A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
By Anton Antonio
December 23, 2015
In 1988, James Hansen first warned about the dangers of
climate change when he testified before (the US) Congress. At the time he was NASA’s top climate
scientist. He would go on to become the nation’s
most influential climate scientist. This
year he is making his first appearance at a U.N. climate change summit. He has come to Paris to warn world leaders
that they are on the wrong track to prevent dangerous global warming.
But who exactly is Hansen?
“James Edward Hansen (born 29 March 1941) is an American adjunct
professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia
University. He is best known for his
research in climatology, his 1988 Congressional testimony on climate change
that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action
to avoid dangerous climate change in recent years he has become a climate
activist to mitigate the effects of climate change, on a few occasions leading
to his arrest. In 2000, Hansen advanced
an alternative view of global warming, arguing that the 0.74 degrees Celsius
rise in average global temperatures over the previous 100 years had been driven
by greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, such as methane, but even then
supported limiting CO2 emissions “because the future balance of forcings is
likely to shift towards dominance of CO2 over aerosols” as it has.” (Wikipedia)
At the COP21 summit in Paris, France, Hansen was interviewed
by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. In this
interview, Dr. Hansen postulated an alternative measure to cut fossil fuel
consumption and support countries with lesser fossil fuel consumption. The following is just a part of the transcript
of that interview…
“AMY GOODMAN: We’re
broadcasting from COP21, from the 21st Conference of Parties, that
is the U.N. Climate Summit in Paris, France that is supposed to lead to the
Paris Accord. As we turn now to NASA’s
former top climate scientist, James Hansen.
In 1988, Dr. Hansen first warned about the dangers of climate change
when he testified before Congress. He
would go on to become the nation’s most influential climate scientist. This year he is making his appearance at a
U.N. climate summit. He has come to
Paris to warn world leaders that they’re on the wrong track to prevent
dangerous global warming. James Hansen
joins us now, the Director of Climate Science at Columbia University’s Earth
Institute. Welcome back to Democracy
Now! It’s great to have you with us.
JAMES HANSEN: Thanks
for having me.
GOODMAN: So, you
wrote a piece in the Guardian saying, we’re at the point, now, where
temperatures are hitting the one centigrade mark. You said, the U.N. is on the wrong track with
plans to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius.
HANSEN: Yeah,
absolutely. This is really a total
fraud. You know, there’s no – we’re not
going to reduce emissions as long as we let fossil fuels be the cheapest form
of energy. There are lots of countries
that want to lift their people out of poverty.
And of course, they should do that.
But everybody would be better off if the price of fossil fuels was
honest. It should include its cost to
society.
GOODMAN: So what is
the plan here? And you’re coming in,
interestingly, as an outsider. You have
never been here before.
HANSEN: Yeah.
GOODMAN: Which gives
you an interesting perspective.
HANSEN: Remarkable,
it’s not much different than Kyoto except that, here, they’re not even
requiring any connection among the different countries. They’re just saying,
well, each country tells us what you’re going to do to reduce your
emissions. And at the same time, they
allow fossil fuels to be the cheapest energy, and appear to be the cheapest
energy. Of course, they’re not, really,
if you include their cost to society – and that’s what we should do; we should
add a rising fee to the fossil fuel price.
It would be very easy to so at the domestic mine or port of entry, a
very small number of places. But we’re,
instead, we’re just saying, well, let’s try harder. We’ll, you know, we’ll give you a plan. We’re going to reduce our emissions. Although, some countries are not – don’t even
saying that.
GOODMAN: What did you
make of President Obama’s speech on Monday here at the U.N. Climate Summit?
HANSEN: Well, we have
to decide, are these people stupid or are they just uninformed? Are they badly advised? I think that he really believes he’s doing
something. You know, he wants to have a
legacy, a legacy having done something in the climate problem. But what he is proposing is totally
ineffectual. I mean, there are some
small things that are talked about here, the fact that they may have a fund for
investment and invest more in clean energies, but these are minor things. As long as also fuels are dirt cheap, people
will keep burning them.
GOODMAN: So, why
don’t you talk, Dr. James Hansen, about what you are endorsing, a carbon
tax. What does it mean, what does it
look like?
HANSEN: Yeah. It should be an across-the-board carbon fee
and in a democracy, it’s going to – the money should be given to the
public. Just give an equal amount to
every – you collect the money from the fossil fuel companies. The rate would go up over time, but the money
should be distributed 100 percent to the public; an equal amount to every legal
resident.
GOODMAN: Is Alaska an
example of this?
HANSEN: Well, Alaska
is giving fossil fuel money to the public, and of course they like that. So, it’s sort of – it shows how much the
public does getting a monthly check. But
what this would do, those people who do better than average in limiting their
fossil fuel use, would make money.
Wealthy people, people who fly around the world a lot and have big
houses, they would pay more in increased process than they would get in their
monthly dividend.
GOODMAN: Explain what
you mean.
HANSEN: Well, because
– we’re giving all of the money. You
collect money from fossil fuel companies and you distribute it equalled all
residents. So the one who does better
than average and limiting his fossil fuel use will get more in the dividend
than he pays in increased prices.
GOODMAN: And how do
you know what fossil fuel use is?
HANSEN: Nobody has to
think about this. They know. They will just look at prices. Of course, the price at the pump is obvious
and the electricity bill will be obvious.
This will move industry and businesses to develop no carbon and low
carbon energies and products that use little fossil fuels. In fact, the economic studies show that
United States, after 10 years, emissions would be reduced 30 percent because
you have the economy forcing you in the right direction. But as long as you just leave it fossil fuels
cheap, you’re not going to fundamentally change things.
GOODMAN: It’s not
only that fossil fuels are kept cheap, the – not only U.S. government,
governments around the world subsidize -
HANSEN: Yeah.
GOODMAN: - the fossil fuel industry –
HANSEN: Yeah.
GOODMAN: - far more
than any kind of renewable.
HANSEN: Yeah, well,
that’s right, on the total basis. Per
unit energy they’re subsidizing renewable more.
But that’s OK. We should not be
subsidizing any of them. Let this carbon
price ride. That will favour renewable,
it will favour energy efficiency, it will favour nuclear power. It will favour anything that is
carbon-free. That’s the way we should do
it. And that’s the way conservatives
would accept it. This is a revenue
neutral approach which does not make the government bigger. And I’ve talked to some leading conservatives
and – who understand that this is not a hoax, that climate change is not a
hoax, and they are willing to accept this concept of revenue-neutral carbon
fee.” --- Democracy Now
There is a present debate on how to pin a cost on the impact
of climate change. Included in these measures
are: “carbon credits”, “carbon fee”, “climate financing”, “carbon tax”, “green
bond”, “jet fuel tax”, etc. All of these
financial initiatives are aimed at penalizing the larger carbon emitting
countries while using such funds to help developing and underdeveloped
countries mitigate the effects of climate change and their efforts to convert
and develop renewable energy alternatives.
Carbon fee, as James Hansen suggested, may just be another financial
measure to curb global warming and climate change. But if this (and other suggestions) falls on
deaf ears, it will be nothing more than just an idea from a different
perspective.
Thoughts to
promote positive action…
REFERENCES: