Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top [global warming] scientist

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

Exclusive: World's leading climate change expert says summit talks so flawed that deal would be a disaster

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

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

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

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

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

[truthisfreedom]

1. Interesting and frightening.

We might as well accept that it's too late and the momentum to simply go forward cannot be stopped.

We need to work on engineering our way out of this mess. We have no choice.

[ananda]

8. Engineer our way out???

And how would we do that?

How do you engineer your way out of huge and more
intense weather and climate events on a much
smaller landmass??

[bergie321]

9. SPF 500?

[bertman]

10. That was frickin' hilarious!!! bergie321. Welcome to DU.

[ashling]

2. Are you sure this isn't a statement about the Health Care Bill?

:shrug:

[mike_c]

3. just like health care reform in the U.S.....

When efforts to solve a problem get bogged down with trying to please mutually exclusive constituencies, they usually fail miserably. Real solutions require visionary leaders who can organize the competing constituencies to follow, rather than tug in opposing directions.

[Imajika]

4. He is pushing for direct carbon taxes..

..which are probably the most honest way of reducing carbon. The already watered down cap & trade stuff really is filled with smoke and mirrors, though arguably it is about the best we can do at this time. I mean, the fact that Obama even discusses the idea of taking some action is a GIANT step forward from what we were getting from Jr.

Bottom line is though, carbon taxes simply aren't going to pass in the United States. There is literally no chance of anything like carbon taxes passing.

The House struggled to pass even a watered down cap & trade bill, the Senate probably won't take it up anytime soon and when they do it will be watered down further and still may go down to defeat. Hell, even Australia just rejected their cap & trade bill, a rather shocking turn of events considering it was widely expected to pass.

It honestly doesn't look to me like much of anything is really going to be done about man made climate change. The best it seems we can hope for is that technology will "catch-up" quick enough that clean and efficient energy will become so cost effective that people will make those choices on their own and it ends up benefiting them personally AND the environment.

I am not very optimistic on this issue.

[madville]

5. It would really hurt our economy

It is really bad timing to pass any kind of carbon or energy tax in the US with the state of our economy. Taxing utilities and manufacturing will just lead to higher costs for consumers, not exactly the thing to do when trying to bring the economy back on track.

[Imajika]

7. Yeah, possibly so..

My sense of it is though is that most people pay lip service to combating Global Climate Change, but only a small minority are willing to sacrifice anything or even make modest lifestyle changes to do anything about it.

In this economy though, yeah, your right, it's a real uphill struggle.

[bertman]

11. That's what was said about making industries install smokestacks scrubbers. If those

industries who are emitting the most carbon emissions were made to pay taxes for that, they would begin changing how they do their work. That would mean JOBS and new technology even if it meant less money for stockholders at the end of the fiscal year.

Not to mention that if utility costs go up, consumers will be forced to conserve energy. Right now, the average person is not making much of an effort to turn off the electrical stuff or alter his/her lifestyle. A kick in the ass wouldn't hurt and is wayyy overdue. The surcharge could be applied only to those residential customers who use over a certain number of kilowatt hours, so the poor would not be adversely affected.

[JDPriestly]

12. It would be smarter to simply subsidize alternative energy.

Come to Southern California and see whether you would agree with me that if the government sufficiently subsidized placement of solar panels on the roofs of many, many homes in Southern California, at least one part of the country would be completely energy independent as to heating, cooling and electrical needs. The only carbon emissions would be from cars which could gradually be replaced by electric cars. I believe that a facility for manufacturing electric cars is planned for Downey, California -- in Southern California -- at this time.

Southern California would then be a prototype for the whole nation -- an example of how to cut emissions over the long run across the country. Each area of the country has its own ample resources for alternative energy.

[Ghost Dog]

15. Yes. The ideal would be carbon taxes earmarked to subsidize alternative energy,

reforestation, etc. on the global scale.

Now let's see how to reach international political agreement on that, and fast.

Perhaps 'cap $ trade' can at least operate as an achievable 'thin end of a wedge' leading in that direction without too much delay?

[joshcryer]

13. It would hurt China's and India's more, all those duty fees on imports. Note he is Fee and Dividend.

The dividend would benefit the poor, and spur quick renewable energy.

[SnakeEyes]

14. Screw our economy

The planet is more important and so are future generations. So is doing what is most effective and will take from the polluters, that will then benefit the developing nations who are most at risk because of our polluters.

It's selfish to say "what about our economy" when the future of our planet is at stake.

[NecklyTyler]

16. It would really help our economy to become the world chair of excellence for renewable energy

If the United States could become the center of research and development of renewable energy, we would be secure for the next 1000 years. We would not be dependent on foreign countries for our energy supply, our manufacturing base would be restored selling energy production equipment world wide, and we would halt the catastrophic destruction of our planet

[The2ndWheel]

17. "we would halt the catastrophic destruction of our planet"

We'd accelerate that.

"We would not be dependent on foreign countries for our energy supply, our manufacturing base would be restored selling energy production equipment world wide"

We would no longer be dependent on foreign countries, but foreign countries would be dependent on us?

[JohnyCanuck]

6. "cap & trade stuff really is filled with smoke and mirrors"

Well apparently Ken Lay and Enron had a hand in putting it together, so I'm not surprised.

Lawrence Solomon: Enron's other secret

SNIP

Almost two decades before President Barack Obama made “cap-and-trade” for carbon dioxide emissions a household term, an obscure company called Enron — a natural-gas pipeline company that had become a big-time trader in energy commodities — had figured out how to make millions in a cap-and-trade program for sulphur dioxide emissions, thanks to changes in the U.S. government’s Clean Air Act. To the delight of shareholders, Enron’s stock price rose rapidly as it became the major trader in the U.S. government’s $20-billion a year emissions commodity market.

Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, keen to engineer an encore, saw his opportunity when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were inaugurated as president and vice-president in 1993. To capitalize on Al Gore’s interest in global warming, Enron immediately embarked on a massive lobbying effort to develop a trading system for carbon dioxide, working both the Clinton administration and Congress. Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried.

To magnify the leverage of their political lobbying, Enron also worked the environmental groups. Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide.

The intense lobbying paid off. Lay became a member of president Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development, as well as his friend and advisor. In the summer of 1997, prior to global warming meetings in Kyoto, Japan, Clinton sought Lay’s advice in White House discussions. The fruits of Enron’s efforts came soon after, with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/30/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx

[Odin2005]

18. Carbon trading is a SCAM! We need a Carbon Tax ASAP.

[Nihil]

19. +1 (n/t)

:thumbsup:

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. I'd like Hansen to say what he expects will happen if Copenhagen collaspes

Not what he'd like to happen, but what he thinks will. I think a complete collapse at Copenhagen would be followed by some countries adopting no new measures whatsoever, and others adopting some mild voluntary ones which they won't feel bound to.

I'd like him to name the world politicians he thinks will push harder for carbon taxes if Copenhagen fails, and how much power he thinks they have; or the chances of any government losing power because an electorate wants carbon taxes that their government won't implement. I think he's an idealist who has far too high a view of people and their climate concerns. Without Copenhagen, I think things will be worse, for several years. And I doubt it'll end up better either.