——

Bill McKibben: Jim, more than a dozen nations have set new high-temperature records this year, and we’ve seen the all-time marks set for Asia (Pakistan at 129 degrees Fahrenheit) and Southeast Asia. Given that the global temperature has “only” gone up about a degree, can you explain how this kind of heat is possible?

James Hansen: Sure. What we see happening with new record temperatures, both warm and cold, is in good agreement with what we predicted in the 1980s when I testified to Congress about the expected effect of global warming. I used colored dice then to emphasize that global warming would cause the climate dice to be “loaded.” Record local daily high temperatures now occur more than twice as often as record daily cold temperatures. The predominance of new record highs over record lows will continue to increase over the next few decades, so the perceptive person should recognize that climate is changing.

Yes, global average warming is “only” about a degree, but that is actually a lot. During the last major ice age, when New York, Minneapolis, and Seattle were under an ice sheet a mile thick, global average temperature was about 5 degrees colder than it is now. The last time Earth was 2 degrees warmer so much ice melted that sea level was about twenty-five meters (eighty feet) higher than it is today.

We scientists create a communications problem by speaking about average global warming in degrees Celsius. Global warming in degrees Fahrenheit is almost twice as large (exact factor is 1.8) and warming is about twice as much over land (where people live!) than over ocean. Also certain regions and times experience bigger changes than others. (So far the United States has been lucky, with smaller average warming than most land areas. There is no reason to think that luck will continue.)

But remember that weather variability, which can be 10 to 20 degrees from day to day, will always be greater than average warming. And weather variability will become even greater in the future, as I explain in the book, if we don’t slow down greenhouse gas emissions. If we let warming continue to the point of rapid ice sheet collapse, all hell will break loose. That’s the reason for “Storms” in the book title.

Bill McKibben and James Hansen.Photo: K. Davison/GreenpeaceBM: What was the deal with “climategate” — the East Anglia e-mails and IPCC’s “Himalayan error”? Much of the public was left with impression that global warming may be a hoax!

JH: There was a real hoax, for sure — perpetrated on the public by people who prefer business-as-usual, people who concocted a misinformation campaign. They want the public to think that the science is suspect. Doubt is all they need. Their tactics included swift-boating and character assassination, using e-mails stolen from scientists’ computers. They did an effective job. Now policy makers continue to sit on their hands, leaving fossil fuel subsidies in place, allowing fossil fuel companies to call the tune — and the devil with young people and nature.

Yes, the stolen e-mails exposed bad behavior by scientists, notably a reluctance of some scientists to give deniers the input data for global temperature analysis. That allowed global warming deniers to assert that global climate change was “cooked” data. But that assertion is nonsense. The NASA temperature analysis agrees well with the East Anglia results. And the NASA data are all publicly available, as is the computer program that carries out the analysis. Look at it this way: If anybody could show that the global warming curve was wrong they would become famous, maybe win a Nobel Prize. All the measurement data are available. So why don’t the deniers produce a different result? They know that they cannot, so they resort to theft of e-mails, snipping private comments out of context, and character assassination. IPCC’s “Himalayan error” was another hoax perpetrated on the public. The perpetrators, global warming deniers, did a brilliant job of playing the scientifically obtuse media like a fiddle. Here is how they did it.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) produced a series of thick reports, several thousand pages long. Of course it is possible to identify minor flaws in it — it is inconceivable that some flaws would not exist within those thousands of pages. The task of the deniers was to find a minor flaw or flaws, and then work the media so as to make the public suspicious of the entire report. They did their dirty work masterfully, for weeks continually releasing tidbits about possible flaws or uncertainties in the report, dutifully reported by the media even though none of the tidbits altered conclusions about the significance of global warming.

The biggest flaw that global warming deniers could find in the IPCC reports was a statement that all Himalayan glaciers may disappear by 2035 if greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase. Actually, because of the great altitude and size of Himalayan glaciers, some of them almost surely will survive longer than twenty-five years. The estimate of 2035 for glacier demise was not even in the main IPCC report on the physical climate system, but rather in a less-scrutinized report discussing practical implications of global warming.

Here is the real-world situation: Glaciers are melting rapidly all around the world — in the Rockies, the Andes, the Alps, and the Himalayas. All glaciers in Glacier National Park in the United States will be gone in about twenty-five years if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. We will need to rename it Glacierless National Park.

Observed rapid loss of glaciers confirms global warming — it is not a reason to question it! Glacier loss also shows the importance of global warming. During the dry season about half the water in rivers such as the Indus and Brahmaputra is provided by glacier melt. If the glaciers disappear there will be more spring snowmelt and greater floods, but a dangerous reduction of fresh water in dry seasons. Hundreds of millions of people depend on these rivers for fresh water. Yet climate change deniers scored a coup by trumpeting that IPCC had made an error, turning scientific evidence on its head. Melting glaciers, properly a cause for concern, became a propaganda tool to befuddle the public. A capable media would have exposed the trick. Instead the media facilitated it, spreading “news” that the IPCC report was flawed.

IPCC scientists had done a good job of producing a comprehensive report. It is a rather thankless task, on top of their normal jobs, often requiring them to work sixty, eighty, or more hours per week, with no pay for overtime or for worki
ng on the IPCC report. Yet they were portrayed as incompetent or, worse, dishonest. Scientists do indeed have deficiencies — especially in communicating with the public and defending themselves against viscous attacks by professional swift-boaters.

The public, at some point, will realize they were hoodwinked by the deniers. The danger is that deniers may succeed in delaying actions to deal with energy and climate. Delay will enrich fossil fuel executives, but it is a great threat to young people and the planet.

…

BM: Can we stop [climate change]? Do we understand what is needed to stabilize the situation?

JH: We can estimate what is needed pretty well. Stabilizing climate requires, to first order, that we restore Earth’s energy balance. If the planet once again radiates as much energy to space as it absorbs from the sun, there no longer will be a drive causing the planet to get warmer. Restoring planetary energy balance would not immediately stop sea level rise, but it should keep sea level rise small. Restoring energy balance also would prevent climate change from becoming a huge force for species extinction and ecosystem collapse. We can accurately calculate how Earth’s energy balance will change if we reduce long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. We would need to reduce carbon dioxide by 35 to 40 ppm (parts per million) to increase Earth’s heat radiation to space by one half watt, if other long-lived gases stay the same as today. That reduction would make atmospheric carbon dioxide amount to about 350 ppm.

BM: Is that how you came up with the policy goal of 350 ppm?

JH: It is one of several reasons, as we explained in our 2008 “Target CO 2” paper. For example, there is also ocean acidification. As atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the ocean becomes relatively more acidic. Ocean biologists conclude that for the sake of life in the ocean we need to aim for an atmospheric carbon dioxide amount no higher than 350 ppm.

But yes, Earth’s energy balance is indeed the criterion that provides the most fundamental constraint for what must be done to stabilize climate.

BM: The 350.org team has met opposition from some climate activists who demand an even lower target for CO 2 , say 300 ppm or the preindustrial CO 2 amount, 280 ppm. Would the preindustrial CO 2 amount be a reasonable target?

JH: All that we can say for sure now is that the target should be “less than 350 ppm.” And that is all that is needed for policy purposes. That target tells us that we must rapidly phase out coal emissions, leave unconventional fossil fuels in the ground, and not go after the last drops of oil and gas. In other words, we must move as quickly as possible to the post–fossil fuel era of clean energies.

Getting back to 350 ppm will be difficult and will take time. By the time we get back to 350 ppm, we will know a lot more and we will be able to be more specific about what “less than 350 ppm” means. By then we should be measuring Earth’s energy balance very accurately. We will know whether the planet is back in energy balance and we will be able to see whether climate is stabilizing.

The reason that we cannot specify now an exact eventual value for CO 2 is because CO 2 is only one of the human-made climate forcings. Humans have also increased the amount of methane and tropospheric ozone in the air — but these gases are short-lived, so if we reduce the sources of these gases the amount in the air will decrease. It is plausible to reduce the amounts of methane and tropospheric ozone and there are good reasons to do so because ozone in the lower atmosphere is harmful to human health and crops. Realistic ozone and methane reductions will alleviate somewhat the amount by which we must reduce CO 2 . On the other hand, we expect that humanity will have some success during the next few decades in reducing atmospheric aerosols (fine particles in the air). Atmospheric aerosols are a health hazard, but they have a cooling effect on climate. Reducing atmospheric aerosols will increase the amount by which we must reduce CO 2 . However, human-made aerosols will not return to the preindustrial amount in the foreseeable future, nor will the human-made increase of the planet’s surface albedo, which also has a cooling effect.

Therefore, it is foolish to demand that policy makers reduce CO 2 to 280 ppm. Indeed, if, with a magic wand, we reduced CO 2 from today’s 389 ppm to 280 ppm that change would increase Earth’s heat radiation to space by almost 2 watts (per square meter). The planet would rapidly move toward a colder climate, probably colder than the Little Ice Age. Whoever wielded the magic wand might receive a Middle Ages punishment, such as being drawn and quartered.

BM: Speaking of punishments, you were arrested near Coal River Mountain in West Virginia for protesting against the leveling of mountaintops to extract coal. What was that about, and what is the status?

JH: Still no trial date has been set. According to the law, I could get as much as one year in prison. I am beginning to think that the authorities do not want a trial.

I was drawn into the mountaintop-removal plight when I gave a talk at Virginia Tech. The students told me about nearby Coal River Mountain, which Massey Energy plans to decapitate to extract coal. Mountaintop removal is morally indefensible. It pollutes the water supply and spoils the environment forever, all for a small amount of coal. Windmills on Coal River Mountain could provide as much energy in about a century. But mountaintop removal will lower the peak about four hundred feet, making Coal River Mountain an ineffectual source of wind energy. Mountaintop removal provides only 7 percent of United States coal production, which is less than the amount that we export. So it cannot be argued that it is needed in order to keep the lights on — it is needed only to line the pockets of a few fat-cat coal executives.

I went to Coal River Mountain to help draw attention to both mountaintop removal and the bigger issue, the need to phase out coal and stabilize climate. I was arrested while standing by the side of the road in front of the Massey Energy offices, reading a statement that Massey should provide funding for a new elementary school, because they had built a huge sludge pond on the side of the mountain right above Marsh Fork elementary school. If that earthen dam breaks, the school could be buried. It seems that Massey is pretty cavalier with the lives of children as well as the lives of miners working for the company.

Despite the publicity, mountaintop removal continues. I am disappointed that the Obama administration has not simply banned mountaintop removal. They could justify that action on environmental grounds. The jobs and economic stimulus from energy alternatives — energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear power — are superior to the kind of jobs and the dirty energy production that is provided by the coal industry. The number of coal jobs has dwindled. Shoving mountaintops into valleys with bulldozers does not require many people.

BM: Does this indicate that civil disobedience is not useful for solving the climate problem?

JH: I call it peaceful civil resistance. True, it has failed to achieve the actions needed to solve the climate problem — but every other approach has also failed. Civil resistance is a necessary part of the solution but, by itself, it is too weak as a tool for change.

BM: Then what else is required?

