[Poclad] NASA's top climatologist writes letter to the Obamas

[Raging Grannie (Wanda B)]

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf

Thanks to the people on my e-mail list for all the suggestions (more than 
100!) about my draft “Tell Barack Obama the Truth – the Whole Truth”. Most 
frequent criticism: the need for an executive summary. Two people 
suggested: put a summary in the form of a letter to Michelle and Barack 
Obama. I like that idea. They are equally smart lawyers, and if we can get 
either of them to really focus on the actions that are needed, the planet 
has a chance.

The letter turned out to be four pages. Sorry. But I wrote a note to John 
Holdren, which can serve as an executive summary. John has promised to 
deliver the letter, but cannot do so prior to the inauguration. That delay 
is a problem for one of the three recommendations: tax and dividend. Thus I 
am making the letter available at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf
and the revised “Tell Barack Obama the Truth” at
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf
in hopes of getting the information to people who continue to push for 
“goals” and “caps”.

“Goals” for percentage CO2 emission reductions and “cap & trade & dividend” 
are a threat to the planet, weak tea, not commensurate with the task of 
getting CO2 back to 350 ppm and less. Note:

(1) There must be a tax at the mine or port of entry, the first sale of 
oil, gas and coal, so every direct and indirect use of the fuel is 
affected. Anything less means that the reduction of demand for the fuel 
will make it cheaper for some uses; e.g., people will start burning coal in 
their stoves. Peter Barnes’ idea to push the cap upstream to the extent 
possible is not adequate nor is a ‘gas tax’ suggested by NY Times and 
others. A comprehensive approach is needed.

(2) “Cap & trade & dividend” creates Wall Street millionaires and complex 
bureaucracy. The public is fed up with that – rightly so. A single carbon 
tax rate can be adjusted upward affecting all activities appropriately. 
With 100% dividend the public will allow a carbon price adequate to the 
job, i.e., helping us move to the postfossil-fuel world.

(3) Supply ‘caps’ cannot yield a really big reduction because of the 
weapon: ‘shortages’. All a utility has to say is ‘blackout coming’ and 
politicians and public have to cave in – we are not going to have the 
lights turned out.
Will the public allow a high enough tax rate? Yes, dividends will exceed 
tax for most people concerned about their bills.

(4) A tax is not sufficient. All other measures, such as building codes, 
are needed. But with millions of buildings, all construction codes and 
operations cannot be enforced. A rising carbon price provides effective 
enforcement.

(5) Wouldn’t it be cheaper to let people burn the dirtiest fuel? No. The 
clean future that we aim for, including more efficient energy use, is not 
more expensive. For example, you may have read about passively heated homes 
that require little energy and increase construction costs only several 
percent. Such possibilities remain the oddball (with high price tag), not 
the standard construction, unless the government adopts policies that make 
things happen.

Some of you suggested that I should only explain the urgency of the climate 
crisis, the need to get back to 350 ppm CO2 and less. Politicians are happy 
if scientists provide information and then go away and shut up. But science 
and policy cannot be divorced. What I learned in the past few years is that 
politicians often adopt convenient policies that can be shown to be 
inconsistent with long-term success, given readily available scientific 
data and empirical information on policy impacts.

Jim Hansen
****

Dear John,

A few weeks ago in London, where Anniek was running after me from one 
meeting to another, she had a heart attack (fortunately we were near a very 
good hospital -- the problem should be permanently fixed via the stent they 
inserted plus a better diet). As we waited a week for her to be able to fly 
I wrote the attached letter to the Obamas. Could you possibly forward this 
letter to them?

I realize that it is a long letter (4 pages + a page of footnotes). But 
global warming likely will be, eventually, the problem of their lifetime. 
His presidency may be judged in good part on whether he was able to turn 
the tide -- more important, the futures of young people and other life will 
depend on that. So four pages may not be intolerably long.

My hope is that he (even better they) will want to understand the matter, 
not just rely on advisers. I refer not to the details of climate science, 
but rather what needs to be done. The danger is that the compromises and 
special interests inherent in Kyoto-style targets and cap-and-trade will be 
accepted because of bureaucratic momentum. Other intolerable aspects of 
current approaches are the escape hatches (plant a tree somewhere, reduce 
some other gas, etc.). Carbon dioxide is special because of its strange 
lifetime (eventually exceedingly long) and the fact that it acidifies the 
ocean. Also it needs to be recognized that forestation can not be traded 
for more fossil fuels because the forests are needed to help bring down the 
current
amount of CO2.

