Spread the love

In 1988, a soft-spoken scientist from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration testified before the US Congress. What he said shocked the world. The scientist was James Hansen, widely regarded as the preeminent climate scientist of our time. Hansen’s research showed that rising emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities were dramatically increasing the temperature of the global climate and had the potential of making the planet uninhabitable not only for humans but for many other species. In his most recent Green Interview, Silver Don Cameron meets James Hansen.

Photo credit: screen shot from The Green Interview video

James Hansen is a world-renowned climate scientist and director of Climate Science and the Climate Science Awareness and Solutions Program at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. In this exclusive Green Interview, Hansen speaks with Silver Donald Cameron about why it is so difficult to mobilize the public around climate change and what needs to be done, quickly, to restore the Earth’s energy balance. Hansen also explains how a system of carbon pricing would jump start the development of alternative energies, reduce greenhouse gases and provide a return to the public all at the same time.

The Green Interview with James Hansen

Standard YouTube Licence
TheGreenInterview
The full length video is available to members only.  Sign Up Now

Thirty years later, Hansen’s predictions have become the news on TV: floods, droughts, wildfires, more intense and more frequent hurricanes – all the consequences that climate science predicted.

In this exclusive Green Interview, Hansen discusses carbon fee and dividends, Our Children’s Trust, and nuclear power.

Carbon Fee and Dividend

According to Hansen, if a system of what he calls carbon fee and dividends were put in place, it would jump start the development of alternative energies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide a return to the public. The way it would work is the price of carbon would begin to reflect its true costs while at the same time the government would collect a gradually increasing fee from the fossil fuel industry, which would be redistributed to the public, in equal amounts, as a dividend. “Those who do better than average at limiting their fossil fuel use would make money,” he says. “Rich people have a bigger carbon footprint because they travel more, they have bigger houses, so they would lose some money but it’s not enough to bother the rich people but it does put money in the hands of lower income people who spend it.

And so what it does is spur the economy and increases the GNP and it drives the energy systems toward carbon free energies so that it’s the most rapid way to phase down carbon emissions.” Hansen says from the public’s point of view there would be no reason not to do it, “It’s only the fossil fuel industry that strongly opposes this and what happens is that the fossil fuel industry is very powerful.”

Our Children’s Trust

Hansen is involved in a landmark federal climate lawsuit in the U.S. brought forth by the non-profit organization, Our Children’s Trust. In 2015, 21 youth plaintiffs (between the ages of 8 and 19), an association of young environmental activists called Earth Guardians, and Hansen, who serves as guardian for future generations, filed their constitutional lawsuit against the federal government in the US District Court for the District of Oregon.

The lead plaintiff is Kelsey Juliana, who resides in Oregon. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia.” The complaint asserts that the federal government “permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels” in causing climate change and in doing so has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources. The case is currently before the courts.

Nuclear Power

Hansen says that currently the world is getting about 85 percent of its energy from fossil fuels and that putting a price on carbon would allow clean energy alternatives to compete. He argues that nuclear power should be part of the mix that replaces fossil fuels, but he says the anti-nuclear power lobby, a “quasi-religion that opposes nuclear power,” does not have a command of the facts. “Nuclear power has been extremely beneficial in limiting impacts on human health and deaths. For example, the total number of people killed by nuclear power in the history of nuclear power is less than the number of people killed by fossil fuels in the time that’s it’s taking for this interview.

In one hour more than 10,000 people die from the effects of fossil fuel pollution, air pollution and water pollution.” Hansen believes that nuclear power could potentially be a significant contributor to clean energy and serve as an alternative base-load electric power but, he says, “It should be the next-generation nuclear power, which solves some of the objections that people have to nuclear power but it has not been allowed to compete.” The U.S. should develop fast reactors that consume nuclear waste and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste, he says.

Green Rights - Air, Water, Food, boomer warriorSilver Don Cameron is the Author of Warrior Lawyers and writer/narrator of the documentary film Green Rights: The Human Right to a Healthy World. Details at www.GreenRights.com.

Previous post by Don:
Your Green Rights – Air, Water and Food


Spread the love

4 COMMENTS

  1. James Hansen is right on most points and I appreciate his fight. He is wrong on nuclear power, however, and it is Hansen who “does not have a command of the facts.”

    Over half a century of experience throughout the world indicates nuclear energy is not the answer. It is the most expensive, the most delayed, and dangerous. No nuclear plant has yet been built that is not over budget and behind schedule. This includes the 4 newest being built in South Carolina and Georgia. South Carolina has cancelled both of their nuclear plants and Georgia is considering the same after spending millions of tax payer dollars. Nuclear power is also carbon intensive in uranium mining, uranium processing where fracking is used just as for natural gas, building the nuclear plant, and transportation of uranium to and used radioactive waste away from the nuclear plant.

    The half-life of the main fuel, U-235, is 703.8 million years. Plutonium is also routinely created in the process of running a nuclear plant. It is highly toxic and its various isotopes have half-lives ranging from about 25,000 to 80 million years. These extremely dangerous substances will require secure storage and protection for a very long period of time and we do not have an agreed upon place to store or agreed way to transport nuclear waste.

    Fusion and thorium reactors have always been theoretical but “just around the corner” since the 1970s. As with nuclear power, the hype does not match the experience and every country in the world has backed away from breeder and thorium reactors.

    See references 65, 70, 89, 103, 125, 126, 131, 223, 274, 344, 364, 378 – 380, 406 – 408, 412, 435 – 439, 484, 485, 519, 520, 558 – 565, 582 – 585, 603, 604, 692 – 705, 719, 720, 747 – 749, 834 – 836, 847, 848, 891, 942 – 963, 1072 – 1077, 1175 – 1196, 1320, 1364 – 1382, 1584-1591, 1690-1692, 1774, 1789, 1823-1834, 1964-1970, 2140-2147, 2235-2241, 2258, 2440-2455, 2508, 2565-2571, 2788-2817, 3081, 3237-3271, 3344-3346, 3509-3515, 3521 of this article: http://www.newprogs.org/the_environment_under_the_democratic_republican_uniparty

  2. In case you missed it, Silver Don Cameron’s book Warrior Lawyers is outstanding. A Must Read for environmentalists interested in social justice.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here