Mt Hansen, Your words will certainly echo across the desiccated plains and scorched landscapes of this country, in due time. You come with facts, but also reason and faith in humanity. I'm sure you could not live otherwise.
My perspective is across history. Not political history, but the ecological history of our species. It demonstrates no evidence that humans are capable of lasting self restraint in exploiting any and every resource available. This is hidden from us by the steady loss that comes generation by generation, forgotten in the ambitions of those who are new to power, and new to idealism giving way to the most common desires.
I follow the charting of CO2 in the atmosphere and the steady climb in global temperature. It follows the same upward trend as the chart showing the human population on earth. The same path as global ecosystems in danger of collapse. The same path as countries who are in danger from using water unsustainably. What this describes is best characterized as a stampede. It is a heedless rush away from the fear of disaster, not comprehending anything beyond the next day, week, year, depending on economic circumstances. Wisdom is for myths. Biological imperatives rule our behavior. We will not be the first species that alters the course of life on this planet, but we can claim to be the most biologically complex organism to do it.
Yes, for sure we must understand what is happening on the full range of different time scales, and recognize that we are pushing systems beyond desirable, sustainable, levels. Yet there is reason for optimism. With current fertility rates, population could peak and decline moderately. The logical follow-on to fee-and-dividend to deal with the climate emergency is energy-use-and-dividend to deal with over consumption, i.e., as a core policy to promote sustainability. These matters will not be addressed in a scientifically valid way until we have a political party that takes no money from special financial interests. The public actually understands the situation, recognizing that the swamp of special interests in Washington is the core problem.
I can't object to optimism. I can only remind others of the tragic indifference of humans. The points you raise are certainly possible, but the odds are not improving. Looking at what we know I see two huge areas that we can't expect to understand. One is the global reaction of all interacting physical systems under increased forcing. The other is the human response to those changes. Neither of those are likely to be favorable.
I share your concern; solution becomes more difficult as time passes and actions are inadequate. We should have done more when Clinton/Gore were elected, when Obama was elected, when governments realized that a problem was on the way, but did not give it priority, or didn't understand well what was needed.
However, young people should not be depressed. The hand that elders have dealt them, in some ways, is not worse than what my generation was dealt (draft for Viet Nam) or my parents (WW II). They have an opportunity to address the fundamental problem without putting their lives on the line, and they know how to use social media tools. The reward for success is great, as is the penalty for failure.
Mark Jacobsen (Stanford) agrees about nuclear being the long term solution (as do I) but has claimed that there are simply not enough fabrication facilities on the planet to replace fossil fuels with nuclear plants fast enough (even if we HAD the political will to DO it). His overview is that we have to (and CAN) get through the next 5-10 decades with solar, wind, storage, grids etc (for which the technology is there but certain strategic materials are potentially limited), while using that time seriously to get nuclear off the ground. Permitting itself, as you know, is a huge headache (part of the political dimension). If you agree with this overall scenario, do you think someone needs to get serious about a "Project 2029" on decarbonization so Democrats can (a) have a serious program and strategy to get people to pay attention to them running up TO the election and (b) have an ACTION plan with identified staffing ready for day 1 with the 'shock and awe' momentum we have just seen devoted so effectively to willful ignorance and denial?
James, I'm baffled by your comparison between nuclear and renewable. The first commercial nuclear reactor was built in 1942. How many more decades of RDD support would the nuclear industry want in the hope of bringing its cost down? (And I leave aside the unresolved issues of dealing with nuclear waste and the risk of supporting nuclear weapons.) In contrast, the solar cell was invented in 1954 and the technological advances of renewable energy and batteries have been astounding, leading to cost reductions of as much as 90%, and we haven't seen the end of innovations yet, especially in batteries. If it weren't for powerful lobbying by the nuclear industry, the debate would be long over, won by renewables on economic grounds.
Am an ex Bell Labber and the pv cells is one of our joy inventions. But, nuclear powers with tremendous energy density and we can save the forests for the panels. Base.pj
I was so disappointed in Obama. I really thought addressing global warming was going to happen. UGH! Then Citizens United happened and locked in corporatocracy.
