Published on November 24th, 2010 | by Jeremy Bloom5
James Hansen Is Optimistic On Global Warming (Because of China, Not Us)
Hansen just got back from China, and sees the Chinese as getting serious about doing something about global warming and climate change (unlike Washington, which looks to be stuck in gridlock for the next two years).
“I have the impression,” he says in a recent email, “that Chinese leadership takes a long view, perhaps because of the long history of their culture, in contrast to the West with its short election cycles. At the same time China has the capacity to implement policy decisions rapidly. The leaders seem to seek the best technical information and do not brand as a hoax that which is inconvenient. This is not to say that fossil fuel interests have no power within China, but they do not rule the roost.”
Before he goes all optimistic on us, he frames the problem in stark terms:
I must start with a fundamental law: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will continue to be burned. This law is as certain as the law of gravity. No “caps”, “goals” for future emissions, or other self-deceptions can alter this fact. Caps only alter who burns the fuel and the pace of burning – they will not leave fossil fuels in the ground, as science demands. Caps are also inherently disingenuous – a pretense that the price of fossil fuel energy does not need to steadily rise, an attempt to circumvent the “law of gravity”
- Fossil fuels are cheapest in part because they are subsidized.
- They also do not pay their costs to society.
- Enormous world-wide medical costs due to air and water pollution, primarily caused by fossil fuels, are borne by the public, not fossil fuel companies.
- Nor do they pay for environmental damage or the costs of climate change, which instead will be shouldered especially by our children and grandchildren.
- And those are just the tip of the iceberg – there are a number of other costs involved.
- A steadily rising carbon fee must be collected from fossil fuel companies.
- All funds should go to the public on a per capita basis to allow lifestyle adjustments and spur clean energy innovations.
- As the fee rises, fossil fuels will become increasingly unprofitable and will be phased out, replaced by carbon-free energy and increased energy efficiency.
- China will suffer more than most nations from changing climate and rising sea level
- China has horrific air and water pollution from fossil fuels
- China wants to avoid the enormous costs and burdens that accompany fossil fuel addiction
- There is great economic advantage in having the leading low-carbon technologies
Jiang Kejun laid out sector-by-sector projections of transitions to low-carbon and nocarbon energies and improved energy efficiency that would allow CO2 emission growth to be slowed and then reversed over the next few decades. Technology development is supported, and, when lower carbon technology becomes available, efficiency standards are promptly ratcheted downward. Most encouragingly, there is recognition that this strategy requires a rising carbon price for most successful results. The Chinese authorities appear to grasp that rapid attainment of the tipping points at which clean energies quickly displace dirty energy requires an economic incentive.
My “A-Team” (student-teacher-researcher team) showed years ago (as did others) that existing technology would allow a 30 percent vehicle efficiency improvement, saving $100 billion per year in imported oil costs. Yet our automobile efficiency standards were stuck for decades. I testified in court on the side of states trying to force better standards, e.g., Vermont vs. Auto Manufacturers, while our federal government stood in court alongside the polluters.And thatWe “won” the court case, yet appeals stretched the time of action for years. I came away feeling that not only is it nearly impossible to get effective legislation through Congress, but that the special interests can prevent implementation almost interminably. Democracy of the sort intended in 1776 probably could have dealt with climate change, but not the fossil-money-‘democracy’ that now rules the roost in Washington.
(Image by MikeBehnken under a CC license)