JH: The courts, the judiciary branch of government. The courts are less influenced by fossil fuel money than the legislative and executive branches. The situation is analogous to that of civil rights several decades ago. Nonviolent sit-ins drew attention to the immorality of discrimination and helped to get the c
ourts involved. That opened the door to real progress because courts had the ability to order desegregation under the equal protection provision of the Constitution. Eventually lawmakers became involved. Civil resistance was important because it helped broaden public awareness, and high public interest in turn helps to induce judiciary involvement. What has become crystal clear is that the executive and legislative branches of the government are not going to solve the climate problem on their own. A few years ago I thought that governments may not understand what the science is telling us, the urgency of the matter. But I learned in my interactions with governments in several nations that the governments are not ignorant of the climate problem, they are not unaware of the need to move on promptly to clean energies. Yet at most they set goals and take baby steps because they are under the strong influence of fossil fuel interests. There are too many people profiting from our addiction to fossil fuels — and they have a huge influence on our governments.

Look at what happened in Congress in 2010. The bills that Congress considered were grossly inadequate. The proposed emission reductions were much less than what the science calls for. Also the bills were full of loopholes and giveaways to the fossil fuel industry, guaranteeing continued reliance on fossil fuels. Nor did the president distinguish himself. The president did not make specific proposals or weigh in with the authority of his office. He should have spoken to the public and demanded that Congress take the actions that are needed for the public interest. Congress and the president are thumbing their noses at young people. Their failure to act means that young people can look forward to climate deteriorating out of their control, a planet that is much more desolate than the one that we inherited from our parents. My grandchildren, the most recent born just four months ago, probably will be alive for most of this century — my parents lived for almost ninety years. My children and grandchildren will experience the effect of our emissions — they will pay for our profligacy.

The attitude of Congress and the president angers me. They think they can do, or not do, whatever they please. It is as if they have no obligations to young people. Their primary concern seems to be their re-election; how they can beat the other party, make the other party look bad. When the public throws out one party, the other one is little different — they also think they can do whatever they please.

BM: You have argued that we need a third party, but the nature of our Constitution and the electoral system make it very difficult for a third party to succeed. We don’t have time to build a third party movement, do we?

JH: Probably not. We must force the present government to do its job. Politicians are not free to do whatever they darned well please. They have obligations to young people.

Responsibility to future generations is a concept common to most cultures, as I discuss in the book. Native Americans refer to an obligation to “the seventh generation.” Thomas Jefferson wrote that “Earth belongs in usufruct to the living,” meaning that we have the right to use property belonging to future generations, but not the right to damage that property. Jefferson, a farmer, used the usufruct concept specifically with regard to the soil, which, he argued, we must not deplete. He did not explicitly discuss the atmosphere, which seemed so huge to the colonials that they never worried that humans might deplete the atmosphere’s ability to sustain our lives and livelihoods.

Obligations to young people, it seems to me, are already clear in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This basic tenet leads directly to the right to equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution declares: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Over time the courts ruled that “any person” includes minorities and women, for example, and equal protection provided the principal basis for extension of civil rights to minorities.

Human-made climate change now raises a moral issue as momentous as any that the courts have considered in the past. Today’s adults are reaping the benefits of burning fossil fuels while leaving the consequences to be borne by young people and future generations. Are my grandchildren, and other young people, included in the category of “any person” and thus deserving equal protection of the laws? A positive answer, I believe, is obvious.

BM: You are suggesting that we file suit against the government?

JH: Precisely so. Begging Congress to be responsible does not work. Exhorting the president to be Churchillian does not work.

On the contrary, Congress has passed laws and the executive branch has defined and carried out policies that trample on the future of young people. Consider the subsidies of fossil fuels and the permission that is given to the fossil fuel industry to use the atmosphere as an open sewer without charge. We cannot let the government pretend that it does not realize the consequences of its actions.

A basis for suing the government is described by legal scholars such as Mary Wood at the University of Oregon. She shows that the Constitution implies a fiduciary responsibility of governments to protect the rights of the young and the unborn. She describes what she calls atmospheric trust litigation. Suits could and should be brought against not only the federal government but also state governments, and perhaps lower levels — and in other nations as well as the United States.

Courts ordered desegregation to achieve civil rights of minorities. Similarly, if a court finds that a government is failing in its obligations to young people, the court can require that government to submit plans for how it will reduce its emissions. Courts have authority to require governments to report back at intervals on the success of their actions and to define corrective actions if they fail to achieve specified reduction.

So we must define the emissions trajectory needed to avoid dangerous human-made climate change. In other words, how fast must emissions decline to avoid passing tipping points with disastrous consequences? I am working with Pushker Kharecha and Makiko Sato to define the required emissions scenario. Our paper will be titled “Sophie, Connor, Jake and Lauren versus Obama and the United States Congress.” Although we have not completed that task, it is clear that the requirement will be an annual emissions reduction of several percent per year.

BM: Wow. Let’s say the court instructs the government to reduce emissions so as to yield a safe level of greenhouse gases, which would mean getting carbon dioxide back below 350 ppm. Is it practical to achieve such a scenario?

JH: Absolutely. But it requires the government to be honest about what is needed. They cannot use tricks such as those in the House and Senate energy/climate bills. Science demands actual reductions in fossil fuel emissions, not phony offsets. An inadequate plan will be quickly exposed by emissions data — the amount of coal, oil, and gas being burned is well documented. A court would not be expected to mandate how emission reductions are to be achieved. The legislative and executive branches are responsible for defining and implementing the laws. But the
laws must yield “equal protection.” That requirement will force the government to face up to facts. The most fundamental energy fact is this: As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will continue to be used.

Fossil fuels are cheapest only because of government policies. First, there are substantial direct and indirect subsidies of fossil fuels. Second, fossil fuel companies are not made to pay for the damage that fossil fuels do to human health. Instead, the public is forced to bear the costs of air and water pollution. Third, fossil fuel companies are not made to pay for the costs of damage to the environment and the well-being of future generations caused by climate change.

The government must face the fact that fossil fuel use will not decline rapidly unless a rising fee is added to fossil fuels, a fee that should be collected from fossil fuel companies at the source before the first sale. Such a carbon fee will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for fossil fuels. Therefore it is important that 100 percent of the collected funds be distributed to the public, preferably as a monthly “green check,” although the funds could be used in part to reduce taxes. This “fee and green check” approach would leave about 60 percent of the public receiving more from the green check than they would pay in increased energy prices. The objective is to reward people who reduce their carbon footprint and to stimulate the development of clean energies.

BM: There are people who say that, in principle, your idea for a fee and green check is the appropriate underlying policy. And if it were accompanied by energy efficiency standards, regulations that remove barriers to efficiency, and appropriate government investments in energy technologies, it would be possible to achieve rapid reduction of carbon emissions. But they say it is unrealistic because in practice Congress always builds in giveaways and favors to special interests, which make the legislation less effective than it should be.

JH: Sure, that is the way it has worked. But solution of the energy/climate problem requires a different approach. For example, there could be a bipartisan commission that defines appropriate polices to achieve court-ordered emission reductions, with Congress agreeing to either accept or reject the proposed policies without the ability to add in special favors. The public, I believe, is getting really fed up with the government, with the role of special interests and congressional earmarks. If we cannot overcome the role of special interest money in Washington, then both our nation and the planet are in deep doo-doo. This is a crisis, but I believe it is one that we are capable of overcoming.

BM: There are also a lot of people who say that it doesn’t matter what the United States does, because China now has the greatest emissions and its emissions are growing the fastest.

JH: China is taking the right steps to move toward carbon-free energy. They are now number one in the world in production of clean energy technologies: solar power, wind power, and nuclear power. Also, China stands to suffer greatly from global climate change because China has several hundred million people living near sea level and the country is already experiencing large damaging regional climate disasters.

There is no doubt that China will want to move rapidly toward clean carbon-free energies. When the United States realizes that it must impose an internal fee on carbon emissions, it should not be difficult to get China to agree to do the same.

Also, it is important to recognize that the United States is responsible for three times more of the excess (human-made) carbon dioxide in the air today than any other nation, with China being second. The much greater responsibility for accumulated human-made emissions is true despite the fact that China’s population is three times greater than the United States’. So there is no reason to expect China to act first to reduce emissions.

However, there are advantages in beginning to act rapidly. China is investing heavily in clean energies, and it is likely that they will recognize the merits of imposing an internal carbon price to spur development and implementation of clean energies. The United States risks becoming second-class technologically and economically this century if it does not stop subsidizing dirty technologies and instead move toward progressive policies such as fee and green check, which will stimulate development of clean energies.

Let’s look at the surface temperatures in the summer of 2010, which justifiably received a lot of attention. Figure 1 shows maps of the June-July-August temperature anomaly (relative to 1951-1980) in the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature analysis (described in paper in press at Reviews of Geophysics, available online [PDF]) for 2009 and 2010, as well as maps for December-January-February (Northern Hemisphere winter, Southern Hemisphere summer) for the past two years.

June-July-August 2010 was the fourth warmest in the 131 year GISS analysis, while 2009 was the second warmest. 2010 was a bit cooler than 2009 mainly because a moderate El Nino in the equatorial Pacific Ocean during late 2009 and early 2010 has been replaced by a moderate La Nina. Also most of Antarctica was cool in winter 2010, while it was warm in 2009. Antarctic winter temperature anomalies are very noisy, fluctuating chaotically from year to year.

The maps make clear that perceptions of how hot it was depend on where you live. The two warmest anomalies on the planet this past summer were Eastern Europe and the Antarctic Peninsula. Not many people live on the Antarctic Peninsula and an anomaly of even several degrees in winter there is not a big deal. But the warm anomaly centered in Eastern Europe, which covered most of Europe and the Middle East, was noticed, to say the least. It was also quite warm in Japan, where the prior summer had been cooler than the 1951-1980 mean. The United States, which had been unusually cool in the summer of 2009, was warm this past summer, except the Pacific Northwest, which was cooler than the 1951-1980 climatology.

Figure 1. Seasonal-mean temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 mean for the most recent two summers and winters.

These global temperature anomaly maps may help people understand that the temperature anomaly in one place in one season has limited relevance to global trends. Unfortunately, it is common for the public to take the most recent local seasonal temperature anomaly as indicative of long-term climate trends. Last winter in the Northern Hemisphere (left side of Figure 1) provided a good example of this misperception. As discussed in the Reviews of Geophysics paper, the extreme winter cold anomalies in Eurasia and the United States were a fluke associated with the most extreme Arctic Oscillation in the record.

Figure 2. Winter and summer temperature anomalies over United States, Europe, and Japan relative to 1951-1980 mean. Areas employed to calculate anomalies were the 48 contiguous states for the United States, rectangle defined by 36-70N latitude and 10W-30E longitude for Europe, and 40 1-by-1 degree boxes approximately covering Japan. If the box defining Europe were extended to the east to encompass western Russia, the 2010 anomaly would be comparable to the warm anomaly in 2003.

This does not mean that local anomalies are unrelated to global trends, but it is necessary to look at statistics. Figure 2 shows winter and summer surface temperature anomalies averaged over the United States (contiguous 48 states), Europe, and Japan. In each of these locations, either seven or eight of the last 10 winters were warmer than the 1951-1980 mean winter temperature. Summer temperatures are a bit less noisy: Eight of the last 10 summers were warmer than the 1951-1980 mean in the United States and Japan, and 10 of 10 in Europe. So if you are perceptive and old enough, you should be able to notice a trend toward warmer seasons.