And we should always think and act with "WeDoables". The "Renewables" were "WeDoables" that could have helped stop this fiasco 50 years ago. The pity is they are Weknewables"
Gosh the fiscal policies you espouse are spot on correct in my view. I like the DC backbone concept a lot too. The company I last worked for (Electric Transmission Texas) is working on that from northwest Texas to Houston. It will basically shore up the ERCOT grid for robust wind/solar grid conditions.
We need cohesion. All the climate change individuals and groups uniting under one big powerful voice. And, not calling each other's solutions moral hazards but possible solutions that need expedient study.
Become Heated Citizens.
We are all in this together and the lack of unity destroys our chances for reversing global heating.
I can understand why a "fee and dividend" policy would not gain much political traction. Better would be a simple hydrocarbon fuel production cap and drawdown, and let the fuel producers keep the money as fuel prices rise. That has actually been attempted several times before by the oil companies before (albeit to simply bring prices up, and to screw over their political opponents, but that is a side matter.) Each time their fuel production cut initiatives were seriously countered. The last time was by the Biden administration which was supposed to be pro-environment. Anyway, there is a lot more to it than just bringing hydrocarbon fuel prices up, and letting supply and demand take care of the rest. Some fundamental changes to the workings of our economic system need to be made. Presently our economy is guided by a rather small group of actors, and ultimately those are the ones that need to buy in to a solution if the solution is to gain any traction. This recently published essay also on SubStack may be to your interest: https://helmetdestroyer570.substack.com/p/climate-change-and-the-supra-corporation
Bloomberg posted an article entitled, 'Californians deserve better than economic fairy tales', referring to the 'Billionaire Tax'. I replied California can make more billionaires more easily than billionaires can make more Californians.
This is serious. Nouriel Robini did an 8 minute interview on Bloomberg yesterday where he said he expects 4% GDP by 2030 growing to 10% GDP by 2050 because of AGI, quantum, fusion, and other technoligies but he also said 80% of the country would be unemployed living on the dole while 10% would accrue all of the country's remaining wealth after the dole taxes. An economic royalty. You can find the video on YouTube.
“In effect, they say: “if 1.5°C global warming has only moderate effects, what is the big problem with 3°C?””
I think this is a fair question and the IPCC and others should do a better job of answering it. As it is a lot of the warnings are still premised on 4 and 5°C.
Also, I don’t love being pessimistic and I really wanted a carbon tax/rebate (what you’re calling a fee/dividend) to work but Canada was the test case and if Canada can’t sustain such a policy I doubt the US can. Unfortunately even educated citizens still have a way of disappointing us with their mistrust and lack of numeracy and conceptual ability.
Canada was certainly NOT a test case for fee-and-dividend. All of the money from a carbon fee must be given to the public in direct periodic payments (preferably monthly, although quarterly is acceptable) to their debit card or bank account. If such a system is started, the public will never let it be terminated. Canada was never close to such a system.
I'm afraid you're mistaken, James. That is precisely what Canada did: Money was deposited in people's bank accounts every quarter. The problems were two-fold: 1- the government was incredibly incompetent in letting people know what was happening; 2- the populist opposition succeeded in dominating the narrative -- Ax the Tax! Politically, Carney had no choice but to abandon that policy. And thank god Pierre Poilievre is not our Prime Minister.
Like almost any economist, I agree that fee-and-dividend or however you want to call it is the best way to reduce GHG emissions. What authorities did not appreciate is how that policy is understood by the general public and is compounded by anxieties about inflation.
Note that the "industrial carbon price" (for large emitters) remains in place and is being tightened.
