss information that causes you cognitive dissonance.

It's a real hoot to observe.

[Viking12]

12. He's right. We need a straight up carbon tax.

But we'll never get that either...

[joshcryer]

14. Basically he doesn't want us to break the threshold, whereas every other policy maker...

...thinks "oh we'll go over the threshold and come back down after we get technologically advanced enough."

[bananas]

30. No - this disagreement is over carbon tax vs cap and trade

Some background here: http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/05/james-hansen-waxman-markey-carbon-tax-cap-and-trade/
and here: http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/09/nasas-james-hansen-pushes-false-misleading-and-pointless-attack-on-u-s-climate-action/

I agree with Joe Romm and Al Gore - a carbon tax wouldn't be any more effective, and probably wouldn't pass at all.

Nobelist Al Gore, who also embraces a 350 ppm target like Hansen, combines political realism with his climate science realism, which is why he takes the exact opposite view that Hansen does — see Gore on Waxman-Markey: “One of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress … has the moral significance” of 1960s civil rights legislation and Marshall Plan.

[joshcryer]

32. "Political realism" isn't going to keep us from hitting the dreaded 2.0C.

I know this is hard for people here to accept. Just wait until after COP15. The "doomers" as you might want to call us will be shown correct.

[hatrack]

36. "Mother, I've turned the cooling unit back on!!"

"Self-destruct in T-minus five . . . minutes."

"You BITCH!!"

[NickB79]

37. Perfect example.

:thumbsup:

[Dead_Parrot]

38. Followed (in our case) by...

"How many escape pods are there?"
"None."
"Did you count them?"
"Twice."

[Ghost Dog]

33. Agree. But it's a political decision,

and an international one at that.

At present, carbon tax proposals will not fly. Cap & trade will be difficult enough to obtain agreement on, even though the initial proposals actually favor wealthy polluters at the expense of the poor. But once such a system is in place, the trading/pricing scheme can be modified, on a sliding scale as it were, in order to shift it more towards a straight carbon tax regime as required by circumstances and as political possibility allows.

Political/economic realism, yes. Seems to be our only hope.

I for one don't hold out much hope, though, of averting climate (and economic and political) chaos. And that, very soon.

[joshcryer]

40. Fee and dividend would help the economy, and it would force other countries to follow suite.

If every export from China has a fee related to CO2 usage, then China will, in its own interests, develop technologies to reduce the fee. It's really simple stuff.

Instead what China and India want us to do, as consumers, is have clean electricity and vehicles, but still consume CO2-heavy products without baring any responsibility for it. It's a have my cake and eat it too scenario. This is why COP15 is going to go nowhere.