Extreme anomalies get the most attention, and rightly so because they have the greatest practical impact. Figure 2 is relevant to the likelihood of having extreme climate anomalies. For example, the curve for European summer temperatures shows how the baseline is shifting. The hot summer of 2003 was so far above the long-term mean summer temperature that it may have seemed to be a once in 1000 years fluke. However, Figure 2 shows that the baseline for summer temperature in Europe has changed as global warming occurred over the past few decades. That trend is expected to continue if greenhouse gases continue to increase, so it will not be surprising if an extremely warm summer anomaly occurs there again within the next several years.

Figure 3. Seasonal temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 mean for the globe and for low latitudes. Nino 3.4 index is as defined in Reviews of Geophysics preprint.

Figure 3 has graphs of the global and low latitude seasonal temperature anomalies. The low latitude anomalies are strongly dependent on the El Nino-La Nina cycle of equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature anomalies, as shown by the Nino 3.4 SST2. Global temperature anomalies tend to reflect Nino variability, with, on average, a lag of about three months.

The global seasonal temperature anomaly for March-April-May in 2010 was the warmest in the 131 year GISS temperature data set. The low latitude temperature anomaly was less than in 1998, as the recent El Nino was much weaker than the one in 1998. The June-July-August temperature anomalies dropped as the equatorial Pacific Ocean has moved into the La Nina phase. Computer models suggest that the La Nina may peak near the end of 2010. Regardless of how long the current La Nina extends, the next two or three seasonal-mean global and low latitude temperature anomalies are likely to be cooler than the anomalies for the past four seasons.

Figure 4. January-August surface temperature anomalies during three specific years in the GISS analysis, and comparison of global monthly anomalies for those years.

Figure 4 provides an indication of the likely effect of the current cooling trend on the rank of the 2010 calendar year temperature anomaly. The maps compare January-August temperature anomalies for 2010, 2005 (the warmest year in the GISS analysis), and 1998 (one of the warmest years in the GISS analysis, the temperature being boosted by the “El Nino of the century”). 2010 is clearly the warmest of these years for the first eight months. However, the 4th section of Figure 4 shows that the monthly anomalies in 2010 have declined steadily over the past five months as the Pacific Ocean moved into the La Nina phase. The last four months of 2005 (green line in Figure 4) were unusually warm, so it is not possible to say yet whether 2005 or 2010 will be the warmest calendar year in the GISS analysis. It is likely that the 2005 and 2010 calendar year means will turn out to be sufficiently close that it will be difficult to say which year was warmer, and results of our analysis may differ from those of other groups. What is clear, though, is that the warmest 12-month period in the GISS analysis was reached in mid-2010, as shown in the Reviews of Geophysics preprint.

Projections of trends over the next few years are possible based on the following considerations: (1) the planet is out of energy balance by at least several tenths of one W/m2 due to the rapid increase of greenhouse gases during the past f
ew decades, as confirmed by measurements of changing ocean heat content, (2) inertia of energy systems that assures continuing growth of atmospheric CO2 by about 2 ppm per year for the next few years, (3) expectation that the solar irradiance will climb out of the recent long-lasting solar minimum, as shown in Figure 5, (4) model projections suggesting that the current La Nina may bottom out near the end of 2010. Given the dominant effect of El Nino-La Nina on short-term temperature change and the usual lag of a few months between the Nino index and its effect on global temperature, it is unlikely that 2011 will reach a new global record temperature.

Figure 5. Solar irradiance through June 2010. [Fröhlich & Lean, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 12, 273, 2004.]

In contrast, it is likely that 2012 will reach a record high global temperature. The principal caveat is that the duration of the current La Nina could stretch an extra year, as some prior La Ninas have (see Nino 3.4 index at the bottom of Figure 3). Given the association of extreme weather and climate events with rising global temperature, the expectation of new record high temperatures in 2012 also suggests that the frequency and magnitude of extreme events could reach a high level in 2012. Extreme events include not only high temperatures, but also indirect effects of a warming atmosphere including the impact of higher temperature on extreme rainfall and droughts. The greater water vapor content of a warmer atmosphere allows larger rainfall anomalies and provides the fuel for stronger storms driven by latent heat.

Finally, a comment on frequently asked questions of the sort: Was global warming the cause of the 2010 heat wave in Moscow, the 2003 heat wave in Europe, the all-time record high temperatures reached in many Asian nations in 2010, the incredible Pakistan flood in 2010? The standard scientist answer is, “You cannot blame a specific weather/climate event on global warming.” That answer, to the public, translates as “No.”

However, if the question were posed as, “Would these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?,” an appropriate answer in that case is “Almost certainly not.” That answer, to the public, translates as “Yes,” i.e., humans probably bear a responsibility for the extreme event.

In either case, the scientist usually goes on to say something about probabilities and how those are changing because of global warming. But the extended discussion, to much of the public, is chatter. The initial answer is all important.

Although either answer can be defended as “correct,” we suggest that leading with the standard caveat, “You cannot blame … ” is misleading and allows a misinterpretation about the danger of increasing extreme events. Extreme events, by definition, are on the tail of the probability distribution. Events in the tail of the distribution are the ones that change most in frequency of occurrence as the distribution shifts due to global warming.

For example, the “hundred-year flood” was once something that you had better be aware of, but it was not very likely soon and you could get reasonably priced insurance. But the probability distribution function does not need to shift very far for the 100-year event to be occurring several times a century, along with a good chance of at least one 500-year event.

Such negative questions and attitudes are increasing. How refreshing, on cold, windy Thanksgiving Plus One Day, which we spend with our children and grandchildren, when I went outside to shoot baskets with 5-year-old Connor. Connor is very bright, but needs work on his hand-to-eye coordination. I set the basket at a convenient height for him, but his first several shots banged off the backboard off-target. Then he said, very brightly and bravely, “I don’t quit, because I have never-give-up fighting spirit.” It seems his karate lessons are paying off.

Some adults need Connor’s help. A Scientific American article by Michael Lemonick, “Beyond the Tipping Point”, described our 2008 paper “Target Atmospheric CO2 : Where Should Humanity Aim?” Lemonick concluded with the almost-obligatory “fair and balanced” opinion, delivered by Steve Schneider. In response to our conclusion that we must get atmospheric CO2 to peak during the next few decades, and then decline back to 350 ppm or less, Schneider opines “It has no chance in hell. None. Zero. The best we can do is to overshoot, reach 450 or 550 parts per million, then come back as quickly as possible on the back end.”

Everyone knows we are overshooting. The 2009 CO2 global mean is 387 ppm and it is increasing 2 ppm per year. In our “Target” paper we showed that, if coal emissions were phased down linearly to zero in 2030 and emissions from unconventional fossil fuels were prohibited, peak CO2 could be kept at about 425 ppm — or even lower if a rising carbon price made it uneconomic to go after every last drop of oil. But Hillary Clinton recently signed an agreement with Canada for a pipeline to carry tar sands oil to the United States. Australia is massively expanding coal export facilities. Coal-fired power plants are being built worldwide. Unless the public gets involved, young people especially, CO2 of 450 ppm or higher may become unavoidable.

What would make Schneider’s “450 or 550″ ppm unavoidable is a defeatist attitude. Humanity does have a free will. We do not have to accept the inevitability of extracting and burning all of the most miserably polluting fossil fuels on the planet. What we need mostly is some gumption, some never-give-up fighting spirit. I am sending to Steve, a friend of almost 40 years, the addresses of some karate schools located conveniently.

Cavalier “450 or 550″ also warrants comment. Coming back to 350 ppm or less from a temporary peak of 425-450 ppm is something that would be feasible this century, mainly via “natural” actions such as improved forestry and agricultural practices. 550 ppm is a whole different cup of tea, guaranteeing a chaotic situation with climate system amplifying feedbacks and dynamics out of humanity’s control.

The most foolish no-fighting-spirit statement, made by scores of people, is this: “we have already passed the tipping point, it is too late.” They act as if a commitment to a meter of sea level rise is no different than a commitment to several tens of meters. Or, if a million species become committed to extinction, should we throw in the towel on the other nine million? What would the plan be then — escape to Mars? As I make clear in Storms of My Grandchildren, anybody who thinks we can transplant even one butterfly species to another planet has some loose screws. We must take care of the planet we have — easily the most remarkable one in the known universe.

Let’s say we have passed a tipping point — say current atmospheric composition is enough to cause a large eventual sea level rise. What do we do? Wring our hands? What we must do is restore the planet’s energy balance, or make it slightly negative. That does not guarantee that heat already added to the ocean will not further erode ice shelves and cause sea level rise. But it gives us a fighting chance to minimize that problem. Of course, it would help if we knew the current planetary energy balance accurately, and the climate forcings — that’s the subject in chapter 4 of Storms.

Any Hope of Cutting Global Carbon Emissions?

Absolutely. It is possible — if we give politicians a cold hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach — “goals” for emission reductions, “offsets” that render even iron-clad goals almost meaningless, an ineffectual “cap-and-trade” mechanism — must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics-as-usual.

Science reveals that climate is close to tipping points. It is a dead certainty that continued high emissions will create a chaotic dynamic situation for young people, with deteriorating climate conditions out of their control, as described in my book.

Science also reveals what is needed to stabilize atmospheric composition and climate. Geophysical data on the carbon amounts in oil, gas, and coal show that the problem is solvable, if we phase out global coal emissions within 20 years and prohibit emissions from unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands and oil shale.

Such constraints on fossil fuels would cause carbon dioxide emissions to decline 60 percent by mid-century, or even more if policies make it uneconomic to go after every last drop of oil. Improved forestry and agricultural practices could then bring atmospheric carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm (parts per million) or less, as required for a stable climate.

Governments going to Copenhagen claim to have such goals for 2050, which they will achieve with the “cap-and-trade” mechanism. They are lying through their teeth. Unless they order Russia to leave its gas in the ground and Saudi Arabia to leave its oil in the ground (which nobody has proposed), they must phase out coal and prohibit unconventional fossil fuels.

Instead, the United States signed an agreement with Canada for a pipeline to carry oil squeezed from tar sands. Australia is building port facilities for large increases in coal export. Coal-to-oil factories are being built. Coal-fired power plants are being constructed worldwide. Governments are stating emission goals that they know are lies — or, if we want to be generous, they do not understand the geophysics and are kidding themselves.

Is it feasible to phase out coal and avoid use of unconventional fossil fuels? Yes, but only if governments face up to the truth: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, their use will continue and even increase on a global basis. Fossil fuels are cheapest because they are not made to pay for their effects on human health, the environment, and future climate.

Governments must place a uniform rising price on carbon, collected at the fossil fuel source — the mine or port of entry. The fee should be given to the public in toto, as a uniform dividend, payroll tax deduction, or both. Such a tax is progressive — the dividend exceeds added energy costs for 60 percent of the public. Fee-and-dividend stimulates the economy, providing the public the means to adjust lifestyles and energy infrastructure.

