Well how about this:
This is a very good, simple, canny and aggressive framing of the issue. I remain shocked that more climate people and even the President seem reluctant to take the polemical offensive, rather than simply the science from bad-faith attack. That’s a waste of time. The best defense is a good offense.
As for the substance … your’re not going to save the world with solar panels, although you’re also not going to save it without solar panels. if you’re not putting a price on carbon — and there are a lot of ways to skin that cat — we’re facing an unmanageable catastrophe. She’s been supportive of Obama’s efforts on energy, and I’m not as exercised about her remarks on Keystone XL as some might be. She probably knows a lot more about the administration’s plans than she lets on — or can let on.
“It’s just plain silly,” said James Hansen, a climate change researcher who headed Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years. “No, you cannot solve the problem without a fundamental change, and that means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest. Subsidizing solar panels is not going to solve the problem.”
Last Thursday, Hansen, along with 16 prominent climate change scientists, published a discussion paper in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, where it will be publicly peer-reviewed. The paper suggests that previous models for climate change are too conservative and that a sea level rise of several meters might swallow up our coasts in this century, if governments fail to rapidly and substantially diminish fossil fuel emissions. “The economic and social cost of losing functionality of all coastal cities is practically incalculable,” the authors wrote.
Hm … subsidies are politically easier than tax increases. Is subsidizing renewables substantially comparable to pricing carbon? Doubtless there’s academic work on that question. (More homework for me.)
Anyway, so far we’ve still only got one candidate with a chance of winning, and she gets points for style on this one.
whoaitsjoe says
Wrong. If the Republican candidate isn’t Rand Paul or Donald Trump, I would vote for Bernie Sanders.
thegreenmiles says
he is terrible at politics. If Congress prefers to subsidize solar panels down below the cost of all other energy, as opposed to a carbon tax or whatever, why wouldn’t we support that?
Trickle up says
has always been the politics. And it’s a doozy.
Mind you we still could use a few more thousand Hansens! But we aren’t going to get there on technical chops alone.
SomervilleTom says
Is that an intentional “Daisy” reference at 1:08-1:10?
I agree it’s an excellent video. I also agree that the criticism from Mr. Hansen misses the point.
Finally, I think Bernie Sanders is a candidate that has a chance of winning — regardless of whichever clown the other side offers up.
williamstowndem says
Mr. Hansen IS a scientist, but most assuredly he is NOT a politician. Sure, a carbon tax is the way to make the price of fossil fuels “honest” … but Boston and NYC will be under 20 ft. of ocean water before our legislature … and most certainly the United States Congress … would impose such a tax … even if the funds are returned to taxpayers as current MA legislation would do. Hillary is right: Provide leadership and try to change American minds while also taking advantage of Presidential power to do what she can until either we get a better Congress — or we suffer a Climatological Pearl Harbor! Let’s hope it’s the former and not the latter.
Trickle up says
that is, subsidies versus tax, is that you could in theory have a ton of subsidies that would adjust the economic balance just like a carbon tax.
But you’d need perfect knowledge. And the subsidies would have to be bang on. And pervasive. And no, it’s not feasible anyway in practice.
Otherwise, a subsidy here, a subsidy there–well, we should take what we can get. But it’s not going to be economically efficient, and it probably won’t get us all the way where we need to be.
gmoke says
Merran Smith, Executive Director of Clean Energy Canada (http://cleanenergycanada.org/) spoke at MIT in April at a forum on British Columbia’s carbon tax. She said that today about 42% of global production includes some kind of price on carbon and by the end of 2016 when the next round of Chinese carbon pricing comes on line it will be over 50%.
We have a price on carbon here in MA with RGGI ($5.50 per ton as of the June auction) and there are currently over 46 carbon trading schemes around the world (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/05/the-state-of-carbon-pricing-around-the-world-in-46-carbon-markets/)
More information on already existing carbon markets from
World Bank 2015 carbon report advance brief
(http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/05/24528977/carbon-pricing-watch-2015-advance-brief-state-trends-carbon-pricing-2015-report-released-late-2015) and the IEA Special Report on Energy and Climate Change (http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2015SpecialReportonEnergyandClimateChange.pdf)
Personally, I wonder why no public figure I know of has approached climate change from a Solar IS Civil Defense perspective: who cares whether climate change is real or not, man-made or not. We know that there will be another Hurricane Sandy or polar vortex or tornado or earthquake or flood soon. We just don’t know where or when. A few square inches of solar panel can provide the power for the flashlight, radio, cell phone, and extra battery we are all supposed to have on hand in case of emergency or disaster. Turns out that’s eminently affordable and entry level electricity for the 1.5 billion people or so around the world who don’t yet have access to reliable electricity. Add a hand crank or pedal power generator and you have a basically permanent source of survival electricity day or night by sunlight or muscle power.
This cuts the controversy out of the conversation and places the argument firmly in the realm of disaster planning and emergency preparedness where it really needs to be. If Repugs balk, the question to ask is why Republicans don’t believe in being prepared for those weather and other emergencies we KNOW are already coming? Whether or not climate change is real, whether or not it is man-made. Why don’t they want to protect our citizens and our country?