Erwin, Canada came closer than any other country, but did not do a simple, clean, transparent carbon fee-and-dividend. I worked with Canadian CCL, wrote op-eds, even made a trip to Canada. Canada had a really effective dedicated person, Cathy Orlando advocating for CCL, but the politicians did not implement the system that I am talking about -- I am quite sure of that. It's the same old problem that I heard from politicians many times: "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." It needs to be an across the board carbon fee collected from the fossil fuel industry and distributed 100% to the public uniformly, in simple direct, regular, payments, unconnected to anything else (such as year-end tax forms), with public accounting of exactly what is happening. I haven't spoken with Cathy recently, but would bet $20 to a donut that Canada did not have a national, clean, communicated, fee-and-dividend.
Well, if your criteria are "national, clean, communicated" Canada failed, because individual provinces could have their own system as long as it was equivalent to the federal system. As well, as I indicated, Canada did an atrocious job communicating what it was doing. But "All of the money from a carbon fee [was] given to the public in direct periodic payments ... to their debit card or bank account."
What I would concede is that it only applied in provinces that did not have their own systems judged by the federal government as equivalent. And industrial emissions were subject to different systems as shown here https://www.energyhub.org/carbon-tax-rebate/
Nevertheless I think my point stands. I don’t think a “cleaner” system that was completely consistent across the federation would’ve fared any better.
The difference between 1.5C and 3C of heat is exponential chaos. The temp is an average global stat and can translate to waves of 40 plus degree local differences. Besides the quicker ice melt, sea level rise, droughts, fires, etc.. A difference of 1.5C is not stepping into another room a tad warmer.
"Politics" is how we decide things collectively. I can't recall any great leap forward policy-wise that didn't require a major fight with vested interests. And even the American civil rights movement of the 1960s had plenty of internal dramas grounded in issues of power and ego. We can't wave a magic wand and make them go away, but we can hopefully keep them within manageable levels.
Steve, that is the way a true democracy works. What has happened is we have allowed both political parties to accept money from special interests. Anniek and I had the opportunity to speak with John McCain at a Time 100 meeting in Manhattan, probably in the last decade of his life. McCain was the last major politician to make a serious effort at campaign finance reform, but he failed. By the time we talked with him, he was tired and bruised. He realized that Congress is not going to fix itself.
I am very optimistic about the potential of young people to lead the reform of our government (the "revolution" that the Founders indicated would occasionally be needed), as, e.g., a majority of Gen Z identify themselves as political Independents. Our task now is to help them understand the situation and their great potential to change the system. Once it gets started, it will snowball, I am confident.
Agreed. I think a key step is to recognize that politics isn't something to be avoided via some magical technocratic means, but rather is a system that can be improved so it operates more in the public interest (such as by dramatically reducing the influence of big money in the electoral process).
The challenge right now would appear to be that the incremental policy changes of the postwar era that I grew up with are inadequate to our current moment. For example, we likely can't make substantive campaign finance reform stick without reforming the Supreme Court. Can that be done without a constitutional amendment? If not, then we somehow need to make major electoral inroads in what are now red states. How can that happen without, for example, a revitalization of journalism in vast stretches of the country that have become "news deserts"?
In other words, we need an operating system upgrade rather than merely one or two specific new programs. I think that one silver lining about Project 2025 is that it hints at how Democrats have too often limited themselves to single-issue organizing rather than developing a comprehensive policy agenda to respond to a broad and interlocking series of problems. And that policy agenda may ultimately require updating our constitutional order.
In other words, we may need to reach beyond the postwar "normal science" and instead focus on making a "paradigm shift." That isn't an easy shift to make, particularly if one has operated in the political mainstream for any length of time. So, yes, it could well be that youthful energy is crucial.
Mt Hansen, Your words will certainly echo across the desiccated plains and scorched landscapes of this country, in due time. You come with facts, but also reason and faith in humanity. I'm sure you could not live otherwise.
My perspective is across history. Not political history, but the ecological history of our species. It demonstrates no evidence that humans are capable of lasting self restraint in exploiting any and every resource available. This is hidden from us by the steady loss that comes generation by generation, forgotten in the ambitions of those who are new to power, and new to idealism giving way to the most common desires.