Fee-and-dividend can begin with the countries now considering cap-and-trade. Other countries will either agree to a carbon fee or have duties placed on their products that are made with fossil fuels. As the carbon price rises, most coal, tar sands and oil shale will be left in the ground. The market place will determine the roles of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear power in our clean energy future.

Cap-and-trade with offsets, in contrast, is astoundingly ineffective. Global emissions rose rapidly in response to the Kyoto Protocol, as expected, because fossil fuels remained the cheapest energy. Cap-and-trade is an inefficient compromise, paying off numerous special interests. It must be replaced with an honest approach, raising the price of carbon emissions, and leaving the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground.

Are we going to stand up and give global politicians a hard slap in the face, to make them face the truth? It will take a lot of us — probably in the streets. Or are we going to let them continue to kid themselves and us, and cheat our children and grandchildren?

Intergenerational inequity is a moral issue. Just as when Abraham Lincoln faced slavery and when Winston Churchill faced Nazism, the time for compromises and half-measures is over. Can we find a leader who understands the core issue, and will lead?

The bigger picture, including climate change, makes it clear that mountaintop removal, providing only 7 percent of United States coal, makes no strategic sense whatever. Better leave the coal holding up the mountains. There has to be some leadership from the top. We cannot continue to give President Obama a pass on this much longer. On the other hand, he needs broad support in order to do what is right.

As for the local people, we found them to be very friendly, and the state police were courteous and professional. Massey employees were out in force making as much noise as possible to try to drown out the speakers at the protest. If Gandhi had the sequence right (first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win), we are already three-quarters of the way there. I noticed that it was only a handful of Massey people who were really vocal.

But that’s not to say that it isn’t a dangerous situation for the local people who oppose mountaintop removal — they are the courageous ones. Some barrel-chested noise-makers seemed pretty close to going over the edge. One of the Massey wives assaulted (sucker-punched) Julia Bonds, Goldman Prize winner for North America and co-director of Coal River Mountain Watch. I went up the mountain with Larry Gibson, who refuses to sell his property, which includes a 200-year-old cemetery containing scores of his relatives. He has been the target of drive-by shootings as recently as last week, and I saw two bullet holes in the side of his house. The FBI should be investigating. On the way down the mountain some thick-necked Massey employees gave us a vigorous one-finger salute — but others a friendly nod on passing. Larry mentioned that when Bobby Kennedy Jr. looked at the scalped mountain he said, “if any foreign nation had done this to us, we would have declared war on them.” Instead what we have in Washington is (coal-fired) senators who advocate for the abominable practice.

Don Blankenship, Massey CEO and seemingly a role model for a few of his employees, suggested he would like to “debate” me about global warming. I agreed to a discussion in which I could make a presentation (on the order of 40 minutes) of the science, and he would have as much time (before or after), followed by discussion and interaction including audience. Mountain State University eagerly agreed to provide the auditorium. It seemed fool-proof, because if Blankenship failed to show, I could give a bit longer talk and have discussion with the audience. But, after I got a room in Beckley, staying an extra day, Blankenship decided he would only do a debate in a television studio with his favorite moderator. When Mountain State University learned what Blankenship’s wishes were, they withdrew permission to use their auditorium. I turned on the television news and heard: Blankenship offered to have a discussion with me, but “Dr. Hansen was still trying to check his schedule” — this was a television station that knew exactly what had actually happened. It seems that even the media is owned by coal.

When the strategic interest of the nation and the world is so clear, can a few gluttons with a few bucks really drive our policy? Does this great country not have better leadership than that?

Here’s an op-ed by me on mountaintop removal.

And here’s the statement I made at the June 23 rally:

When, in the course of their lives, people find they are being abused by those in a position of power, and their children and their children’s future are being damaged by those in power, it is the right of the people, and their sacred duty, to resist those in position of power and fight for the well-being of the young and the unborn.

First, we believe that no child’s health and safety are expendable for the expediency of a dirty energy source. Marsh Fork Elementary stands as the prime example of just how far this country has gone to support its addiction to coal, and just how far Massey Energy will go to support its profit margin. The West Virginia Supreme Court has joined Governor Manchin in turning their backs on these children, subjecting them to expanded operations within 300 feet of the school, in clear violation of the law’s intent to protect the children. According to Massey’s own documents, the second coal silo and associated operations will add over three tons of coal dust to the air the children breathe every school year during their most formative years. Therefore, we demand that Massey withdraw plans to build the second silo within 300 feet of Marsh Fork.

Second, even without the second silo, the children’s health is still at risk from the coal dust they already breathe. In addition, Massey subjects the children to the daily threat of a 2.8 billion gallon sludge dam only 400 yards upstream. Massey’ 2,000-acre mountaintop removal site, with multiple violations, drains into the sludge dam and also subjects the children to dust. Community members have for years demanded a safe, new school in the children’s own community. The hard-working taxpayers of the community did not create this unhealthy situation-Massey did. Therefore, we demand that Massey fund the building of a new school at a safe location in the children’s own community.

Third, mountaintop removal destroys opportunities for sustainable economic development. On Coal River Mountain, Massey has applied for permits to remove over ten square miles of a ridge that has excellent commercial wind potential. This action would lower the mountain enough to remove this important economic opportunity. Wind energy here would also provide a source of electricity that does not put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thereby helping to prevent the worst effects of the global climate crisis. Therefore, we demand that Massey withdraw its permits on Coal River Mountain in order to facilitate the Coal River Wind Project, which would provide a permanent source of clean energy and jobs.

Fourth, mountaintop removal destroys the life-giving water supplies that are essential to viable communities and sustainable livelihoods. As we have been again reminded in recent months, mountaintop removal subjects communities to greater risk of devastating floods. Instead of continuing to destroy mountains, Massey workers could be employed for decades minimizing the damage that has already been done. To begin this important task, Massey must not destroy one more acre of the mountains. Mountaintop removal exacerbates dependence on coal, which is largely responsible for fueling the global climate crisis. We must take immediate steps to transition away from coal as a source of electricity. Therefore, we demand that Massey stop conducting mountaintop removal operations.

We hold it self evident that these demands are just, feasible, and essential. No job or profit margin justifies Massey’s ongoing threats to the community by mountaintop removal.

Mountaintop removal ignites strong passions because local effects are obvious – pollution of air and water, effects on human health, destruction of the environment.

But another effect of coal mining, global climate change, will become important in the next few decades. Climate change will have large consequences for people who are alive today, especially children, and future generations.

President Obama speaks of “a planet in peril” for good reason. If we do not move rapidly to carbon-free energy, we will hand our children a planet that has passed climate tipping points. It will be a more desolate planet, with half or more species committed to extinction.

Burning all fossil fuels would destroy the future of young people and the unborn. Coal is the critical issue. Coal is the main cause of climate change. It is also the dirtiest fossil fuel. Air pollution, arsenic, and mercury from coal have devastating effects on human health and cause birth defects.

The science is clear. We must have a moratorium on new coal plants and phase out existing ones within the next 20 years. We should start with termination of mountaintop removal now. Coal from mountaintop removal provides only 7 percent of United States coal, less than the amount of coal that we export.

Why is the Administration not stopping mountaintop removal? Why do they advocate halfway measures? Because of the political clout of coal in Washington, that’s why.

But coal did not elect Obama. Who helped Obama win the Iowa primary? Not coal, it was young people. Who got out the vote in the general election – it was young people – young people who had hope – hope that we could have leaders who do the right thing, not what is politically expedient.

We must raise the pressure to do what is right – for our children and the planet – not for the wallets of the few. Continued mountaintop removal defeats the purpose of the administration’s effort to fight climate change.

And mountaintop removal poisons water supplies and pollutes the air. Coal ash piles are so toxic and unstable that Homeland Security has declared that the location of the nation’s 44 most hazardous coal ash sites must be kept secret. They fear terrorists will find ways to spill the toxic substances. But storms and heavy rain can do the same.

President Obama remains the best hope, perhaps the only hope, for real change. If the President used his influence, his eloquence, his bully pulpit, he could be the agent of real change. But he needs our help to overcome the political realities of compromise.

Politicians may choose to advocate for halfway measures. But it is our responsibility to make sure our representatives feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not what some judge as “winnable”.

We must make clear to Congress, to EPA, to the Obama administration that we the people want mountaintop removal terminated and we want a move toward rapid phase-out of coal emissions. The time for half measures and caving in to polluting industries is over. It is time for citizens to demand – yes, we can.

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.

Barack has spoken of “a planet in peril” and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.

We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these details could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times.

Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth.

Yet the information that most needs to be communicated to you concerns the failure of policy approaches employed by nations most sincere and concerned about stabilizing climate. Policies being discussed in national and international circles now, which focus on ‘goals’ for emission reduction and ‘cap and trade,’ have the same basic approach as the Kyoto Protocol. This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity.

The enclosure, “Tell Barack Obama the Truth — the Whole Truth” [PDF] was sent to colleagues for comments as we left for a trip to Europe. Their main suggestion was to add a summary of the specific recommendations, preferably in a cover letter sent to both of you.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential request¹. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required. Our three recommendations derive from the science, including logical inferences based on empirical information about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of specific past policy approaches.

1. Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2.

This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions must be phased out rapidly. Yes, it is a great challenge, but one with enormous side benefits. Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run. Oil, the second greatest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide, is already substantially depleted, and it is impractical to capture carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles. But if coal emissions are phased out promptly, a range of actions including improved agricultural and forestry practices could bring the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide back down, out of the dangerous range.

As an example of coal’s impact consider this: continued construction of coal-fired power plants will raise atmospheric carbon dioxide to a level at least approaching 500 ppm (parts per million). At that level, a conservative estimate for the number of species that would be exterminated (committed to extinction) is one million. The proportionate contribution of a single power plant operating 50 years and burning ~100 rail cars of coal per day (100 tons of coal per rail car) would be about 400 species! Coal plants are factories of death. It is no wonder that young people (and some not so young) are beginning to block new construction.

2. Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100 percent dividend.”

A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency. A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels.

The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising. 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.

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 tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. 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. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases.

Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world. The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.

“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100 percent dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security.

3. Urgent R&D on fourth generation nuclear power with international cooperation.

Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a “smart grid” deserve first priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions. With a rising carbon price, renewable energy can perhaps handle all of our needs. However, most experts believe that making such presumption probably would leave us in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide. Such a result would be disastrous for the planet, humanity, and nature.

Fourth 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 c
riticism 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.

Moreover, improved (3rd generation) light water reactors are available for near-term needs. In our opinion, 4th GNP² deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive material ³ . Potential 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. 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. Thus 4th GNP could help solve the nuclear waste problem, which must be dealt with in any case.

Because of this, a portion of the $25B that has been collected from utilities to deal with nuclear waste justifiably could be used to develop 4th generation reactors. The principal issue with nuclear power, and other energy sources, is cost. Thus an R&D objective must be a modularized reactor design that is cost competitive with coal. Without such capability, it may be difficult to wean China and India from coal. But all developing countries have great incentives for clean energy and stable climate, and they will welcome technical cooperation aimed at rapid development of a reproducible safe nuclear reactor. Potential for cooperation with developing countries is implied by interest South Korea has expressed in General Electric’s design for a small scale 4th GNP reactor. I do not have the expertise to advocate any specific project, and there are alternative approaches for 4th GNP (see enclosure).