The three points that I raise concern: (1) coal, (2) carbon tax, and (3) 
nuclear power.

(1) The critical need to cut off the coal source soon must be recognized. I 
was surprised that in 90 minutes I could not get the German Environmental 
Minister to understand that their proposed "carbon cap" would not allow 
them to build 20 more coal-fired power plants. I kept saying "if you burn 
more coal you must convince Russia to leave its oil in the ground" and he 
would say "we will tighten the carbon cap". Japan thinks that it did fine 
in meeting its Kyoto obligations, even though its coal use and CO2 
emissions increased. [Japan used Kyoto-allowed escape hatches. The Earth 
has no escape hatch.]

(2) A carbon tax (across all fossil fuels at their source) is essential, I 
believe, for
effectiveness. Any less comprehensive cap will reduce the price of the fuel 
for any other uses.

A rising tax (with all the other needed measures such as building codes, 
vehicle efficiencies, renewable energies...) will help constrain demand for 
the fuel. When gasoline hits $4-5/gallon again, most of that should be tax 
staying in the country and returned as dividend, providing the consumer the 
means to purchase more efficient products and incentive for entrepreneurs 
to develop them. A rising tax will help keep the price paid for the oil 
itself (or other fossil fuel) lower, thus making it unprofitable to go to 
the most extreme places on the planet to extract the last drop of oil. 
Instead we can move on sooner to the energies of the post-fossil-fuel-era.

A carbon cap that makes one more stinking millionaire on the backs of the 
public is going to infuriate the public. Me too. There is no need to 
support lobbyists, traders, and special interests. The tax should be 
proportional to the carbon amount and the dividend calculation will only 
require long division, which even a civil servant can do.

100% of the tax should go into the dividends. However, if some countries do 
not apply an equivalent tax, a duty should be collected on fossil-fuel 
dependent products imported from that country. Such import duties might be 
used, in part, to finance reforestation, climate adaptation, or other 
climate or energy related needs.

(3) Nuclear power: it would be great if energy efficiency, renewable 
energies, and an improved ("smart") electric grid could satisfy all energy 
needs. However, the future of our children should not rest on that gamble. 
The danger is that the minority of vehement antinuclear "environmentalists" 
could cause development of advanced safe nuclear power to be slowed such 
that utilities are forced to continue coal-burning in order to keep the 
lights on. That is a prescription for disaster.

There is no need for a decision to deploy nuclear power on a large scale. 
What is needed is rapid development of the potential, including prototypes, 
so that options are available. We have to avoid a "FutureGen" sort of 
drag-out. It seems to me that it is time to get fed-up with those people 
who think they can impose their will on everybody, and all the consequences 
that might imply for the planet, by putting this R&D on a slow boat to 
nowhere instead of on the fast-track that it deserves.

I hope that you will be willing to forward this to the Obamas. Wishing you 
the best for the holiday season, and especially success in your new job!

Best regards,

Jim Hansen
****

29 December 2008

Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be 
inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.

Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to 
stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen 
actions will be of crucial importance.

We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to 
these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be the 
most important matter of our times.

Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But 
urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of 
climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with 
startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth.

Yet the information that most needs to be communicated to you concerns the 
failure of policy approaches employed by nations most sincere and concerned 
about stabilizing climate. Policies being discussed in national and 
international circles now, which focus on ‘goals’ for emission reduction 
and ‘cap and trade’, have the same basic approach as the Kyoto Protocol. 
This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. 
It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our 
planet and humanity.

The enclosure, “Tell Barack Obama the Truth – the Whole Truth” was sent to 
colleagues for comments as we left for a trip to Europe. Their main 
suggestion was to add a summary of the specific recommendations, preferably 
in a cover letter sent to both of you.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are 
considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A 
stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below 
present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the 
relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the 
National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative 
reports in response to a Presidential requesti. NAS was set up by President 
Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert 
climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science 
indicates to be required. Our three recommendations derive from the 
science, including logical inferences based on empirical information about 
the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of specific past policy approaches.

(1) Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2.
This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions 
must be phased out rapidly. Yes, it is a great challenge, but one with 
enormous side benefits.
Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other 
fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for 
the long run. Oil, the second greatest contributor to atmospheric carbon 
dioxide, is already substantially depleted, and it is impractical to 
capture carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles. But if coal emissions are 
phased out promptly, a range of actions including improved agricultural and 
forestry practices could bring the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide back 
down, out of the dangerous range.
As an example of coal’s impact consider this: continued construction of 
coal-fired power plants will raise atmospheric carbon dioxide to a level at 
least approaching 500 ppm (parts per million). At that level, a 
conservative estimate for the number of species that would be exterminated 
(committed to extinction) is one million. The proportionate contribution of 
a single power plant operating 50 years and burning ~100 rail cars of coal 
per day (100 tons of coal per rail car) would be about 400 species! Coal 
plants are factories of death.  It is no wonder that young people (and some 
not so young) are beginning to block new construction.