I follow the charting of CO2 in the atmosphere and the steady climb in global temperature. It follows the same upward trend as the chart showing the human population on earth. The same path as global ecosystems in danger of collapse. The same path as countries who are in danger from using water unsustainably. What this describes is best characterized as a stampede. It is a heedless rush away from the fear of disaster, not comprehending anything beyond the next day, week, year, depending on economic circumstances. Wisdom is for myths. Biological imperatives rule our behavior. We will not be the first species that alters the course of life on this planet, but we can claim to be the most biologically complex organism to do it.
Yes, for sure we must understand what is happening on the full range of different time scales, and recognize that we are pushing systems beyond desirable, sustainable, levels. Yet there is reason for optimism. With current fertility rates, population could peak and decline moderately. The logical follow-on to fee-and-dividend to deal with the climate emergency is energy-use-and-dividend to deal with over consumption, i.e., as a core policy to promote sustainability. These matters will not be addressed in a scientifically valid way until we have a political party that takes no money from special financial interests. The public actually understands the situation, recognizing that the swamp of special interests in Washington is the core problem.
I can't object to optimism. I can only remind others of the tragic indifference of humans. The points you raise are certainly possible, but the odds are not improving. Looking at what we know I see two huge areas that we can't expect to understand. One is the global reaction of all interacting physical systems under increased forcing. The other is the human response to those changes. Neither of those are likely to be favorable.
I share your concern; solution becomes more difficult as time passes and actions are inadequate. We should have done more when Clinton/Gore were elected, when Obama was elected, when governments realized that a problem was on the way, but did not give it priority, or didn't understand well what was needed.
However, young people should not be depressed. The hand that elders have dealt them, in some ways, is not worse than what my generation was dealt (draft for Viet Nam) or my parents (WW II). They have an opportunity to address the fundamental problem without putting their lives on the line, and they know how to use social media tools. The reward for success is great, as is the penalty for failure.
Mark Jacobsen (Stanford) agrees about nuclear being the long term solution (as do I) but has claimed that there are simply not enough fabrication facilities on the planet to replace fossil fuels with nuclear plants fast enough (even if we HAD the political will to DO it). His overview is that we have to (and CAN) get through the next 5-10 decades with solar, wind, storage, grids etc (for which the technology is there but certain strategic materials are potentially limited), while using that time seriously to get nuclear off the ground. Permitting itself, as you know, is a huge headache (part of the political dimension). If you agree with this overall scenario, do you think someone needs to get serious about a "Project 2029" on decarbonization so Democrats can (a) have a serious program and strategy to get people to pay attention to them running up TO the election and (b) have an ACTION plan with identified staffing ready for day 1 with the 'shock and awe' momentum we have just seen devoted so effectively to willful ignorance and denial?
James, I'm baffled by your comparison between nuclear and renewable. The first commercial nuclear reactor was built in 1942. How many more decades of RDD support would the nuclear industry want in the hope of bringing its cost down? (And I leave aside the unresolved issues of dealing with nuclear waste and the risk of supporting nuclear weapons.) In contrast, the solar cell was invented in 1954 and the technological advances of renewable energy and batteries have been astounding, leading to cost reductions of as much as 90%, and we haven't seen the end of innovations yet, especially in batteries. If it weren't for powerful lobbying by the nuclear industry, the debate would be long over, won by renewables on economic grounds.
Am an ex Bell Labber and the pv cells is one of our joy inventions. But, nuclear powers with tremendous energy density and we can save the forests for the panels. Base.pj
I was so disappointed in Obama. I really thought addressing global warming was going to happen. UGH! Then Citizens United happened and locked in corporatocracy.
And we should always think and act with "WeDoables". The "Renewables" were "WeDoables" that could have helped stop this fiasco 50 years ago. The pity is they are Weknewables"
Gosh the fiscal policies you espouse are spot on correct in my view. I like the DC backbone concept a lot too. The company I last worked for (Electric Transmission Texas) is working on that from northwest Texas to Houston. It will basically shore up the ERCOT grid for robust wind/solar grid conditions.
We need cohesion. All the climate change individuals and groups uniting under one big powerful voice. And, not calling each other's solutions moral hazards but possible solutions that need expedient study.