I am only suggesting that the assertion that 4th GNP technology cannot be ready until 2030 is not necessarily valid. Indeed, with a Presidential directive for the Nuclear Regulator Commission to give priority to the review process, it is possible that a prototype reactor could be constructed rapidly in the United States. CCS also deserves R&D support. There is no such thing as clean coal at this time, and it is doubtful that we will ever be able to fully eliminate emissions of mercury, other heavy metals, and radioactive material in the mining and burning of coal. However, because of the enormous number of dirty coal-fired power plants in existence, the abundance of the fuel, and the fact that CCS technology could be used at biofuel-fired power plants to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide, the technology deserves strong R&D support.

Summary

An urgent ⁴ geophysical fact has become clear. Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed.

Of course it is unfair that everyone is looking to Barack to solve this problem (and other problems!), but they are. He alone has a fleeting opportunity to instigate fundamental change, and the ability to explain the need for it to the public. Geophysical limits dictate the outline for what must be done⁵. Because of the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air, slowing the emissions cannot solve the problem. Instead a large part of the total fossil fuels must be left in the ground. In practice, that means coal.

The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax. Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of the ‘greenest’ countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol:

1. Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO2 emissions. Japan offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but Chinese emissions increased rapidly.
2. Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.
3. Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, “goals” and “caps” on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen — caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, undercutting clean energy sources.⁶ In contrast to the impracticality of all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a carbon tax can readily be made near-global.⁷

A Presidential directive for prompt investigation and proto-typing of advanced safe nuclear power is needed to cover the possibility that renewable energies cannot satisfy global energy needs. One of the greatest dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of anti-nuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions.

The challenges today, including climate change, are great and urgent. Barack’s leadership is essential to explain to the world what is needed. The public, young and old, recognize the difficulties and will support the actions needed for a fundamental change of direction.

James and Anniek Hansen
Pennsylvania
United States of America

—–

Footnotes:

1. Given the brilliant scientists Barack has appointed to his team, is there need for a National Academy of Sciences meeting? Yes, his team surely would welcome not only clarification of the urgency of the climate situation, but also interdisciplinary (economics, engineering, physics, biology…) discussion and evaluation of policy options. Barack’s first year or two in office is almost surely our last best chance to get the climate and energy strategy right in time to save the future of our children and grandchildren.

2. I am not referring to the DOE’s “Generation-4″ nuclear program, which is a diffuse program that will not yield rapid payoff. Instead, as discussed below, there would need to be a Presidential directive to pursue a path(s) with the potential to contribute to decarbonization of global energy systems as rapidly as practical.

3. 4th generation reactors can include automatic shutdown in case of an earthquake or other interruption. It is noteworthy that, even with the presence of poorly designed nuclear power plants in the past, and in some cases demonstrably sloppy operations, the waste from coal-fired power plants has done far more damage, and even spread more radioactive material around the world than all nuclear power plants combined, including Chernobyl.

4. Urgency derives from the nearness
of climate tipping points, beyond which climate dynamics will cause rapid changes out of humanity’s control. Concern about such behavior derives not from theory or speculation, but from improving knowledge of how the Earth responded to past changes of atmospheric composition and from observations of ongoing changes.

Tipping points occur because of amplifying feedbacks. Feedbacks include loss of Arctic sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, release of ‘frozen’ methane as tundra melts, and growth of vegetation on previously frozen land. The surface changes increase the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth. Added methane reduces heat radiation to space, amplifying the warming effect of carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. Analysis of Earth’s history helps reveal the level of greenhouse gases needed to maintain a climate resembling the Holocene, Creation, the period of reasonably stable climate in which civilization developed. That carbon dioxide level, unsurprisingly in retrospect, is less than the current 385 ppm (parts per million).

The safe amount for the long-term is no more than 350 ppm, probably less. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 ppm. Precise definition of a safe range requires better knowledge of all climate forcing mechanisms. What is clear is that continuing fossil fuel emissions will put Earth on an inexorable course toward an ice-free state, a course punctuated by increasingly extreme disasters with hundreds of millions of climate refugees. A large fraction of species on Earth face certain extinction, if we burn most fossil fuels without capturing and storing the carbon dioxide. New species may come into being over many thousands of years, but all generations of our descendants that we can imagine will live on a far more desolate planet than the one we knew.

5. Total carbon in conventional fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal), if released to the air, is enough to initiate a dynamic transition to an ice-free climate state, a transition that would be out of humanity’s control. A large fraction of the carbon dioxide emitted in burning fossil fuels stays in the air many centuries. Thus the climate problem cannot be solved by only slowing the rate at which we burn the fossil fuels. Solution requires that a large part of total fossil fuels is left in the ground, or the carbon dioxide captured and stored. In addition, the unconventional fossil fuels (oil shale, tar sands, methane hydrates) must be left largely untouched or the carbon dioxide captured and stored.

6. Now, with oil prices down, is when a hefty carbon tax should be added. In the future, when the price of gasoline again reaches and passes $4/gallon, most of this cost will be tax, staying in the country, spread among consumers, and driving our economy to a clean future. The public can understand this, if Barack explains it, and they will accept it, if there is 100 percent dividend.

7. A carbon tax requires agreement of only several major nations. If any given nation does not apply the tax, an equivalent duty can be applied to their products at ports of entry.

“Mumble, mumble, mumble,” the discussion between police and the Dominion man were too far away to be heard by the young people. But it almost seemed that the police were working for Dominion. Maybe that’s the way it works in a company town. Or should we say company state? Virginia has got one of the most green-washed coal-blackened governors in the nation [PDF].

It seems Hannah had been pegged by Dominion as a “ringleader.” She had participated for two years in public meetings and demonstrations against the plan for mountaintop removal, strip mining and coal burning, and she had rejected their attempts to either intimidate or bargain.

“Bargain?” What bargain is possible when Dominion is guaranteed 14 percent return on their costs, whether the coal plant’s power is needed or not. Utility customers have to cough this up, and they aren’t given any choice. The meetings and demonstrations were peaceful. Forty-five thousand signatures against the plant were collected. But money seems to talk louder.

Dominion’s “mumble, mumble” must have been convincing. Hannah and Kate Rooth were charged with 10 more crimes than the other 10 defendants. Their charges included “encouraging or soliciting” others to participate in the action and were topped by “obstruction of justice.” Penalty if convicted: up to 14 years in prison. (Why does this remind me of Jim Jobe in “Grapes of Wrath”?)

“Obstruction of justice?” My first thought was that this case might help draw attention to the inter-generational injustice and inequity of continued building of coal-fired power plants. Is the Orwellian doublespeak in the charge of “obstruction of justice” not apparent?

Executives in the coal and other fossil-fuel industries are now aware of the damage that continued coal emissions causes for present and future life on the planet. Yet their response is to promote continued use of coal, and in some cases even encourage contrarians to muddy the issue in the public’s mind. Their actions raise issues of ethical responsibility to the young and the unborn, and a question of legal liability, it seems to me.

Mountaintop removal is not the only potential source of energy. The governor of neighboring West Virginia asserted that if there were an alternative energy source, they would not need to continue strip mining. A case has since been made that over time wind power on the mountaintops could provide more power than coal, but if the mountaintops are removed for coal mining, the wind quality becomes less useful for power generation. The governor has not taken up the suggestion of wind instead of coal.

In Wise County the defense case is even stronger than at Kingsnorth [PDF] in the United Kingdom, because of demonstrable local effects of strip-mining. Twenty-five percent of Wise County is already devastated by mountaintop removal. Health problems of local residents associated with coal dust have been well documented [PDF]. Given all this, the peaceful protest of the demonstrators is commendable. They are just asking business to invest in Appalachia, not destroy it.

However, let me correct an error in a recent article by Andy Revkin in the New York Times. I have argued that it is time to “draw a line in the sand” and demand “no new coal plants,” but I have not advocated unlawful protest. My recommendation, as you can see in my presentation at Virginia Tech last week [PDF] is that this is the time to exert maximum effort to use the democratic process.

I participated in a press conference of PowerVote, and the above talk was in cooperation with Virginia Powershift 2008. The upcoming election potentially could be a tipping point, but it requires a lot of changes. Young people are doing a great job of informing people and getting out the vote. The organizations do not generally endorse specific candidates, but I have a very astute young friend who identified the most important races, where the outcome could affect actions on the climate matter.

That friend’s opinions (recommendations of the League of Conservation Voters) are below. They include Democrats and Republicans. (BTW, I am an Independent, and I believe that the United States needs a third party, but that will be the subject of a different post.)

Don’t expect the election to solve the climate problem. There are differences between Presidential candidates, but neither appears to “get it.” They both seem to think that “clean coal” exists. They both (and special interests) are likely to favor the hidden tax and market distortions of the inefficient “carbon cap-and-trade” game. For politicians and CEOs the shenanigan potential of “carbon cap-and-trade” is irresistible — it beats the pants off a simple, honest, effective “carbon tax and 100 percent dividend” that would put money in the hands of consumers and drive innovations and energy/carbon efficiency in the most economically effective way.

Back to Hannah Morgan et al and the proposed coal plant. No happy ending here, at least not yet. The defense lawyer realized that a trial would be dangerous. An “unfavorable jury pool” made the possibility of prison time real. With 14 charges against Hannah and Kate, it was unlikely that a jury would find them innocent of all charges. Result: a “B-minus” plea bargain.

This, it seems to me, is the reality of the present situation in the United States. The fossil fuel industry has enormous power, with big influence on the public, as well as on politicians. Although practical steps to stabilize climate, with other benefits, can be defined, it will be difficult to overcome fossil fuel special interests, and we are running out of time. That is my rationale for interjecting comments/recommendations about the upcoming election into this note.

Don’t expect the young people to give up. But they shouldn’t be standing alone. They didn’t even create the mess. They are just inheriting it.

To top it off, because I was on travel, I couldn’t make it to the court proceedings. They had decided to accept the plea bargain, but asked me to write a statement on their behalf (which follows), but when I sent an e-mail in the wee hours that morning I failed to attach the attachment! It figures — they are pretty much on their own anyhow.

My statement:

If this case had gone to trial I would have requested permission to testify on behalf of these young people, who, for the sake of nature and humanity, had the courage to stand up against powerful “authority.” In fact, these young people speak with greater authority and understanding of the consequences of continued coal mining, not only for the local environment, but for the well-being of nature itself, of creation, of the planet inherited from prior generations.

The science of climate change has become clear in recent years: if coal emissions to the atmosphere are not halted, we will drive to extinction a large fraction of the species on the planet. Already almost half of summer sea ice in the Arctic has been lost, coral reefs are under great stress, mountain glaciers are melting world-wide with consequences for fresh water supplies of hundreds of millions of people within the next several decades, and climate extremes including greater floods, more intense heat waves and forest fires, and stronger storms have all been documented.

Our parents did not realize the long-term effects of fossil fuel use. We no longer have that excuse. Let us hope that the courage of these young people will help spark public education about the climate and environmental issues, and help us preserve nature for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Written testimony [PDF] that I submitted for the case is a bit long. The “Summary facts” are below. The main point, that the government, the utility, and the fossil fuel industry, were aware of the facts, but continued to ignore them are more generally valid worldwide. It raises the question of whether the right people are on trial.

