Comments on: Hansen to Obama Pt 1 – the Now or Never plan

By: The Hansen-Romm Debate « Climate Dilemma

The Hansen-Romm Debate « Climate Dilemma — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:55:27 +0000

[...] After Hansen released his essay Tell Barack Obama the Truth — The Whole Truth (also reproduced by Barry Brook at BraveNewClimate.com), Romm responded with a blog post An open letter to James [...]

By: Hansen to Obama Pt IV - Where to from here? « BraveNewClimate.com

Hansen to Obama Pt IV - Where to from here? « BraveNewClimate.com — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:02:58 +0000

[...] Coal is the dirtiest fuel. Coal burning has released and spread around the world more than 100 times more radioactive material than all the nuclear power plants in the world. Mercury released in coal burning contaminates the world ocean as well as our rivers, lakes and soil. Air pollution from coal burning kills more than 100,000 people per year. If such consequences were occurring from nuclear power, nuclear plants would all be closed. Mining of coal, especially mountaintop removal, causes additional environmental damage and human suffering. It is time for all the coal plants to be closed, indeed, averting climate disasters demands that all coal plants be phased out. Coal is best left in the ground. [...]

By: Bytes and Blogs « Greenfyre’s

Bytes and Blogs « Greenfyre’s — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:39:51 +0000

[...] prepared a letter “Tell Barack Obama the Truth – The Whole Truth” which Barry Brooks describes as “It is perhaps the single best succinct summary of the problems and solutions of global [...]

By: James Haughton

James Haughton — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:56:34 +0000

Since Obama is, ultimately, a politician responsible to voters, I think he should list the impacts on humans (and specifically american humans) first (eg. mass flooding of new york, failing crops driving up food prices, cities in the mid west being abandoned as drinking water dries up), even if in an absolute scheme of things these are smaller than mass species extinction. Obama has to sell this message to congress and the american people.

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:31:33 +0000

And this one:

http://iodeweb3.vliz.be/oanet/OAimages/TurleypH.gif

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:40:42 +0000

It doesn’t look like 450ppm — at this rate of change — will work for the oceans.

http://iodeweb3.vliz.be/oanet/FAQacidity.html

http://iodeweb3.vliz.be/oanet/OAimages/Wolf-GladrowGraph.gif

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html

Peter Ward ought to be listened to more, I think.
http://www.astrobio.net/podcast/TysonFreeFM971.mp3

By: Barry Brook

Barry Brook — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:39:29 +0000

Chris @2: I’ve read Romm, and think he is wrong on this, or at least has not read all of what Hansen has to say, especially about energy alternatives. But I’ll leave comment on that until I’ve posted the four parts. Suffice to say, if we all choose to “stick with 450 ppm” as Romm says, then we may as well not bother, because we’ll be pursuing a solution that only half-fixes the problem and therefore ultimately fails — because it still leads to a transformed planet the likes of which humanity has ever experienced.

By: Chris McGrath

Chris McGrath — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:05:23 +0000

Welcome back from China Barry.

Joseph Romm at Climate Progress is not happy with Hansen’s policy recommendations: http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/23/an-open-letter-to-james-hansen-on-the-real-truth-about-stabilizing-at-350-ppm/#more-4286

He concludes: “I am not entirely convinced that 350 ppm is needed this century from a purely scientific perspective. But I am utterly unconvinced that you have a technology and policy strategy needed to achieve 350 ppm or come anywhere close. For now, I’ll stick with 450 ppm.”

I agree with Hansen on the science but Romm’s critique of the policy issues is very worthwhile reading.

By: Steven Earl Salmony

Steven Earl Salmony — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:48:10 +0000

Dear James Hansen,

Thanks for telling the truth as you see it and for speaking out loudly, clearly and often about what everyone knows but precious few will say.

As you know better than most of us, “denial” is not only a river in Egypt. However we choose to look at the taxonomy of denial, you help us easily see that many too many leaders are collusively engaged in its practice. Even though it is perverse, denial is consensually validated behavior. If enough elite people remain in denial, something more attractive…ie, something illusory…can be put in place of what is more real and somehow likely to be more truthful.

Doing good work along the path toward a good enough future for children will not be an easy task for anybody. Evidently, everybody wants to be a somebody, but nobody in a position of power willingly assumes the requisite responsibilities and performs the duties of office. Such so-called ‘leadership’ is both ubiquitous and woefully inadequate.

Occasionally a great person like you can be found who goes against the tide of people with power…who disputes the elitists who uniformly favor whatsoever is politically convenient, economically expedient, socially agreeable and religiously tolerated.

Certainly I share the view that everyone-in-power’s silence with regard to what is happening in any “here and now” moment of space-time is the most formidable foe that the family of humanity faces.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176