Daily Kos

James Hansen to Prime Minister Fukuda: Take the Lead!

Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:35:14 PM PDT

Tomorrow the G8 leaders will begin 3 days of meetings in Toyako Japan. Climaticide is one of the topics on the agenda, although analysts are holding out few prospects of any substantive agreements.

The indefatigable and ever optimistic James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has written a letter to Japanese Prime MinisterYasuo Fukuda, who is under pressure at home to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions, stressing the urgent need to cut CO2 emissions and eventuallyroll them back to 350 ppm or less.  The key element in Hansen's analysis is that to do this we must quickly phase out coal emissions.

Below are excepts from Hansen's letter.  However, I recommend that the reader read the full text (PDF), which contains many excellent charts and graphs.

Global climate is approaching critical tipping points that could lead to loss of all summer sea ice in the Arctic with detrimental effects on indigenous people and wildlife, initiation of ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica and Greenland with progressive, unstoppable global sea level rise, shifting of climatic zones with extermination of many animal and plant species, melting of most mountain glaciers with loss of freshwater supplies for hundreds of millions of people, and a more intense hydrologic cycle with stronger droughts and forest fires, but also heavier rains and floods, and stronger storms driven by latent heat, including thunderstorms, tornados and tropical storms.

Earth Apollo 17

Coal is central to solution of the climate problem. Coal is not only the main cause of excess CO2 in the air today; it has the greatest potential for future emissions (Fig. 2a). Due to coal’s dominance, solution to global warming must include phase-out of coal use except where CO2 is captured and sequestered. If coal is phased out uniformly between 2010 and 2030, except where CO2 is captured, atmospheric CO2 will peak at 400-425 ppm and then begin to decline (Fig. 2b). Maximum CO2 depends upon whether EIA (Energy Information Administration) or IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) oil and gas reserve estimates are more realistic.

Coal and oil differ fundamentally. Oil is used mainly in vehicles, where CO2 cannot be captured. Extractable oil is nearly half gone. Most remaining oil, much of it in the Middle East, surely will be used with the CO2 injected into the air. Limitations on drilling in the Arctic, off-shore areas, and public lands can help keep exploited reserves closer to the IPCC estimate than the larger EIA estimate, but most readily available oil will end up as CO2 in the air. In contrast, scenarios that keep coal in the ground, or used only where the CO2 is captured, are feasible.

The upshot is that large climate change, with consequences discussed above, can be avoided only if coal emissions (but not necessarily coal use) are identified for prompt phase-out. A corollary is that a strategy based on 20%, 50%, or 80% CO2 emission reduction is doomed to failure, because it would allow substantial coal emissions to continue indefinitely. Once CO2 emissions are in the air, they cannot be retrieved. The only practical solution is to avoid coal emissions.

Prime Minister Fukuda, I hope that you will look at the fossil fuel facts that I have presented above and consider the possibility for leadership in this topic, which will be so important for our children and all the inhabitants of our planet.

Finally, Prime Minister Fukuda, I would like to thank you for helping make clear to the other leaders of the eight nations the great urgency of the actions needed to address climate change. Might I make one suggestion for an approach you could use in drawing their attention? If the leaders find that the concept of phasing out all emissions from coal, and taking measures to ensure that unconventional fossil fuels are left in the ground or used only with zero-carbon emissions, is too inconvenient, then, in that case, they could instead spend a small amount of time composing a letter to be left for future generations.

This letter should explain that the leaders realized their failure to take these actions would cause our descendants to inherit a planet with a warming ocean, disintegrating ice sheets, rising sea level, increasing climate extremes, and vanishing species, but it would have been too much trouble to make changes to our energy systems and to oppose the business interests who insisted on burning every last bit of fossil fuels. By composing this letter the leaders will at least achieve an accurate view of their place in history.

If you haven't heard enough about coal for today, I recommend that you check out this new diary by Cunctator. Apparently Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine also needs to be reminded about what leadership means.