Summary facts

These summary facts were known by the U.K. government, by the utility EON, by the fossil fuel industry, and by the defendants at the time of their actions in 2007:

• Tipping points: The climate system is dangerously close to tipping points that could have disastrous consequences for young people, life and property, and general well-being on the planet that will be inherited from today’s elders.
• Coal’s dominant role: Coal is the fossil fuel most responsible for excess CO2 in the air today, and coal reserves contain much more potential CO2 than do oil or gas. Coal is the fossil fuel that is most susceptible to either (a) having the CO2 captured and sequestered if coal is used in power plants, or (b) leaving the coal in the ground, instead emphasizing use of cleaner fuels and energy efficiency.
• Recognized responsibilities: The U.K. is one of the nations most responsible for human-made CO2 in the air today, indeed, on a per capita basis it is the most responsible of all nations that are major emitters of CO2. This fact is recognized by developing countries, making it implausible that they would consider altering their plans for coal use if the U.K. plans to continue to rely on coal-fired power.
• Recognized impacts of climate change: The U.K. government, EON, and the fossil fuel industry were aware of the likely impacts of continuation of coal emissions, specifically impacts on future sea levels, extinctions of animal and plant species, and regional climate effects, i.e., they were all aware that their actions would contribute to these adverse impacts, leaving a more impoverished planet for today’s young people and the unborn.
• Greenwash: Governments, utilities, and the fossil fuel industry have presented public faces acknowledging the importance of climate change and claiming that they are taking appropriate actions. Yet the facts, as shown in this document, contradict their claims. Construction of new coal-fired power plants makes it unrealistic to hope for the prompt phase-out of coal emissions and thus makes it practically impossible to avert climate disasters for today’s young people and future generations.

Recognition of these basic facts by the defendants, realization that the facts were also known by the government, utility, and fossil fuel industry, and realization that the actions needed to protect life and property of the present and future generations were not being taken undoubtedly played a role in the decision of the defendants to act as they did.

My recent experience with governors raises a question about whether this is an effective way to communicate about climate change. (Apologies for the length — you may skip the three tales and go to the bottom line.)

Dear Governor Pawlenty [PDF]

Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty presides over a population that appreciates nature. Explorer Will Steger has done a marvelous job of informing the public there about climate change in the Arctic, the threat of climate change to species and indigenous people, and the relevance of climate change to Minnesota. Early actions made it appear that Minnesota would be a leader, defining energy policies and directions that would be a great example for other states.

Specifically (get this!), in spring 2007 Minnesota passed and Gov. Pawlenty signed a law called the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, requiring 25 percent renewable energy by 2025 and a 1.5 percent per year improvement in energy efficiency.

Some people used this to help paint Gov. Pawlenty green, second in greenness only to Arnold Schwarzenegger among Republican governors. Pawlenty, according to the Washington Post, is at the top of the list of candidates to be John McCain’s running mate. Coincidentally, the Republican convention will be in Minnesota in September. But … read on.

I wrote a letter to Gov. Pawlenty, to provide information similar to that in my testimony [PDF] to the Iowa Public Utility Commission regarding the Marshalltown plant and my letters to leaders such as the British Prime Minister [PDF]. For some reason, despite signing the Next Generation Energy Act, Gov. Pawlenty would not take a position against a new large coal-fired power plant, Big Stone II (located in South Dakota but supplying energy to Minnesota). Something didn’t add up.

Junior high school mathematics tells us that a 25 percent renewable energy standard by 2025 and a 1.5 percent/year improvement in energy efficiency together eliminate the need for new coal-fired power plants. Could it be that there was no real expectation of pursuing those goals?

Big Stone II, from the coal industry perspective, is doubly beneficial: It increases sales and it is a dagger in the chest of renewable energies. In a finite market, renewables can only take off, and reduce their unit costs, by increasing in scale. New coal plants — if they are built — will serve to keep clean energies as bit players in the energy market for decades to come.

But perhaps Gov. Pawlenty was just confused. He may not realize the significance of a whopping big coal plant (it takes about 100 rail cars per day to feed one of those suckers). He may not realize that coal trains are death trains for uncountable species. He may not realize the health impacts of mercury and other coal pollutants, and the costs of pollutants for Minnesota citizens. So I dutifully wrote the above letter to the governor. Fossil fuel facts therein make clear the urgency of a moratorium on coal-fired power, if we are to avoid dangerous climate tipping points that would spell disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Gov. Pawlenty’s response, relayed by his spokesman, Brian McClung: “Climate change is an issue that is national and international in scope and cannot be solved by one state. In addition, we must safeguard jobs and our economy as we seek to transition to cleaner sources of energy.” Huh? Sounds familiar. Sounds like Washington. Pass the buck.

Bottom line: the governor did not come out against Big Stone II. Citizens, the courts, may yet stop Big Stone II, but Gov. Pawlenty, it seems, will not.

Will McCain choose Pawlenty as a running mate? Would McCain risk “Governor Greenwash,” “Governor Hogwash” posters? Naw, I don’t think so. We need real leadership.

Dear Governor Gibbons

I received appeals to help illuminate the situation in Nevada, mostly from people suffering from local coal pollution. It is physically impossible to respond to every request. But Nevada’s plans are so egregiously bad as to demand a spotlight. When I realized that I was to receive the Nevada Medal, to be presented by the governor, I could not pass up the chance to communicate (as it turns out, he was obviously not on the committee selecting the medal winner).

My letter was (you can judge for yourself) friendly, polite, and helpful, presenting a clear explanation of why three new coal plants that he was supporting were not in the best interests of Nevada, the nation, or the Earth. Nevada is a potential goldmine for renewable energy — solar, wind, geothermal. Solar thermal power alone, using just a tiny fraction of the desert area in the Southwest United States, could supply most of the electric power for the entire United States, eliminating the need for coal-fired power. If the state played it smart, they would become wealthy by exporting clean carbon-free energy to California and elsewhere.

The primary function of the proposed new coal-fired power plants in Nevada, as elsewhere, seems to be as a dagger in the chest of renewable energies, by removing the need for them, keeping renewables in their place as boutique, inconsequential competitors. In addition, the coal plants eliminate any need to restructure utility regulations such that utilities could make more money by encouraging energy efficiency, rather than by selling more energy.

The only response from the governor’s office was an angry, early-AM call to the Desert Research Institute, the host for my visit to Nevada. Fortunately, they could honestly reply that they had no involvement in the letter (indeed, when I had queried their scientists, they told me not to waste my time, that it was a hopeless case). Perhaps the annoyance was that I provided copies of my letter to the Nevada Public Utilities Commission and the Nevada Climate Change Task Force.

Or the fact that, in ending my letter on an optimistic note, I pointed out that young people were in the process of organizing to oppose fossil interests. These enthusiastic vocal groups, such as Energy Action, League of Young Voters, Rock the Vote, and several other youth civic groups had identified Nevada as a principal state for voter outreach programs. I noted that youth are not fooled by “green” advertisements or tokenism in political actions, but I tried to be positive: “Leaders who put our nation on a course to carbon-free energy, allowing us to be good stewards of creation, of our planet, will find a strongly supportive public.”

Nevertheless, the governor did not show up for dinner, which, instead, was hosted in the governor’s mansion by First Lady Dawn Gibbons. The first lady was a superb host, knowledgeable about energy and climate, concerned about public welfare and Nevada’s future, and especially interested in fairness to and the welfare of our children and grandchildren.

Later I learned that the first couple were in divorce proceedings, and that there was an attempt to have the first lady removed from the governor’s mansion. Even though firearms are common in Nevada, I suppose a “Calamity Jane” takeover is unrealistic. Yet, just perhaps, the citizens of Nevada might consider drafting the first lady, an experienced former Nevada legislator, to be the future governor. And thus, just perhaps, Nevada could provide the social tipping point, the change of direction that leads us from fossil addiction to a more prosperous future, with energy independence, nature preservation, and intergenerational equity.

Dear Governor Kaine [PDF]

This letter to Virginia Governor Tim Kaine was also submitted as an op-ed to the Washington Post, but not published. The Office of the Governor sent a letter in response, included above.

My letter suggests that Gov. Kaine could save rate-payers money while helping lead the nation to a cleaner energy future, relying more on energy efficiency and renewable energies. His reply, which may be mostly a form letter, states that the U.S. Department of Energy recognizes the planned Virginia City Energy Center as “clean coal technology. The facility would be capable of using waste coal piles from the coalfield region of Virginia as fuel, which could help reduce the impact of undesirable runoff into Virginia streams.”

This stupefying rationale of burning waste coal to clean the environment is but one cause for concern. The governor also notes his Energy Plan “goal” of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions 30 percent “below what they otherwise would be” in 2025. Oh, boy — reduce “energy intensity” (if we reduce our overeating, we will get fatter, but not as fat as we would have been otherwise). Another quote: “After long and careful consideration, the governor and I have acknowledged that global warming is a problem caused, largely, though not exclusively, by human activity …”

Gov. Kaine was an early endorser of Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy, and is said to be on the short list of vice presidential candidates. Heaven forefend!

Bottom line:

(1) Urgency of coal moratorium

A successful strategy to avoid climate calamity must start with a moratorium, and eventual phaseout, of coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2. Other actions are needed, including a carbon price that encourages transition to fuels of the future, discourages scrounging for every last drop of oil, and stymies budding efforts to squeeze oil from the dirtiest fossil deposits (tar shale and its ilk). Also, improved agricultural and forestry practices will be needed to draw atmospheric CO2 down. But the urgent, essential action is a coal moratorium.

Side benefits of phasing out coal emissions, for human health and the environment, are so great that it will be feasible to spread a no-dirty-coal energy strategy worldwide once it is started. The West must initiate the moratorium, because the West is responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the air today. We have the potential for an immediate moratorium, and the West has much to gain from early adoption and technology refinement.

Energy experts agree that efficiency and renewable energies can handle near-term needs for energy growth in the United States. New coal plants are being built only because coal is cheap (as long as it receives government subsidies and is not forced to pay for environmental and health damages), because utilities make more money if they sell more energy, and because the political clout of King Coal stymies adoption of national energy policies in the public interest.

(2) Leadership

Political leaders in both parties do not yet appreciate fundamental data such as the carbon content of individual fossil fuels. It is not rocket science. We cannot prevent use of easily minable reserves of oil or capture tailpipe emissions. But oil reserves are finite, prices are rising, and emissions will peak and decline. The larger CO2 source, the one we must cut off at the pass, is coal (and unconventional fossil fuels, squeezing of oil from tar shale and its ilk).

Responses from these three states failed to identify needed leadership. Minnesotans tell me that Pawlenty placed constraints on power plants, making it unlikely that Big Stone II will be built, but he could not go further without offending neighboring governors of his own party. We can reserve judgment in this case, but solution of the climate problem can only be obtained with an unambiguous renunciation of coal except where CO2 emissions are captured and sequestered.

Lest you get discouraged, let me point out two examples of stellar leadership. Last year Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) responded to a similar plea with force and clarity — he cancelled Florida’s plans for new coal-fired power plants. And well he may have — most of Florida is as flat as a pancake up to the ocean’s edge.

