James Hansen's climate letter to Barack Obama - great!

[johan helge]

The letter emphazises (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/01/letter-to-barack-obama):

- the "profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet" and
- what the top experts think should be done. I hadn't heard about these two ideas before:


A "CARBON TAX AND 100% DIVIDEND":

This "is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. <..> The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. <..>

The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. <..> It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead."


B "URGENT R&D ON 4TH GENERATION NUCLEAR POWER"

4th generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4th GNP (and CCS) is: "it cannot be ready before 2030." However, the time needed could be much abbreviated with a Presidential initiative and Congressional support. <..>

Existing nuclear reactors use less than 1% of the energy in uranium, leaving more than 99% in long-lived nuclear waste. 4th GNP can "burn" that waste, leaving a small volume of waste with a half-life of decades rather than thousands of years."

See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/02/obama-climate-change-james-hansen.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Thanks - there's an extra trailing '.' at the end of your 2nd link URL

which means the link says 'not found'. Very interesting - I like one of the comments in the 2nd link, saying "unsustainable growth" should be referred to as "obviously doomed growth". That commenter is right - we need a change of view:

Growth in an economy designed as a parasite on its environment (and often, its people) is often politely referred to as unsustainable. We could also say it's obviously doomed as resources run out and wastes pile up in the air and everywhere else. If we're saying let's run a doomed economy more steadily or with more care about one particular kind of waste then we should save our breath. However if we can imagine an economy which measures its economic growth according to net positive impacts then we can start to be serious about cutting GHG levels as part of a global economic and ecological recovery.

[johan helge]

2. Thanks,

the editing period is over, so here's the second link:

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

Anyway, implicitly, the letter also says how important Barack Obama is. Finally, the experts have someone who cares, to talk to.