Become Heated Citizens.
We are all in this together and the lack of unity destroys our chances for reversing global heating.
A smart carbon or general ghg tax is a facet of the bigger solution.. rationing Earth. We have tovset limits and enforce them.
The "banquerers" should not be allowed to pillage our and future lives life blood.
We gotta say no and really mean no.
I can understand why a "fee and dividend" policy would not gain much political traction. Better would be a simple hydrocarbon fuel production cap and drawdown, and let the fuel producers keep the money as fuel prices rise. That has actually been attempted several times before by the oil companies before (albeit to simply bring prices up, and to screw over their political opponents, but that is a side matter.) Each time their fuel production cut initiatives were seriously countered. The last time was by the Biden administration which was supposed to be pro-environment. Anyway, there is a lot more to it than just bringing hydrocarbon fuel prices up, and letting supply and demand take care of the rest. Some fundamental changes to the workings of our economic system need to be made. Presently our economy is guided by a rather small group of actors, and ultimately those are the ones that need to buy in to a solution if the solution is to gain any traction. This recently published essay also on SubStack may be to your interest: https://helmetdestroyer570.substack.com/p/climate-change-and-the-supra-corporation
Bloomberg posted an article entitled, 'Californians deserve better than economic fairy tales', referring to the 'Billionaire Tax'. I replied California can make more billionaires more easily than billionaires can make more Californians.
This is serious. Nouriel Robini did an 8 minute interview on Bloomberg yesterday where he said he expects 4% GDP by 2030 growing to 10% GDP by 2050 because of AGI, quantum, fusion, and other technoligies but he also said 80% of the country would be unemployed living on the dole while 10% would accrue all of the country's remaining wealth after the dole taxes. An economic royalty. You can find the video on YouTube.
Why the hell did the USA scrap Thorium? .. Because it didn't create fuel for nuclear weapons.
When the major parties become WhyNotcrats and RespectAgains we might have a chance.
Greed mercilessly fans the flames as Earth 🔥.
Put the carbon in derivatives.. seems like everything else good and bad are in them.
“In effect, they say: “if 1.5°C global warming has only moderate effects, what is the big problem with 3°C?””
I think this is a fair question and the IPCC and others should do a better job of answering it. As it is a lot of the warnings are still premised on 4 and 5°C.
Also, I don’t love being pessimistic and I really wanted a carbon tax/rebate (what you’re calling a fee/dividend) to work but Canada was the test case and if Canada can’t sustain such a policy I doubt the US can. Unfortunately even educated citizens still have a way of disappointing us with their mistrust and lack of numeracy and conceptual ability.
Perhaps this is a more realistic path forward? https://guidedcivicrevival.substack.com/p/economic-development-is-key-to-addressing
Canada was certainly NOT a test case for fee-and-dividend. All of the money from a carbon fee must be given to the public in direct periodic payments (preferably monthly, although quarterly is acceptable) to their debit card or bank account. If such a system is started, the public will never let it be terminated. Canada was never close to such a system.
I'm afraid you're mistaken, James. That is precisely what Canada did: Money was deposited in people's bank accounts every quarter. The problems were two-fold: 1- the government was incredibly incompetent in letting people know what was happening; 2- the populist opposition succeeded in dominating the narrative -- Ax the Tax! Politically, Carney had no choice but to abandon that policy. And thank god Pierre Poilievre is not our Prime Minister.
Like almost any economist, I agree that fee-and-dividend or however you want to call it is the best way to reduce GHG emissions. What authorities did not appreciate is how that policy is understood by the general public and is compounded by anxieties about inflation.
Note that the "industrial carbon price" (for large emitters) remains in place and is being tightened.