And there is the Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius (D), perhaps the most courageous of all — living in a lion’s pit of well-oiled coal-fired legislators, she came out firmly against new coal-fired power plants on the grounds that they will push climate past the tipping point and destroy the future of our children and grandchildren! In her final term as governor, she is a potential candidate for vice president or for senator to replace retiring Sam Brownback.

A recent New York Times editorial on global warming concluded:

Above all, it will require determined and courageous leadership from a president capable of conveying hard truths and asking a lot of the country. Assuming that Mr. McCain and the two Democratic candidates mean what they say, on this issue at least, we seem assured of such a president.

“Assuming they mean what they say” is the crux of the matter. How can you determine if they possess understanding and “courageous leadership”? Ask them point blank if they support an immediate moratorium on new dirty-coal power plants and phase-out of existing dirty-coal power plants (none of them has, as yet). Ask publicly and broadcast the response. Because, if they are not ready and willing to act, perusal of fossil carbon reservoirs and junior high school mathematics will together show that Yogi Berra was right: “You can’t get there from here.”

(3) Public support: Tax and dividend

Last week, the Energy Secretary for the United States, before the House of Representatives, answering questions about global warming and energy policy, provided a response that was so ignorant and foolish as to suggest that he has been living on another planet or is stone deaf to scientific information. He said that the appropriate policy response to climate change is for the government to open up more public land for mining, to open off-shore areas for drilling, to open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and to encourage extraction of oil from tar shale.

The danger is that such egregiously bad policy — bad for all but the short-term benefit of special interests — might be packaged to sound logical to the public. This danger will increase when a rising carbon price, essential for solving the climate problem, is instituted. For a carbon price to be effective it must perforce be large enough to cause a big impact on the public — otherwise it will not help bring about consumer changes that are needed to reduce emissions fast enough. But it must be implemented with care and foresight.

For this reason I strongly favor a “tax and dividend” approach. The entire carbon tax should be given back to the public, an equal amount to each person. No bureaucracy is needed to figure this out. If an early carbon tax averages say $1200 per person (it can be collected in various ways — at the well-head, carbon emission permit auctions, etc.) a monthly $100 deposit can be made automatically in everyone’s bank account.

Although energy prices will rise, you can bet your bottom dollar that lower and middle income people will figure out how to reduce energy use enough that, overall, they come out ahead. And in doing so, moving to more energy-efficient products, they will spur economic activity and create jobs. The tax-and-dividend approach not only minimizes public backlash against climate and energy policies, it also has the characteristics needed to make those policies work.

Footnote: I suggest limiting the number of dividends to four per family. Climate scientists have no special expertise related to the family planning issue, but common sense dictates against a policy that stimulates population growth.

(4) Dilemma

Inability to influence governors, and the finite number of hours in a day, raises a question about the effectiveness of opposing individual power plants. The dramatic change of emissions that is needed requires national policy changes, and that requires public pressure and/or pressure from enlightened “captains of industry.” Are there better ways to inform those players?

On the other hand, a single large coal-fired power plant burns ~100 rail cars of coal in a day, each with ~100 tons of coal. Multiply this by ~3 to get the mass of CO2 produced and by the number of days in 50-75 years, the typical expected lifetime of a power plant. Thus construction of a single coal-fired power plant obviates actions by millions of people to reduce their emissions. Blocking a single coal-fired power plant is important in itself, and it may help lead to a tipping point by demonstrating that efficiency and renewable energies can carry the load.

The new stadium, opening next year, will reduce seating further, to ~51,800. This intentional contraction is aimed at guaranteeing sellouts, increasing demand, allowing the owners, in pretty short order, to hike prices to double, triple, and more. The owners know that scarcity will fatten their wallets, even though it reduces the number of sales.

This is more than a bit distasteful, as it discriminates against the lower middle class. Nevertheless, it should be a great stadium and as long as the owner is footing the bill without public subsidies for the stadium itself, we may have little grounds for complaint.

The reason that I draw your attention to this practice is that fossil fuel moguls are intent on hoodwinking the entire planet with an analogous scheme.

The basic trick is this: fossil fuel reserves are overstated. Government “energy information” departments parrot industry. Partly because of this disinformation, the major efforts needed to develop energies “beyond fossil fuels” have not been made.

The reality of limited supply forces prices higher. Eventually, sales volume will begin to decline, but fossil fuel moguls will make more money than ever. They will continue to assert that there is plenty more to be found, aiming to keep the suckers (that’s us) on the hook. Indeed, they could find somewhat more in the deep ocean, under national parks, in polar regions, offshore, and in other environmentally sensitive areas. They don’t need much to keep the suckers paying higher and higher prices.

Oil “reserves” suddenly doubled when OPEC decided that production quotas would be proportional to official reserves. These higher reserves are, at least in part, phantom. Coal “reserves” are based on estimates made many decades ago. Closer study shows that extractable coal reserves are vastly overstated, which is consistent with present production difficulties and rising prices. The presumed “200 year” supply of coal in the United States is a myth, but it serves industry moguls well.

Conventional fossil fuel supplies are limited, even if we tear up the Earth to extract every last drop of oil and shard of coal. Tearing up the Earth to get at those last drops, even though Exxon/Mobil proudly advertises that they are drilling to the depths of the ocean and going to the most extreme pristine environments, is, for us, as insane as the smoker who trudged four miles through a raging storm to buy a pack of Camels to feed his nicotine addiction.

It would be possible to find more fossil fuels, and extend our addiction and pollution of the environment, should we be so foolish as to take the path of extracting unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale and tar sands on a large scale. That choice cannot be left to the discretion of industry moguls. The planet does not belong to them.

Basic fossil fuel facts (about reserves) must be combined with basic climate facts described in the paper “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”. That paper has been submitted to Science and is available in arXiv, the permanent archive for physics preprints. The main paper is here and the Supporting Material is here.

Our conclusion is that, if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, CO2 must be reduced from its present 385 ppm to, at most, 350 ppm. We find that peak CO2 can be kept to ~425 ppm, even with generous (large) estimates for oil and gas reserves, if coal use is phased out by 2030 (except where CO2 is captured and sequestered) and unconventional fossil fuels are not tapped substantially. Peak CO2 can be kept close to 400 ppm, if actual reserves are closer to those estimated by “peakists” (people who believe that we are already at peak global oil production, having extracted about half of readily extractable oil resources).

This lower 400 ppm peak can be ensured (assuming phase-out of coal emissions by 2030) if a practical limit on reserves is achieved by means of actions that prevent fossil fuel extraction from public lands, off-shore regions under government control, environmentally pristine regions, and extreme environments. The concerned public can influence this matter and it is important to do so now — time is short, the industry voice is strong, and climate effects have not yet become so obvious to the public as to overwhelm the disinformation of industry moguls.

A near-term moratorium on coal-fired power plants and constraints on oil extraction in extreme environments are important, because once CO2 is emitted to the air much of it will remain there for centuries. Our paper describes ways in which improved agricultural and forestry practices, mostly reforestation, could draw down atmospheric CO2 about 50 ppm by the end of the century. But a greater drawdown by such more-or-less natural methods does not seem practical, making a long-term overshoot of the 350 ppm level, with potentially disastrous consequences, a near certainty if we stay on a business-as-usual course for several more years.

If we choose a different path, which permits the possibility of getting back to 350 ppm CO2 or lower this century, we will minimize the chance of passing tipping points that spiral out of control, such as disintegration of ice sheets, rapid sea level rise, and extermination of countless species. At the same time we will solve problems that had begun to seem intractable, such as acidification of the ocean with consequent loss of coral reefs.

A fundamental point is that, in any event, we must move beyond fossil fuels reasonably soon. The underlying reason is that a large fraction of CO2 emissions remains in the air for many centuries. Thus the upshot: we must move to zero fossil fuel emissions. This is a fact, a certainty, a lead pipe cinch. So why not do it a bit sooner, in time to avert climate crises? At the same time, we halt other pollution that comes from fossil fuels, including mercury pollution, conventional air pollution, problems stemming from mountain-top removal, etc.

Breaking an addiction is not easy. But we may now be at a point analogous to that of the smoker who told me about trudging four miles through rain to get a pack of Camels — when he got back to his motel he threw the pack of Camels away and never smoked again.

Fossil fuel addiction is much more difficult — an epiphany to one person cannot solve the problem. This problem requires global cooperation. We must be on a new path within the next several years, or, our paper shows, it becomes implausible to reduce CO2 below the dangerous level this century. Developed countries, as the cause of most of the excess CO2 in the air today, must lead in the steps needed to develop clean energy and halt CO2 emissions. Yet it is hardly a sacrifice: “green” jobs will be an economic stimulus and a boon to worker well-being.

A major fight is brewing — it may be called war. On the one side, we find the short-term financial interests of the fossil fuel industry. On the other side: young people and other beings who will inherit the planet. It seems to be an uneven fight. The fossil fuel industry is launching a disinformation campaign and they have powerful influence in capitals around the world. Young people seem pretty puny in comparison to industry moguls. Animals are not much help (don’t talk, don’t vote). The battle may start with local and regional skirmishes, one coal plant or other issue at a time, but it will need to build rapidly — we are running out of time.

P.S.: Do not fall for the moguls’ dirtiest trick — “green” messages spewed to the public. That is propaganda, intended to leave the impression they are moving in the right direction. Meanwhile they hire scientific has-beens to dispute evidence and confuse the public. How will you be able to tell if they ever “get it”? When they begin to invest massively in renewable energies, when they become truly energy companies aimed toward zero-carbon emissions.

—–

Dear Prime Minister Brown,

Your leadership is needed on a matter concerning coal-fired power plants in your country, a matter with global ramifications, as I will clarify.

For the sake of identification, I am a United States citizen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor at the Columbia University Earth Institute. I write, however, as a private citizen, a resident of Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, on behalf of the planet and life on Earth, including all species.

I recognize that you strongly support policies aimed at reducing the danger of global warming. Also Great Britain has been a leader in pressing for appropriate international actions.

Yet there are plans for construction of new coal-fired power plants in Great Britain. Consummation of those plans would contribute to foreseeable adverse consequences of global warming. Conversely, a choice not to build could be a tipping point that seeds a transition that is needed to solve the global warming problem.

Basic Fossil Fuel Facts

The role of coal in global warming is clarified by a small number of well-documented facts. Figure 1 shows the fraction of fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that remains in the air over time. One-third of the CO2 is still in the air after 100 years, and one-fifth is still in the air after 1000 years.

Figure 1. Decay of a pulse of CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

Figure 2. Percent contributions of different fossil fuels to 2006 CO2 emissions (left side) and contributions to the excess CO2 in the air today relative to pre-industrial CO2 amount.

Oil slightly exceeds coal as a source of CO2 emissions today, as shown in Figure 2 (left side). But, because of the long atmospheric lifetime of past emissions, fully half of the excess CO2 in the air today (from fossil fuels), relative to pre-industrial times, is from coal (right side of Figure 2). Moreover, coal use is now increasing, while oil production has stagnated. Oil production will peak and will be constrained by available resources earlier than will coal production.

