This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Godfather Of Climate Change Calls Obama's Deal "A Fraud, It's Bullshit"
Amid all the self-congratulatory mutual masturbation that has effused since the "historic" signing of a climate 'deal' with no enforcement mechanism, few are better qualified (or more outspoken) to describe the utter farce that COP21 is than former NASA scientist James Hansen, who as The Guardian notes, is considered the father of global awareness of climate change...
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.
But, according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions aren’t taxed across the board. He argues that only this will force down emissions quickly enough to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.
Hansen has been a nagging yet respected voice on climate change since he shot to prominence in the summer of 1988.
The Nasa scientists, who had been analyzing changes in the Earth’s climate since the 1970s, told a congressional committee that something called the “greenhouse effect” where heat-trapped gases are released into the atmosphere was causing global warming with a 99% certainty.
A New York Times report of the 1988 testimony includes the radical suggestion that there should be a “sharp reduction in the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide”, a plea familiar to those who have watched politicians who have traipsed up to the lectern or interviewer’s microphone in Paris over the past two weeks.
After that, things started to get a little difficult for Hansen. He claims the White House altered subsequent testimony, given in 1989, and that Nasa appointed a media overseer who vetted what he said to the press. They held practice press conferences where any suggestion that fossil fuels be reduced was considered political and unscientific, and therefore should not be uttered.
“Scientists are trained to be objective,” Hansen says. “I don’t think we should be prevented for talking about the the implications of science.” He retired from Nasa in 2013.
And this is a deal that nearly fell apart on the basis of one - potentially binding - word... (via Politico)
After years of preparation and two weeks of tireless negotiations, after all the speeches and backroom compromising, one misplaced word brought the momentum toward a historic global deal on climate change to a halt Saturday — for at least a few hours.
Obama administration lawyers discovered early in the day that the latest draft text had a potentially deal-killing tweak: Deep into the document, in Article 4, was a line declaring that wealthier countries "shall" set economy-wide targets for cutting their greenhouse gas pollution.
That may not sound like such a headache-inducing roadblock, but in the world of international climate negotiations, every word counts. In previous drafts, the word "shall" had been "should" — and in the lingo of U.N. climate agreements, "shall" implies legal obligation and "should" does not. That means the word change could have obliged the Obama administration to submit the final deal to the Senate for its approval. And inevitably, the GOP-led chamber would kill it on sight.
"When I looked at that, I said, 'We cannot do this and we will not do this,'" Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters afterward. "'And either it changes or President Obama and the United States will not be able to support this agreement.'”
And finally, John Kerry was back at it again today...
Secretary of State John Kerry, fresh off touting a historic global climate deal in Paris, tore into Republican climate change deniers today and said anyone who denies the science will not be President of the United States.
“I don’t believe the American people, who predominantly do believe in what is happening... I don’t think they’re gonna accept as a genuine leader someone who doesn’t understand the science of climate change and isn’t willing to do something about it.”
»
- 59 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I quit reading the OP the 2nd time I read the words NASA and scientist together.
Anybody who considers NASA to be science should stick to watching Hollyvvood and television. David Copperfield is a better scientist than NASA ever produced.
"Obama's deal?" Typical rightwing American media b.s. This agreement was negotiated by nearly 200 countries, in Paris. Americans need to get their heads out of their asses.
The only difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has limitations.
I cannot believe how many fools actually believe Hansen's bullshit. The climate Jihadists are out in full force tonight.
I believe that muslim's chant is a call to resurrect the ancient devil :
Oillah Hoo A-kabar
(Oil devil , come out of your grave; kabar==grave; akabar==de-grave)
Muhammed-ur-rasool oillah
(And Muhammed-representsTheOilDemon)
------
Whereve muslims chant this in large numbers , they find oil & gas, Hah ha
& oil & gas causing co2 & climate change
BS - like all everything else coming out of USA government.
Quote: The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.
The last that I heard, developing nations especially Asia are belching out most of the CO2. Fantasies about the significance of attaining carbon targets in wealthy countries are transfer-of-wealth schemes.
http://twistedlittlethings.com/tlt/2015/12/13/the-consensus-and-controve...
Swallow this one before spouting off:
http://guymcpherson.com/2014/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/
I, like you, have zero desire to have political asswipes commandeer this issue and use it to their advantage.
But, the issue is real, is causing significant problems, and the whole picture looks to be spiraling downwards, fast.
He's not strictly wrong. A government doesn't have many tools to control the behavior of individual companies. Carbon credits aren't a convincing method of carbon reduction. While regulatory incentives help, they don't have the force of economics that a tax does - and history bears this out, with a constant stream of missed targets in everything from sulfite pollution to financial products as evidence.
The problem is that Obama, powerful as he is, only has the ability to make regulatory change; he can't mandate Congress to institute a carbon tax. Representatives of other nations are in a similar boat: they have the power to promise a vague reduction, but no power to implement it in a specific way. COP21, in this sense, could not have achieved what Hansen demands, assuming the political will to do so, since action implies ability. If COP21 had a different roster - populated entirely by a majority body of those in control of taxation - it might have happened, but it would have been a complete committee-style clusterfuck.
I wouldn't go so far as to say COP21 is a farce - but it's not likely to succeed wholly in its goals so much as give countries something to moralize at each other about, while having the effect of some CO2 reduction.
China has over 300 GW, 192GW annualized of clean energy in the pipeline - about hald nuclear, half wind, at the capacity level - with more in planning. They are also on the cusp of having working molten salt reactors, which would mean the slow death of their coal imports from Australia as their coal plants hit end-of-life - and, depending on the final chemistry of their MSRs, possibly end their Uranium imports as well. China was a big driver of the COP21 targets for this reason, and for the reason that they're the world's biggest producer of solar panels and biggest miner of neodymium (for wind turbines). They stand to benefit greatly from this.
Meanwhile, the US does have plans to jumpstart its own nuclear industry, to compete with China's newfound headstart. "Mission Innovation" has the goal of heavily investing in energy RD&D for advanced technology - however, I can guarantee you that a majority of what will be invested in is nuclear energy, particularly of the molten salt and fast reactor variety, focusing on small reactors and modular construction. Should this pan out well, we can look forward to exporting reactors of our own to developing nations, hopefuly subsidized by part of the $100B a year mandated by the COP21 agreement.
I don't think COP21 is the sure thing that others do, but I do think that, in the context of the world situation on energy research, it might just make the easy targets.