Tags: James Hansen, Climaticide, global warming, climate change, G8, Yasuo Fukuda, Japan (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 24 comments

  •  Tips/Recommendations (12+ / 0-)

    For speaking the truth to power.

    "My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama/---/Do you know why 350ppm is important?

    by JohnnyRook on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM PDT

  •  I'm buying a Hummer. (0+ / 0-)

    If James Hansen is right and we only have 1 year left to do something about Global Climate Change, then we are doomed.

    Might as well say "Screwed it", and live large, cause nothing is going to happen in the next year.  Certainly nothing big enough to solve anything.

    If Hansen is using hyperbole to emphasize the problem, he should tone it down.  There is still time and things we can do.  Telling people we're doomed doesn't motive these actions.

    OTOH, if he's serious I'm also buying a McMansion with a really big air conditioner.  Might as well ride out the end in comfort.

    Results count for more than intentions do.

    by VA Classical Liberal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:01:53 PM PDT

    •  Look, Hansen isn't saying it's inevitable. (5+ / 0-)

      What he is saying is that if we don't get moving within a year (stopping that criminal new coal-fired power plant in Virginia for example) there is a high probability that we will reach tipping points leading to unavoidable consequences. This doesn't mean that there aren't other tipping points that we could avoid.  

      If you screw up and stupidly blow off one of your legs, does that mean that you should then repeat the same  mistake and blow off the other one?  Of course, in the case of Climaticide, its the legs of your kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids that you're blowing off.

      "My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama/---/Do you know why 350ppm is important?

      by JohnnyRook on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:18:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  First, just spent 5 hours in car with kids (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JohnnyRook, Visceral

        So I have no standing to talk about climite change.

        Second, don't ask me what I'm willing to do to my kids right now.

        Seriously though.  Hansen's message has been presented as "Act in one year or die".  I know his real message is more substantive than that, but I also know many conservatives who literally argue that "since we're already doomed, we shouldn't inconvieniancy ourselves".

        That's what I was reacting to.

        Hansen can't control how his message is presented by the press, so it's not his fault.  But that is how the debate is playing out.

        Results count for more than intentions do.

        by VA Classical Liberal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:29:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately, the right-wing denialists (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Visceral

          and delayers will always twist the data to support their ideological worldview.  It doesn't matter what the nature of the argument is.  I think Hansen became more of an activist because even when he spoke in dry, scientistese he got the same treatment that he's getting now when he's being much more direct.

          You made me laugh out loud with your comment about your kids.  I so clearly remember those days.

          "My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama/---/Do you know why 350ppm is important?

          by JohnnyRook on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:41:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But it's not just the hard right. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JohnnyRook

            I'm hearing it from soft-center types and others all over the political spectrum.  That message is getting adopted as the current wisdom.

            That's why I hate it when our side presents things in gloom and doom terms.  I've personally on a mission to present all my pet causes (civil rights, limited governement, economic development as a cure for many environmental and social problems) in a positive, constructive light.

            Jerome a Paris, who I like a lot, had a reced diary today explaining why he focuses on bad news.  I understand his point.  But from an effective action point of view, I think he's on the wrong track.

            Don't just expose the problem.  Explain the solution.

            Results count for more than intentions do.

            by VA Classical Liberal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:55:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for steering me to Jerome's diary. (3+ / 0-)

              I happen to agree with him 100%, particularly this part:

              But more importantly, this is about identifying causes and allocating responsibility for what's happening today. The crises I have been describing are a direct - and in many cases, desired - result of political choices that have been imposed on us, and it is fundamentally important that the underlying ideology be (i) identified and (ii) blamed for what happened, rather than amorphous and uncontrollable things like "globalization" or "economic cycles." There is a crime, there is a culprit, and there is a motive.

              I'd also like to point out that Hansen's letter to PM Fukuda is not just "doom and gloom".  Hansen's never been about that in any case. In this letter and every other "political" statement that I've seen of his, he always spells out the solutions. The problem is that the solutions are big because the problems are big, and most people don't want to think about such complicated ethical and practical questions.