(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”.
A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support 
needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved 
building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and 
operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way 
to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.  A 
rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to 
move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way 
to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or 
port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and 
activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and 
long-term
lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate 
will be rising.
The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on 
a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two 
child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large 
bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than 
average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a 
tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No 
lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be 
made at the expense of the public.
The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market 
low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in 
the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public 
a means to purchase the products.
A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy 
prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to 
reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure 
replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the 
carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring 
lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more 
expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to 
imports from half way around the world.
The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to 
those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger 
dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, 
thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration 
because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.
“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading 
schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The 
public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, 
would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and 
our national security.

(3) Urgent R&D on 4th generation nuclear power with international cooperation.
Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a “smart grid” deserve first 
priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions. With a rising carbon 
price, renewable energy can perhaps handle all of our needs. However, most 
experts believe that making such presumption probably would leave us in 25 
years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide. 
Such a result would be disastrous for the planet, humanity, and nature.
4th generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with 
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates 
to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable 
energies cannot do the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4th GNP (and 
CCS) is: “it cannot be ready before 2030.” However, the time needed could 
be much abbreviated with a Presidential initiative and Congressional 
support. Moreover, improved (3rd generation) light water reactors are 
available for near-term needs.
In our opinion, 4th GNPii deserves your strong support, because it has the 
potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, 
the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive materialiii. 
Potential proliferation of nuclear material will always demand vigilance, 
but that will be true in any case, and our safety is best secured if the 
United States is involved in the technologies and helps define standards.
Existing nuclear reactors use less than 1% of the energy in uranium, 
leaving more than 99% in long-lived nuclear waste. 4th GNP can “burn” that 
waste, leaving a small volume of waste with a half-life of decades rather 
than thousands of years. Thus 4th GNP could help solve the nuclear waste 
problem, which must be dealt with in any case. Because of this, a portion 
of the $25B that has been collected from utilities to deal with nuclear 
waste justifiably could be used to develop 4th generation reactors.
The principal issue with nuclear power, and other energy sources, is cost. 
Thus an R&D objective must be a modularized reactor design that is cost 
competitive with coal. Without such capability, it may be difficult to wean 
China and India from coal. But all developing countries have great 
incentives for clean energy and stable climate, and they will welcome 
technical cooperation aimed at rapid development of a reproducible safe 
nuclear reactor.
Potential for cooperation with developing countries is implied by interest 
South Korea has expressed in General Electric’s design for a small scale 
4th GNP reactor. I do not have the expertise to advocate any specific 
project, and there are alternative approaches for 4th GNP (see enclosure). 
I am only suggesting that the assertion that 4th GNP technology cannot be 
ready until 2030 is not necessarily valid. Indeed, with a Presidential 
directive for the Nuclear Regulator Commission to give priority to the 
review process, it is possible that a prototype reactor could be 
constructed rapidly in the United States.
CCS also deserves R&D support. There is no such thing as clean coal at this 
time, and it is doubtful that we will ever be able to fully eliminate 
emissions of mercury, other heavy metals, and radioactive material in the 
mining and burning of coal. However, because of the enormous number of 
dirty coal-fired power plants in existence, the abundance of the fuel, and 
the fact that CCS technology could be used at biofuel-fired power plants to 
draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide, the technology deserves strong R&D 
support.

Summary
An urgentiv geophysical fact has become clear. Burning all the fossil fuels 
will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in 
which civilization developed.  Of course it is unfair that everyone is 
looking to Barack to solve this problem (and other problems!), but they 
are. He alone has a fleeting opportunity to instigate fundamental change, 
and the ability to explain the need for it to the public.

Geophysical limits dictate the outline for what must be donev. Because of 
the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air, slowing the emissions 
cannot solve the problem. Instead a large part of the total fossil fuels 
must be left in the ground. In practice, that means coal.

The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the 
need for a carbon tax. Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap 
and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of 
the ‘greenest’ countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol:

(1) Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately 
prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use 
of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO2 emissions. Japan 
offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean 
development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but 
Chinese emissions increased rapidly.

(2) Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong 
emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired 
power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap 
that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells 
us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, 
because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.