Figure 3. Estimated fossil fuel reserves (purple portions have already been used).

Figure 3 shows reported fossil fuel reserves and resources (estimated undiscovered deposits). Reserves are hotly debated and may be exaggerated, but we know that enough oil and gas remain to take global warming close to, if not into, the realm of dangerous climate effects. Coal and unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale contain enough carbon to produce a vastly different planet than the one on which civilization developed, a planet without Arctic sea ice, with crumbling ice sheets that assure sea level catastrophes for our children and grandchildren, with shifting climate zones that drive countless species to extinction, and with intensified hydrologic extremes that cause increased drought and wildfires but also stronger rain, floods, and storms.

Oil and coal uses differ fundamentally. Oil is burned primarily in small sources, in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the CO2 emissions. Available oil reserves will be exploited eventually, regardless of efficiency standards on vehicles, and the CO2 will be emitted to the atmosphere. The climate effect of oil is nearly independent of how fast we burn the oil, because much of the CO2 remains in the air for centuries. [It is nevertheless important to improve efficiency of oil use, because that buys us time to develop technologies and fuels for the post-oil era, and high efficiency surely will be needed in the post-oil era.] However, the point is this: oil will not determine future climate change. Coal will.

Avoiding dangerous atmospheric CO2 levels requires curtailment of CO2 emissions from coal. Atmospheric CO2 can be stabilized by phasing out coal use except where the CO2 is captured and sequestered, as is feasible at power plants. Indeed, agreement to phase out coal use except where the CO2 is captured is 80% of the solution to the global warming crisis. Of course, it is a tall order, as coal is now the world’s largest source of electrical energy. Over the next few decades those coal plants must be closed or made to capture their CO2 emissions. Yet it is a doable task. Compare that task, for example, with the efforts and sacrifices that went into World War II.

Responsibility for Global Warming

Responsibility for global warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions, not to current emission rates (PDF). This is a consequence of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO2. Responsibility of the United States is more than three times larger than that of any other nation (Figure 4). Despite rapid growth of emissions from China, the United States will continue to be the nation most responsible for climate change for at least the next few decades.

Figure 4. Cumulative fossil fuel CO2 emissions through 2006 by country of emission.

It is also useful to examine per capita fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Figure 5 shows per capita emissions for the eight nations with largest total emissions, in order of decreasing total emissions. The United States and Canada have the largest per capita emissions, while emissions of Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom are half as large per capita.

Figure 5. Per capita fossil fuel emissions today in order of national total emissions.

Per capita responsibility for climate change, however, must be based on cumulative national emissions. The United Kingdom has the highest per capita responsibility, as shown in Figure 6. The United States is second most responsible and Germany is third. Increased responsibility of the United Kingdom and Germany is a consequence of their early entries into the industrial era. Recognition of these facts is not an attempt to cast blame. Early emissions of CO2 occurred before the climate problem was recognized and well before it was proven. Yet these facts are worth bearing in mind.

Figure 6. Per capita cumulative 1751-2006 fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Human-made climate change is unambiguously underway. Yet the urgency of the situation is not readily apparent to everybody. Chaotic weather fluctuations mask climate trends, even as climate change alters the nature of weather. Urgency is created by the very inertia of the climate system that delays the effects of gases already added to the air. This delay means that there is additional global warming “in the pipeline” due to human-produced gases already in the air.

Climate system inertia is due in part to the massive oceans, four kilometers deep on average, which are slow to warm in response to increasing greenhouse gases. The effect of this inertia is compounded by positive (amplifying) feedbacks, such as melting of ice and snow, which increases absorption of sunlight, engendering more melting. Such feedbacks are not “runaway” processes, but they make climate sensitive to moderate forcings, both natural and human-made forcings, such as increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Climate inertia and positive feedbacks together create the danger of passing climate “tipping points”. A tipping point exists when the climate reaches a point such that little if any additional forcing is needed to instigate large, relatively rapid climate change and impacts. Impacts of these large climate changes tend to be, overall, detrimental to humans and other species, because life is adapted to the relatively stable interglacial period that has existed on our planet for about ten thousand years.

Based on current information, we now realize that we have passed or are on the verge of passing several tipping points that pose grave risks for humanity and especially for a large fraction of our fellow species on the planet. This information is gleaned primarily from the Earth’s history and ongoing global observations of rapid climate changes, and to a lesser extent from climate models that help us interpret observed changes.

Potential consequences of passing these tipping points include (1) loss of warm season sea ice in the Arctic and thus increased stress on many polar species, possibly leading to extinctions, (2) increasing rates of disintegration of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and thus more rapidly rising sea levels in coming decades, (3) expansion of sub-tropical climates adversely affecting water availability and human livability in regions such as the American West, the Mediterranean, and large areas in Africa and Australia, (4) reduction of alpine snowpack and water run-off that provides fresh water supplies for hundreds of millions of people in many regions around the world, and (5) increased intensity of the extremes of the hydrologic cycle, including more intense droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and greater floods, as well as stronger storms driven by latent heat, including tropical storms, tornados and thunderstorms.

The nearness of these climate tipping points is no cause for despair. On the contrary, the actions that are needed to avert the tipping point problems are not only feasible, they have side benefits that point to a brighter future for life on the planet, with cleaner air and cleaner water. It will be necessary to roll back the airborne amounts of some pollutants, but that is plausible, given appropriate attention. Already all pollutants except CO2 are falling at or below the lowest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scenarios, and there is much potential for further reductions.

The tendency of the media to continually report bad news on climate change and the human-made factors that drive climate change sometimes paints a picture that is bleaker than that shown by careful analysis. Such information is often misleading about the true status of the Earth, and the impression created may be harmful if it leads to despair about the prospects for achieving a relatively stable climate with a cleaner atmosphere and ocean. I illustrate with data for CO2, the most important climate forcing.

Figure 7 is the “airborne fraction” of fossil fuel CO2 emissions. This is the ratio: the annual increase of CO2 that appears in the Earth’s atmosphere (well measured) divided by the annual human emission of fossil fuel CO2 into the air (also well known). On average, the increase of CO2 in the air is only 57% of the amount emitted in burning of fossil fuels. This is despite the fact that humans are also causing extensive, mostly unwise, deforestation, which adds CO2 to the air. In addition our agricultural practices typically do not encourage storage of carbon in the soil.

Figure 7. Ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase to fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

There is tremendous potential for reducing atmospheric CO2 via reduction of deforestation, improved forestry practices, and improved agricultural practices that increase carbon storage in the soil. If governments were to encourage such practices, rather than the converse, and if coal use were phased out except where the CO2 is captured, it would be possible to literally roll back the net human-made climate forcing to levels below those defining critical tipping points.

We must remember, at the same time, that the ability of the principal CO2 sink, the ocean, to soak up human-made emissions is limited and slow (Figure 1). If we burn most of the available coal (Figure 3) without CO2 capture, even with the lowest estimates of available coal reserves, it will be impractical if not impossible to avoid passing climate tipping points with disastrous consequences.

I am optimistic that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize atmospheric composition at a level avoiding disastrous climate effects. My optimism is based in part on the fact that young people are beginning to make their voices heard. They have a powerful effect on our consciences, with an ability to influence policy makers and the captains of industry.

Many individuals are beginning to recognize and appreciate the nature of the climate problem. People want to take actions and they are willing to make sacrifices. However, individual actions cannot solve the problem by themselves.

Based on fossil fuel and carbon cycle facts summarized above, we cannot continue to burn the coal reserves without CO2 capture and sequestration. Solution of this problem can be achieved only via strong government leadership.

Governments must recognize the relative magnitudes of fossil fuel resources, i.e., oil, gas, coal, and unconventional fossil fuels, and they must establish policies that influence consumption in ways consistent with preservation of our climate and life on Earth. The fossil fuel facts dictate essential actions (PDF):

1. Phase-out of coal use that does not capture CO2. This is 80% of the solution, creating a situation in which CO2 emissions are declining sharply. (Coal use will also be affected by the second essential action. Indeed, it is likely that much of the coal will be left in the ground, as incentives spark innovations and positive feedbacks, accelerating progress to the cleaner world beyond fossil fuels.)
2. A gradually but continually rising price on carbon emissions. This will assure that, as oil production inevitably declines, humanity does not behave as a desperate addict, seeking every last drop of oil in the most extreme pristine environments and squeezing oil from tar shale, coal, and other high-carbon sources that would assure destruction of our climate and most species on the planet. Recognition by industry of a continually rising carbon price (and elimination of fossil fuel subsidies) would drive innovations in energy efficiency, renewable energies, and other energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gases.

These are the two fundamental actions that must occur if we are to roll back the net climate forcing and avoid the dangerous climate tipping points, with their foreseeable consequences. Both of these actions are essential.

We can make a long list of supplementary actions that will be needed to avoid hardships and minimize dislocations as we phase into a cleaner world beyond fossil fuels. However, the two essential actions must be given priority and governments must explain the situation to the public.

Supplementary actions include improved efficiency standards on buildings, vehicles, appliances, etc. Rules must be changed so that utilities profit by encouraging efficiency, rather than selling more energy. But governments must recognize these actions as being supplementary to the essential actions dictated by the physics of the carbon cycle, specifically the requirement to constrain release of CO2 to the air from the large carbon reservoirs.

Further actions will be needed to achieve a rollback of the net climate forcing. These actions (PDF) include reduction of non-CO2 climate forcings and improved agricultural and forestry practices. These actions are important and have multiple benefits, especially in developing countries, but they do not have the great urgency of halting construction of new coal plants without carbon capture. Power plants have long lifetimes, and once their CO2 is released to the air, it is impractical to recover it.

Energy departments, influenced by fossil fuel interests, take it as a God-given fact that we will extract all fossil fuels from the ground and burn them before we move on to other ways of producing usable energy. The public is capable of changing this course dictated by fossil fuel interests, but clear-sighted leadership is needed now if the actions are to be achieved in time.

Tipping points and positive feedbacks exist among people, as well as in the climate system. I believe that the action with the greatest potential to initiate positive feedbacks, and lead to the benefits that will accompany a clean energy future, is a moratorium in the West on new coal-fired power plants unless and until CO2 capture and sequestration technology is available. Such a moratorium would provide the West with sufficient moral authority to sit down with China and other developing countries to find ways, likely including technological assistance, for developing countries to also phase out coal use that does not capture CO2.

As shown above, responsibility for the first step rests with Great Britain, the United States and Germany. Despite lack of government leadership, citizens in the United States are stepping up to block one coal plant after another, and the next national election is less than a year away.

If Great Britain and Germany halted construction of coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester the CO2, it could be a tipping point for the world. There is still time to find that tipping point, but just barely. I hope that you will give these considerations your attention in setting your national policies. You have the potential to influence the future of the planet.

Prime Minister Brown, we cannot avert our eyes from the basic fossil fuel facts, or the consequences for life on our planet of ignoring these fossil fuel facts. If we continue to build coal-fired power plants without carbon capture, we will lock in future climate disasters associated with passing climate tipping points. We must solve the coal problem now.

For your information, I am sending a similar letter to Chancellor Merkel.

Godspeed,

James E. Hansen
Kintnersville, Pennsylvania
United States of America