              But, they have to.  It's all fine and good to change your light bulbs and inflate your tires to the right pressure, but not only is that not going to solve the problem, it minimizes the problem in peoples eyes and makes them think that the solutions are easy when they're not.

              Finally, if your goals include civil liberties and limited government, you'd better be actively pressuring for immediate government action to enact sound policy on this issue, because if we keep postponing taking the big, but not impossible measures that stopping Climaticide requires, we are very likely to be faced with widespread calls for increasingly authoritarian action in the future.

              "My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama/---/Do you know why 350ppm is important?

              by JohnnyRook on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:13:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You just nailed it. (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                JohnnyRook

                As this Classical Liberal sees it, just about everything these days is an excuse for increasingly authoritarian action.  

                Please explain to me how, if they hate us for our freedoms, we can win by gutting those same freedoms?

                On climate change, do you have ideas on how we can move forward?  The right is actively making sure everyone has their heads in the sand, the middle is buy it and the left is mostly preaching gloom and doom.  That leaves the rational voices shouting to the wind.

                What can we do?

                Results count for more than intentions do.

                by VA Classical Liberal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:23:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't think that the left is all gloom and doom (0+ / 0-)

                  Things are bad and that's the truth whether it makes us comfortable or not. It seems to me that, generally, people on the left are the most active in proposing and encouraging change. You may or may not like the changes they propose.   (By the way, Hansen's a moderate conservative, but he also has his eyes wide open when it comes to looking at facts. Observable truth is more important to him than any ideological consistency).

                  So, lets have policy discussions. But if we're going to do that we need to leave our ideological baggage at the door, because no ideology has a monopoly on the solutions that will solve this problem. Should we have carbon taxes? Cap and Trade? A huge government-funded technology break-through program? Do we use nuclear or not or just go with wind, solar and Hansen's low-loss grid? Do we use market mechanisms or limit them? Or do we do some or even all of these things?

                  Now I realize that if one is interested in limited government, some of these ideas may be hard to swallow (I certainly don't endorse all of them) and the whole process is complicated.  But let's stop and think for a second. A lot of how we see these issues depends on our framing.  I suspect that some of what you might consider to be anti-limited government, I call infrastructure investment or a way to fit external costs into pricing.

                  On the other hand, I suspect that we are in agreement on more extreme actions, the kind of actions that are likely to be taken if we don't act soon and decisively: rationing, forced population control, scapegoating of the poor, minorities and immigrants, xenophobia, severe limitations on trade, repression of protesters and police spying taken in response to public fear and outrage as extreme weather increases and food and fuel prices rise unabated. The list goes on, but I'm certain that you get what I mean.

                  There is a tradeoff.  We accept some measures that we would reject in a "best of all possible worlds scenario" because if we fail to do so the negative consequences, whether they be changes in the physical world or changes affecting social and political instability, are just too great to risk.

                  As a side note, you might find the following paper interesting: Age of Consequences

                  "My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama/---/Do you know why 350ppm is important?

                  by JohnnyRook on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:11:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is where comments get frustrating. (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    JohnnyRook

                    I wish we were face to face.  That said:

                    A lot of how we see these issues depends on our framing.  I suspect that some of what you might consider to be anti-limited government, I call infrastructure investment or a way to fit external costs into pricing.

                    Actually, you are dead on here and I agree with most of what you say above.  I am limited government to the extent that government uses force to control people's  choices or to distort the incentives under which people make those choices.

                    But when it comes to external costs and the Tragedy of the Commons, I think government (at the correct level) has a very valid role.  I'd say use government to force people to internalize external costs and then let them make their own decisions with those incentives and costs.

                    Make sense?

                    As to your other questions:

                    Should we have carbon taxes? Cap and Trade? A huge government-funded technology break-through program? Do we use nuclear or not or just go with wind, solar and Hansen's low-loss grid? Do we use market mechanisms or limit them? Or do we do some or even all of these things?

                    I'd favor carbon taxes over cap and trade.  The European experience with cap and trade shows that it is too vulnerable to political manipulations, especially when assigning the first block of trading rights.  The EU essentually gave away the first block of trading rights, so they were worthless and the market could not do its job.

                    Nuclear is interesting, because nucelar reactions are roughly 1000 times more energetic than chemical reactions.  And those 3 extra 0s solve a lot of problems.  Of course, there are a lot of drawbacks, like spreading bomb technology, but I think it is worth researching some of the next generation options.

                    Finally, do we fund

                    A huge government-funded technology break-through program?

                    Hell no!  We've tried that over and over again.  Most recently with the Next Generation Vihicle project during Clinton's years.  It wasted billions on subsidized domostice R&D, while Toyota and Honda just took the problem to the market and kicked the Big Three's collective ass.

                    Price carbon at a level appropriate for the damage it is doing, and the market will fix the problem by itself.  Just because individual people are really good at maximizing their situation given any set of incentives and costs.

                    Results count for more than intentions do.

                    by VA Classical Liberal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:37:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  As far as we've gone, I think we're . (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      VA Classical Liberal

                      basically in agreement. As a former libertarian, I'm pretty sure that if we met face to face we could still find things to disagree about. ;-) I do know what you mean about being frustrated with discussion via comments, but I think on the whole this thread has turned out to be a be good one.

                      Thanks for the conversation.

                      "My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama/---/Do you know why 350ppm is important?

                      by JohnnyRook on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:14:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Possible solutions (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  JohnnyRook

                  If you want to get a headache reading about the many possible solutions, check out this diary.

                  I thought I had my mind all set on my vision for our energy future and now my head is swimming!

                  The diary is a proposal from Scientific American being touted by RFK, Jr.  It's the comments that are pulling me this way and that!

                  An electric future is the way to go, I believe, produced by wind, solar, solar thermal, wave along with the building of a new electric grid and infrastructure.  But the how-to's and where-from's are mind-boggling.  Seems a combination of a new national grid AND options for localized production is the most practical suggestion offered in the long run (among the comments).

                  Check it out and see what you think.  Be interested to know.

                  Finding your own Voice -- The personal is political!

                  by In her own Voice on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:27:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Not right ... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      JohnnyRook, A Simple Man

      The disastrous consequences of higher CO2 depend on the amount of CO2 as well. While hansen may be right about need for immidiate action if disastrous consequences have to be minimized - the alternative is not business-as-usual. Afterall it gets progressively worse - this is not a white or block thing.

  •  Hope to see this on the DK Front Page. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JohnnyRook

    Thank you,

    Bob
    'move photons, not people'
    'more CIGS, less CO2'

  •  Fukuda will do nothing, nor will the G8 delegates (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Bronx59, JohnnyRook

    Japan has powerful industrial lobbies too, and there are revolving doors between high government and corporate offices just like in the United States. He might put on a good show to safe face at home, but in the end, like our own leaders, he's committed to the status quo and will make a martyr of himself and all of us for it.

    The lesson that we on the Left are refusing to learn is that action on global warming and climate change is not going to come from Washington and Wall Street, nor from London, Brussels, Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, New Delhi, or any of the other centers of political and corporate power. It's going to come from the street, from the Internet, and from our own heads and hands.

    Fukuda may be under pressure from the Japanese people, but they're refusing to learn the right lesson too, and they keep on petitioning and protesting like powerless subjects instead of taking action like Japanese and world citizens.

    If they and we had taken all the energy we've wasted on trying to make governments and corporations make us do things and just gone ahead and done those things ourselves, we'd have accomplished so much more than we have over the last 30-40 years.

    •  I'm not certain how we stop emissions from coal (0+ / 0-)

      without government action.  I wholeheartedly support the individual initiative that you advocate (I've tried to reduce my carbon footprint all that I can), but some of that initiative needs to be directed towards getting politicians to adopt sound public policy.

