Hansen's Line
Joseph Romm has posted James Hansen's email musings about coal on his Climate Progress blog, here, ... here, ... and here. In the last of those, the outspoken NASA scientist recounts his onstage appearance, with his grandkids, at Live Earth. Says Hansen:
Anyway, the posts led me to an essay Hansen wrote recently called "How Can We Avert Dangerous Climate Change," which is available here in pdf format. I pulled the following table from the paper, which outlines his prescription for heading off catastrophe:
The last bullet point needs clarification, as Hansen is talking here about using biofuel (preferably biodiesel made from native grasses that don't require tilling the land) to generate electricity, NOT ethanol to power our Subarus and Suburbans. Such a power plant would be close to carbon-neutral, as the CO2 generated in burning the fuel would be taken up by the growth of more feedstock. If the plant could then be equipped to capture and bury the CO2 emissions, the process would effectively result in a net reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
So how are we supposed to power our cars and trucks, you ask? Hansen says advances in battery technology and electric and hybrid-electric propulsion systems show great potential. However, he stresses, government should not dictate here, but instead allow the market to pick the winning technologies. That is not to say that government should sit idly by. Rather, it should adjust the parameters within with the market functions, by implementing a carbon tax and setting higher efficiency standards.
It all sounds sensible to me, but I'd be curious to hear what folks think after reading the paper. In the end, Hansen's main point cannot be stressed enough: We have to stop building coal plants.
The point I made with the audience is the overwhelming importance of a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. Without that, the "101 things" that citizens can do to reduce their emissions do not amount to a hill of beans; all savings of emissions would be blown away by a utility building a new coal-fired power plant. Conversely, a successful moratorium is the main action needed to achieve a stabilization of climate.Dr. Hansen has been consistent on this point, but the world is currently on a different path, with one new coal-fired power plant coming on-line each week and, as yet, no major plant in the world equipped for carbon capture and sequestration. In that sense, humanity is like the driver who means to hit the breaks, but mistakenly stomps on the accelerator instead and runs through a crosswalk filled with blameless schoolchildren before smashing into a light pole. Okay, so that metaphor is a little tortured, but I think you know what I mean ...
Anyway, the posts led me to an essay Hansen wrote recently called "How Can We Avert Dangerous Climate Change," which is available here in pdf format. I pulled the following table from the paper, which outlines his prescription for heading off catastrophe:
The last bullet point needs clarification, as Hansen is talking here about using biofuel (preferably biodiesel made from native grasses that don't require tilling the land) to generate electricity, NOT ethanol to power our Subarus and Suburbans. Such a power plant would be close to carbon-neutral, as the CO2 generated in burning the fuel would be taken up by the growth of more feedstock. If the plant could then be equipped to capture and bury the CO2 emissions, the process would effectively result in a net reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide.So how are we supposed to power our cars and trucks, you ask? Hansen says advances in battery technology and electric and hybrid-electric propulsion systems show great potential. However, he stresses, government should not dictate here, but instead allow the market to pick the winning technologies. That is not to say that government should sit idly by. Rather, it should adjust the parameters within with the market functions, by implementing a carbon tax and setting higher efficiency standards.
It all sounds sensible to me, but I'd be curious to hear what folks think after reading the paper. In the end, Hansen's main point cannot be stressed enough: We have to stop building coal plants.
3 Comments:
That's what scares me about Obama, doesn't he support coal, or what he calls "cleaner coal"? Does anyone know Hillary's position on coal, or any of the other candidates? Thanks Pat.
No candidate comes anywhere near the level of resolve that Hansen is asking for here; that is, an absolute moratorium on all new coal-fired plants until carbon capture and sequestration becomes a viable, proven technology. And, honestly, it's probably political suicide to take that position unless and until there's a popular movement among voters pressing for it. Of course, if Gore were in the race, it's hard to see how he could advocate for anything less than this.
In response to the first comment, see this page at the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. There's also this from the League of Conservation Voters. Hope that helps.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main