[R-G] Letter from climate scientist, James Hansen, to the Obamas

[tchilds at resist.ca]

http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/915/1/

LETTER FROM CLIMATE SCIENTIST, JAMES HANSEN, TO THE OBAMAS
Thursday, 01 January 2009

INTRODUCTION TO LETTER BY JUAN SANTOS

Below is a letter from James Hansen, the first scientist to announce the
impending dangers of climate change; to this day Hansen is widely renowned
and considered a cutting edge scientist in his field. Most recently a
study by Hansen and a team from Yale University demonstrated that the
climate is already past critical tipping points - the points at which
global heating runs away from all human influence and takes on a life of
its own, reinforcing itself in positive feedback loops with ever
intensifying heat. Such feedback loops can lead to conditions similar to
those that prevailed at the time of the Permian Mass Extinction 250
million years ago, when the overwhelming majority of all life on Earth was
eradicated by runaway global heating. Scientists call that period "The
Great Dying". Hansen's most recent study indicated that the only way to
ensure that the climate returns to a stable condition is by reducing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million (ppm) - it's
already at 385ppm. (see 350.org )

That is what is in the balance; that is what is at stake in this personal
appeal from Hansen and his wife to Michelle and Barack Obama: The future
of life on Earth. Hansen has written this letter in response to
suggestions from people on his email list. He concludes in a letter to
that same list that "if we can get either of them to really focus on the
actions that are needed, the planet has a chance." He prefaced the letter
to the Obamas with a letter to John Holdren, who heads up Obama's
transition team. Holdren has promised Hansen that he will deliver the
Hansen's letter to the Obamas. Also see Hansen's Tell Barack Obama the
Truth- the whole Truth, here .

For those who are short on time, I have excerpted the three main points
from Hansen's intro letter to Holdren, and have included those points
below ( in italics), before the body of the letter to the Obamas - but it
is of crucial importance that as many people as possible actually
understand the actual physical realities and limits of the atmosphere and
the global ecosystem, and that as many people as possible understand the
transformations in policy that are urgently required to maintain the
balances -  and survival - of life as we know it on our Mother, the Earth:
So I urge you to read and consider this entire text. We only have one
Mother, and sadly, we only have one system. Another Permian type Great
Dying can only be averted here, it can only be averted now, with what we
have to work with here and now. This is it. Civilization as we know it
cannot be sustained; a fact for which I am personally grateful. But life
on this planet can be sustained. Let us do everything in our capacities to
ensure that it is so. As Hansen put it in his letter to his email list:
"Politicians are happy if scientistsprovide information and then go away
and shut up. But science and policy cannot be divorced. What I learned in
the past few years is that politicians often adopt convenient policies
that can be shown to be inconsistent with long-term success, given readily
available scientific data and empirical information on policy impacts.

This time we can't afford that. Business as usual is over. Here are the
italicized excerpts including Hansen's key points, followed by  the letter
to the Obamas itself.  - Juan Santos -

29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America
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" 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
requesti. 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% 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 comeout 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% dividend, in contrast, would spur
our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national
security.

(3) Urgent R&D on 4th 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. 4th generation nuclear
power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large
baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do
the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4th GNP (and CCS) is: "it cannot
be ready before 2030." However, the time needed could be much abbreviated
with a Presidential initiative and Congressional support. Moreover,
improved (3rd generation) light water reactors are available for near-term
needs. In our opinion, 4th GNPii 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 materialiii. 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 iv 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 done v. 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.vi 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.vii

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