Erwin, Canada came closer than any other country, but did not do a simple, clean, transparent carbon fee-and-dividend. I worked with Canadian CCL, wrote op-eds, even made a trip to Canada. Canada had a really effective dedicated person, Cathy Orlando advocating for CCL, but the politicians did not implement the system that I am talking about -- I am quite sure of that. It's the same old problem that I heard from politicians many times: "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." It needs to be an across the board carbon fee collected from the fossil fuel industry and distributed 100% to the public uniformly, in simple direct, regular, payments, unconnected to anything else (such as year-end tax forms), with public accounting of exactly what is happening. I haven't spoken with Cathy recently, but would bet $20 to a donut that Canada did not have a national, clean, communicated, fee-and-dividend.
Well, if your criteria are "national, clean, communicated" Canada failed, because individual provinces could have their own system as long as it was equivalent to the federal system. As well, as I indicated, Canada did an atrocious job communicating what it was doing. But "All of the money from a carbon fee [was] given to the public in direct periodic payments ... to their debit card or bank account."
What I would concede is that it only applied in provinces that did not have their own systems judged by the federal government as equivalent. And industrial emissions were subject to different systems as shown here https://www.energyhub.org/carbon-tax-rebate/
Nevertheless I think my point stands. I don’t think a “cleaner” system that was completely consistent across the federation would’ve fared any better.
That is exactly how it worked.
Part of the dividend should be to pay for ALL public transport. I love trains.
And for urban cooling. Cooling assistance to the indigent. And protecting water supplies..
Let's think big and have a great plan!
The difference between 1.5C and 3C of heat is exponential chaos. The temp is an average global stat and can translate to waves of 40 plus degree local differences. Besides the quicker ice melt, sea level rise, droughts, fires, etc.. A difference of 1.5C is not stepping into another room a tad warmer.
Politics is not helpful for health in any way shape or from. It is to tied into power and ego.
"Politics" is how we decide things collectively. I can't recall any great leap forward policy-wise that didn't require a major fight with vested interests. And even the American civil rights movement of the 1960s had plenty of internal dramas grounded in issues of power and ego. We can't wave a magic wand and make them go away, but we can hopefully keep them within manageable levels.
Steve, that is the way a true democracy works. What has happened is we have allowed both political parties to accept money from special interests. Anniek and I had the opportunity to speak with John McCain at a Time 100 meeting in Manhattan, probably in the last decade of his life. McCain was the last major politician to make a serious effort at campaign finance reform, but he failed. By the time we talked with him, he was tired and bruised. He realized that Congress is not going to fix itself.
I am very optimistic about the potential of young people to lead the reform of our government (the "revolution" that the Founders indicated would occasionally be needed), as, e.g., a majority of Gen Z identify themselves as political Independents. Our task now is to help them understand the situation and their great potential to change the system. Once it gets started, it will snowball, I am confident.
Agreed. I think a key step is to recognize that politics isn't something to be avoided via some magical technocratic means, but rather is a system that can be improved so it operates more in the public interest (such as by dramatically reducing the influence of big money in the electoral process).
The challenge right now would appear to be that the incremental policy changes of the postwar era that I grew up with are inadequate to our current moment. For example, we likely can't make substantive campaign finance reform stick without reforming the Supreme Court. Can that be done without a constitutional amendment? If not, then we somehow need to make major electoral inroads in what are now red states. How can that happen without, for example, a revitalization of journalism in vast stretches of the country that have become "news deserts"?
In other words, we need an operating system upgrade rather than merely one or two specific new programs. I think that one silver lining about Project 2025 is that it hints at how Democrats have too often limited themselves to single-issue organizing rather than developing a comprehensive policy agenda to respond to a broad and interlocking series of problems. And that policy agenda may ultimately require updating our constitutional order.
In other words, we may need to reach beyond the postwar "normal science" and instead focus on making a "paradigm shift." That isn't an easy shift to make, particularly if one has operated in the political mainstream for any length of time. So, yes, it could well be that youthful energy is crucial.
Dr Hansen,
On that train of thought, Ben Franklin, our "USA Daddy", was a staunch "Pay It Forward" advocate.
Well, we can at least "Share Earth Forward".
John McCain was a true RespectAgain. How dare Trump mock him!
Meant to imply without Trump we have bigger mangoes.