President Obama's Speech on the Climate

Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature

by James Hansen^a,1,2,3, Pushker Kharecha^a, Makiko Sato^a, Frank Ackerman^b, Paul J. Hearty^c,Ove Hoegh-Guldberg^d, Shi-Ling Hsu^e, Fred Krueger^f, Camille Parmesan^g, Stefan Rahmstorf^h, Johan Rockstromⁱ, Eelco J. Rohling^j, Jeffrey Sachs^k, Pete Smith^l, Konrad Steffen^m, Lise Van Susterenⁿ, Karina von Schuckmann^o, James C. Zachos^p

Summary. Humanity is now the dominant force driving changes of Earth's atmospheric composition and thus future climate (1). The principal climate forcing is carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel emissions, much of which will remain in the atmosphere for millennia (1, 2). The climate response to this forcing and society's response to climate change are complicated by the system's inertia, mainly due to the ocean and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. This inertia causes climate to appear to respond slowly to this human-made forcing, but further long-lasting responses may be locked in. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance and paleoclimate data, along with simple, accurate representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature, to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on young people, future generations, and nature. We find that global CO2 emissions reduction of about 6%/year is needed, along with massive reforestation.

Governments have recognized the need to limit emissions to avoid dangerous human made climate change, as formalized in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (3), but only a few nations have made substantial progress in reducing emissions. Continued...

 [ [1] 2 ] read more →

Silence is Deadly

Dr. James Hansen

The U.S. Department of State seems likely to approve a huge pipeline to carry tar sands oil (about 830,000 barrels per day) to Texas refineries unless sufficient objections are raised.

The scientific community needs to get involved in this fray now. If this project gains approval, it will become exceedingly difficult to control the tar sands monster.

Although there are multiple objections to tar sands development and the pipeline, including destruction of the environment in Canada¹ and the likelihood of spills along the pipeline's pathway, such objections, by themselves, are very unlikely to stop the project.

An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts. The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC AR4 WG3 report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2).

Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm. However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize climate ^2,3.

Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles. Continued...

[ [1] 2 ] read more →

Big Oil's Political Ploy

by William S. Becker

Whatever else we might say about Big Oil in the United States, we have to give the industry credit for one thing: It has mastered the art of scamming us with a perfectly straight face.

The scam has been underway for decades. This year’s example is the debate about repealing $21 billion in federal subsidies for big oil companies over the next decade. To their credit, President Obama and several Democrats in Congress are pushing the idea.

Oil executives have launched a counteroffensive reminiscent of Gordon Gekko’s argument that “greed is good”. Requiring taxpayers to subsidize America’s biggest oil companies is in the best interest of the country, they say, and anyone who disagrees is playing politics.

ExxonMobil, for example, has issued a statement that President Obama and congressional Democrats are engaging in “political theatre” on this issue. Perhaps. But the real plot line is that big oil companies are fighting once again to keep largesse they don’t need and the nation can’t afford.   Continued...

[ [1] 2 ] read more→

The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future

The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future describes what governments need to do to stabilize climate, fulfilling their obligation to young people and future generations. This is the science basis attached to suits being filed this week and in the future in different states and countries.

- Dr. James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York

by James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Paul Epstein, Paul J. Hearty, Ove HoeghGuldberg, Camille Parmesan, Stefan Rahmstorf, Johan Rockstrom, Eelco J.Rohling, Jeffrey Sachs, Peter Smith, Karina von Schuckmann, James C. Zachos

Abstract. We describe scenarios that define how rapidly fossil fuel emissions must be phased down to restore Earth's energy balance and stabilize global climate. A scenario that stabilizes climate and preserves nature is technically possible and it is essential for the future of humanity. Despite overwhelming evidence, governments and the fossil fuel industry continue to propose that all fossil fuels must be exploited before the world turns predominantly to clean energies. If governments fail to adopt policies that cause rapid phase-down of fossil fuel emissions, today's children, future generations, and nature will bear the consequences through no fault of their own. Governments must act immediately to significantly reduce fossil fuel emissions to protect our children's future and avoid loss of crucial ecosystem services, or else be complicit in this loss and its consequences. Continued...

[ [1] 2 ] read more →

'All of the Above' Is No Energy Policy

by William S. Becker

Even renewable energy hawks -- most of us anyway -- will concede that the United States cannot go cold turkey from oil tomorrow, or shut down all coal-fired power plants this week, or flip the off-switch tonight on nuclear power.

What we should not concede, however, is the need for the most aggressive possible push to get renewable energy on line. It should be our top national energy priority for many reasons, ranging from environmental protection to national security, and from economic vitality to social equity.

President Obama's recent "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" is as close as he's come so far to issuing a comprehensive national plan for the transition to clean energy. I credit the president for understanding that energy efficiency and renewable energy are a practical, vital and near-term part of our national energy mix.

Not everyone gets that, or admits it. In a recent example of cluelessness, USA Today published a vigorous defense of plastic grocery bags by Jonah Goldberg, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Goldberg panned the president for being "convinced that we can 'win the future' with such boondoggles as high-speed rail and impractical fads such as wind and solar energy (emphasis mine)." USA Today notes that Goldberg is a member of the newspaper's Board of Contributors, as though defending grocery bags and classifying renewable energy as a "fad" qualifies as a contribution to public discourse.

What's really impractical, of course, is the idea that America can compete and thrive in the 21st Century with the same finite dirty fuels that powered us the past 200 years. From childhood asthma to foreign wars, there are myriad reasons fossil energy industries should be, and inevitably will be, dead men walking. Continued...

[ [1] 2 ] read more →

Barack Obama, Please Stay Home--Healthcare Reform is Dying To Hear From You

By Terry J. Leach, R.N. Esq.

Barack Obama, welcome home. Now, please stay home. We need your undivided attention, and brilliance. We need your ability to connect with the American people. We need your wisdom to elevate the parochial concerns of lawmakers facing re-election next year, to craft something many American presidents have tried to do, without success.


Those of you with insurance who think you don’t have a dog in this fight: Listen up. Your health care costs are rising three times faster than your wages for a reason. For every 1% uptick in the unemployment rate, approximately 1 million Americans stand to lose their health insurance. Uninsured folks still receive medical care; only it’s expensive care, typically provided in the emergency department, when the problem is more extensive, and therefore, more expensive, than it should have been. Those of you with healthcare insurance---you and your employers are footing this bill through cost-shifting so you need to care, because employers are facing tough decisions: Get rid of your job or your health insurance, or raise your out-of-pocket costs…again. Or all of the above. You need to pay attention to what’s being hawked by insurance companies and, unfortunately, some lawmakers who cannot, or will not take the time to get into the weeds as proposals are coming out of Congress that could further segment the urban poor from everyone else. Continued...

[1] [2] read more...