      We need to be massively in the streets exerting pressure on industry and government, but I don't see that we the people are doing much better at our fulfilling our civic and ethical responsibilities than the government is at governing on our behalf.

      "My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama/---/Do you know why 350ppm is important?

      by JohnnyRook on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:47:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because we're relying on system we don't control (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JohnnyRook

        I used to believe strongly that only major globally-coordinated effort that mobilized all peoples and institutions could save us. I wanted all the conservatives' worst fears to be true and would have cheered Emperor Al Gore's sweeping decrees and the UN's nitpicky policies about what was now mandated as well as forbidden.

        Over the last several years I've come to what I believe is the realization that that approach is simply not feasible. I realized that the System is controlled by people who can only lose if things change as radically as they need to, and not just in the area of energy production. I realized that working with the System was only binding us to the rules and the ethos that caused all these problems in the first place, and forcing us to fight deeply entrenched and incredibly powerful forces and on their own terms. I realized that we - you, me, the Japanese, everyone - are what supports that vast self-destructing behemoth, and that if we only removed our support, the whole thing would come crashing down no matter what the powers that be tried to do to stop it.

        We haven't accomplished much because we're taking a ridiculously indirect and passive-aggressive approach to change. Like I said, the approach has been to make the government and the corporations make us all do what needs to be done, instead of just not bothering with them and doing things ourselves. Green energy, sustainable agriculture, reurbanization, protecting the wilderness, accomplishing any of these has thus far been reliant upon securing the cooperation of government, powerful business interests, and flocks of conservative zombies, none of whom are interested in doing what we want to do.

        We can stop coal emissions through conservation and by generating our own electricity. Every household taken off the grid means that much less electricity needs to be generated, which means that much coal (or oil or natural gas) needs to be burned. Individually it's not much, but it's something we don't need to align the stars in order to make it possible, and if millions and billions of people do it, the result is the same as if edicts were handed down by the powers that be.

        •  I agree with most of what you say, but the fact (0+ / 0-)

          is that most people are not going to go off the grid.  The don't understand the issues, they don't want to take the time to understand them or make complicated moral choices, and they certainly don't want to be inconvenienced.

          If you can get off the grid great.  But how you get tens of millions of people off the grid, I don't know.

          It seems to me that it will be much easier to get 10,000 thoughtful, morally conscious people to blockade the entrance to that new Virginia coal-fired power plant that Cunctator diaried about, than to get your millions off the grid. (Not of course that one has to employ one course of action to the exclusion of the other.)

          The percentage of people who make conscious moral choices is tiny, but when they unite they have tremendous influence over the mass of folks who are perfectly happy to take received knowledge.  The problem is that up until know the received knowledge has come from the think tanks and shills of the big oil and gas companies, which have outspent and outorganized us.

          "My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama/---/Do you know why 350ppm is important?

          by JohnnyRook on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:28:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see your point too (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JohnnyRook

            but morally conscious people have been trying to raise awareness and win over the unthinking masses to help us take on and down the government and the corporations for the better part of 40 years, and precious little has changed and we've all but run out of time to avoid catastrophe.

            All Cunctator's brave and dedicated protestors got for their trouble was to get arrested and slimed by the press, wingnuts, and passerby for hating capitalism and wanting Virginians to die of hypothermia in the dark or some such nonsense. The protestors in Japan will face a similar fate: silenced, brutalized, and trivialized while the wheels of doomed corporate capitalism grind on.

            Moral victories aren't enough, at least not for me. I just don't see what we can do except what we can do without the elite and their sheep.

            •  There weren't enough protesters in Virginia, (0+ / 0-)

              that was the problem.  I agree that we've not done well against the government and the corporations in the last 40 years, but go back just 10 years more to the Civil Rights Movement and we have one of history's finest examples of large numbers of motivated, ethically conscious people pushing and prodding their fellow citizens and their government into deep and abiding change. Stopping Climaticide will require just such an effort.

              "My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama/---/Do you know why 350ppm is important?

              by JohnnyRook on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:19:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Permalink | 24 comments