(3) Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., 
Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and 
Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large 
as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ on carbon emissions are practically worthless, 
if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of 
carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large 
readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps 
will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil 
and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and 
unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an 
increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry 
reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the 
perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, 
undercutting clean energy sources.vi In contrast to the impracticality of 
all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a 
carbon tax can readily be made near-global.vii

A Presidential directive for prompt investigation and proto-typing of 
advanced safe nuclear power is needed to cover the possibility that 
renewable energies cannot satisfy global energy needs. One of the greatest 
dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of 
anti-nuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions.

The challenges today, including climate change, are great and urgent. 
Barack’s leadership is essential to explain to the world what is needed. 
The public, young and old, recognize the difficulties and will support the 
actions needed for a fundamental change of direction.

James and Anniek Hansen
Pennsylvania
United States of America

i Given the brilliant scientists Barack has appointed to his team, is there 
need for a National Academy of Sciences meeting? Yes, his team surely would 
welcome not only clarification of the urgency of the climate situation, but 
also interdisciplinary (economics, engineering, physics, biology
) 
discussion and evaluation of policy options. Barack’s first year or two in 
office is almost surely our last best chance to get the climate and energy 
strategy right in time to save the future of our children and grandchildren.

ii I am not referring to the DOE’s “Generation-4” nuclear program, which is 
a diffuse program that will not yield rapid payoff. Instead, as discussed 
below, there would need to be a Presidential directive to pursue a path(s) 
with the potential to contribute to decarbonization of global energy 
systems as rapidly as practical.

iii 4th generation reactors can include automatic shutdown in case of an 
earthquake or other interruption. It is noteworthy that, even with the 
presence of poorly designed nuclear power plants in the past, and in some 
cases demonstrably sloppy operations, the waste from coal-fired power 
plants has done far more damage, and even spread more radioactive material 
around the world than all nuclear power plants combined, including Chernobyl.

iv Urgency derives from the nearness of climate tipping points, beyond 
which climate dynamics will cause rapid changes out of humanity’s control. 
Concern about such behavior derives not from theory or speculation, but 
from improving knowledge of how the Earth responded to past changes of 
atmospheric composition and from observations of ongoing changes.

Tipping points occur because of amplifying feedbacks. Feedbacks include 
loss of Arctic sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, release of 
‘frozen’ methane as tundra melts, and growth of vegetation on previously 
frozen land. The surface changes increase the amount of sunlight absorbed 
by Earth. Added methane reduces heat radiation to space, amplifying the 
warming effect of carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.

Analysis of Earth’s history helps reveal the level of greenhouse gases 
needed to maintain a climate resembling the Holocene, Creation, the period 
of reasonably stable climate in which civilization developed. That carbon 
dioxide level, unsurprisingly in retrospect, is less than the current 385 
ppm (parts per million). The safe amount for the long-term is no more than 
350 ppm, probably less. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 ppm. 
Precise definition of a safe range requires better knowledge of all climate 
forcing mechanisms. What is clear is that continuing fossil fuel emissions 
will put Earth on an inexorable course toward an icefree
state, a course punctuated by increasingly extreme disasters with hundreds 
of millions of climate refugees.

A large fraction of species on Earth face certain extinction, if we burn 
most fossil fuels without capturing and storing the carbon dioxide. New 
species may come into being over many thousands of years, but all 
generations of our descendants that we can imagine will live on a far more 
desolate planet than the one we knew.

v Total carbon in conventional fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal), if 
released to the air, is enough to initiate a dynamic transition to an 
ice-free climate state, a transition that would be out of humanity’s 
control. A large fraction of the carbon dioxide emitted in burning fossil 
fuels stays in the air many centuries. Thus the climate problem cannot be 
solved by only slowing the rate at which we burn the fossil fuels.

Solution requires that a large part of total fossil fuels is left in the 
ground, or the carbon dioxide captured and stored. In addition, the 
unconventional fossil fuels (oil shale, tar sands, methane hydrates) must 
be left largely untouched or the carbon dioxide captured and stored.

vi Now, with oil prices down, is when a hefty carbon tax should be added. 
In the future, when the price of gasoline again reaches and passes 
$4/gallon, most of this cost will be tax, staying in the country, spread 
among consumers, and driving our economy to a clean future. The public can 
understand this, if Barack explains it, and they will accept it, if there 
is 100% dividend.

vii A carbon tax requires agreement of only several major nations. If any 
given nation does not apply the tax, an equivalent duty can be applied to 
their products at ports of entry.