 |
| NASA Scientist: Phase Out Power from Coal |
|
| Written by Miranda Marquit | |
| Friday, 27 June 2008 | |
|
Developing renewable energy alternatives is key to the future.  Photo: davipt, Creative Commons, Flickr This was one of the more interesting videos that I have seen in a long time. Dave Neubert sent it my way, and I found it enlightening. Here, a NASA scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, points out that at the rate we are going, climate change will move beyond our ability to fix the problems we caused within a relatively short amount of time. There are a couple things about this video that caught my attention:
Which is why he is taking aim at coal. Highly publicized disasters in recent years have highlighted the dangers attendant to coal mining, and many people recognize coal as dirty. Additionally, coal is not seen as ingrained in our way of life (despite the large amount of electricity that comes from coal powered plants). This would make targeting coal more practical and doable than trying to take on Big Oil and all its allies in the government. The second thing that caught my attention was the assertion that maybe Big Oil and coal execs should be put on trial for crimes against nature and humanity. An interesting proposition. The reasoning is that executives are aware of how much damage they are doing, but they still work to mislead the public and push their agenda of polluting carbon emissions that affect the climate and people's health rather than invest in renewable energy. Personally, I think that such a step would be a little melodramatic and counter-productive. Instead, I agree with the idea of attaching a cost to such "externalities" as carbon emissions, as proposed by Christopher Meyer on the Harvard Business blog post addressing a definition of "sustainability." Here is what he points out: If you bought a car battery and paid nothing to sequester its toxic materials upon disposal, the costs to society of dealing with it—whether counted as health care for people getting heavy metal poisoning or their harder-to-measure suffering—were deemed externalities because neither the customer nor the battery maker paid this cost. I also think that such costs should be accompanied by incentives. Right now, for example, Big Oil receives government subsidies by virtue of the fact that it exists and presumably provides a needed product to Americans. What if, instead of having an incentive to drill oil, Big Oil received an incentive to develop renewable technologies? There would be fiscal reward for developing and energy source that is practical, cost-efficient, clean and safe. And a cost for continuing to engage in dangerous and polluting practices while obtaining energy to sell. Alternative Energy 
Big Oil 
Climate Change 
Coal 
Miranda Marquit 
Opinions 
Comments
(4)
...
written by David Neubert , July 01, 2008
Engaging in a legal activity that unfortunately receives a government subsidy by not paying for the pollution it causes is not a crime against humanity. That is just silly. Does he also want to put every person who plugs in their coffee maker to the electricity grid (50% generated by coal) on trail too? Making arguments like these loses credibility for the rest of us who are actually trying to change the rules rather than punish people following bad rules.
...
written by Miranda , July 01, 2008
I agree completely! Things are getting beyond silly when we start taking such a stance. Instead, reasonable ways of moving toward change should be adopted.
...
written by Arnaud , July 01, 2008
To para-use the open discussion method apparently put forward by Huffington, I will put it quick and simple: Believing that we little men are responsible for global warming is silly. Global warmism is a mental desease. Period.
BTW, are we talking of the same NASA guy who had weeks ago to acknowledge that NASA previously f... up their data and now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954... Ha! that is the same very credible guy... Would it be silly to sue him for being such an idiot?
...
written by Robin Chase , July 03, 2008
Jim Hansen is exactly right and it is about time that he testified before Congress again. In addition to the points pulled out of his talk, blogged above, Hansen points out that a do nothing attitude will result in 50% species loss this century, a likely 2 m sea rise this century, and reductions in major staple crops supporting large populations.
Carbon taxes (and the per capita dividend/refund that he encourages go along with it) is the only thing that will make us all change our behaviors in the necessary time frame. You can see my blog on this topic here: http://networkmusings.blogspot.com/2007/09/climate-change-window-of-requirement.html Hansen's message is the urgency of acting now, before it is too late, and that the actions we choose should be ones that re-align our consumption in ways that are sustainable in the long term and promote innovation where it is needed. Putting a price on carbon emissions means that fossil fuels will become more expensive, alternative fuels cheaper, living a fossil-fuel intensive lifestyle more expensive, and finally getting around to turning the thermostat down, insulating, and making rationale transportation choices rewarding. Tag it:           | |
| Last Updated ( Sunday, 06 July 2008 ) | |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| Company Profiles |
| Individual Profiles |
| Movie Reviews |
| Culture-Celebrity |
| Opinions |
| Staff Recommendations |
| Resources |
 ThePanelist Latest Postings Alternative Energy Christian Investing Climate Women Neubert's Trades Social Culture Technology |
 |
Copyright © 2006 - 2008 ThePanelist.com.
Subscribe to this comment's feed