Global Warming Crisis News for people who care.

29/11/2009 The Observer   Nasa’s  James Hansen was the first  to point out the perils of climate change to the US   Congress.Here, he begins a heated debate with experts from around the worls, from China to the    threatened Maldives, and I argues that out leaders must be shaken out their complacency.   But will they show enough courage at next week’s Copenhagen summit to take the first   steps to saving the planet?
  James Hansen, America
  It will take a lot of us — probably in the streets.
  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 ironclad goals almost meaningless, the 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.
  Science also reveals what is needed to stabilise 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% ,   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 nobodv 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.
  Government 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% of the public.
  Fee and dividend stimulates the economy, providing the public with 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 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   marketplace 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 Kyoto, 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?
  James Hansen is director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space, Studiess in New York.   His latest book is Storms of my Grandchildren.

Go to: http://guardian.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx