President 'has four years to save Earth' - James Hansen

[JohnWxy]

I've said before on this site we have about 6 to 10 years to really get started with reducing GHGs. I hadn't read Hansen's latest conclusions.

But the point is still the same, Global Warming is acclerating. We don't have 20 years to wait for PHEGs to reduce GHGs perhaps 20%. WE have to get started much sooner than that.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama


Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. "We cannot afford to put off change any longer," said Hansen. "We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."

Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.

Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels. At the same time, there must be a moratorium on new power plants that burn coal - the world's worst carbon emitter.

[natrat]

1. dont worry he pushed his cap and trade plan so at least corporations will profit

oh the changiness of it all, warms my heart

[excess_3]

2. the same old carbon offset BS

[flamingdem]

3. PLEASE RECOMMEND THIS HANSEN KNOWS WHAT'S UP !! nt

[Turborama]

4. Done & off to The Greatest

At least until any deniers lurking around here get their hands on the unrec button...

[wroberts189]

5. +6 and a kick

[stuntcat]

16. right?

I mean right?

(I'm signing into DU today to say THE NASTY FUTURE WILL ALWAYS BE THE FAULT OF THE RICH FIRST-WORLD EARTH-HATERS who don't give a damb about the future and only care about never admitting they've been wrong all their fucking lives,fxdcvzfsdvsdvailhucIXSCAZ,jmbnXCZ,jmbnXCZ,mbnXCVZXCZh,jmbnCZ,mvbnXCZ,mbn XCZ,mbn,mn XCZ,mbn XCZ :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

excuse me .

[Ghost Dog]

6. We need intelligently-designed bio- and geo-engineering, we must accept the responsibility,

to capture and sequester, for example, methane and other potent GHGs.

I've come to the conclusion that this is unavoidable, even if it fails (it better not fail), and marks, like consciousness and rationality themselves, more than just a paradigm-shift in man's relationship with nature. We must actively, consciously do the work required of genuine 'stewards' or 'managers' of this biosphere.

[ramapo]

7. Obama can't do it

He can have the best intentions but there is no way that the public will change its behavior and consumption patterns. Carbon tax? No way that Congress has the guts for it. No way that Americans will pay it.

Only an abrupt and radical change will provide any chance of averting runaway warming. We're just not cut out for voluntary change. One day, nature will impose it upon us.

[flamingdem]

12. Sadly it takes something like gas prices soaring to force change nt

[prostomulgus]

14. I think that he can do it.

He could declare a national emergency (after all, a global emergency is certainly a national emergency) and use his Emergency Powers as President to do a lot of things. For example, he could institute a $5/gallon gas tax to encourage conservation or, alternatively, simply forbid the importation of foreign oil.

The list of things that he could do using this approach is endless and could, if pursued agressively enough, reduce US carbon emissions by at least 50%. That should be enough to save the entire planet.

[GliderGuider]

15. Invoking emergency powers would be political suicide.

The strength of denialism in the population would cause a massive backlash. Read the comments on the Guardian story to see what I mean.

And unfortunately, even cutting US carbon emissions in half wouldn't save the day. It would require the entire world cutting carbon emissions by 80% or more to do that.

Obama's hands are tied by a nasty conspiracy of politics and reality.

[ramapo]

18. He could but he'd be run out of town

He could do those things you suggest. I'd be in the 5% of Americans who would support him. A $5/gal gas tax would cause rioting in the streets, economic paralysis, and probably charges of treason.

It would be quite effective in reducing emissions.

[earth mom]

23. Obama COULD do it and he SHOULD do it, but corporate america CONTROLS him.

Gore should have run in 2008, but he stepped back for the "historic" race between Obama & Hillary.

What a HUGE mistake.

No doubt Gore is kicking himself now. :argh:

[JohnWxy]

19. just leaving the political difficulties aside for moment what things can we do that will get some

results IN THE NEAR TERM (let's say we had 6 to 10 years to get going with GHG reduction)? THis is open to everybody.

to start things off, there is:

1. conservation.

2. incentivizing mass transit.

3. alternative energy, wind, solar, geothermal, renewable transportation fuels (biodiesel, ethanol)

4. Euthanasia - fewer people driving. (okay, not a seriuos suggesion).


any other ideas? This is brain storming. But think of ways that can reduce GHGs in the short to medium term. What do we have available to us?


What if Obama was reading this thread? What would you say to him? ... NO, really, I'm serious.

[kristopher]

21. It is important to act as rapidly as we responsibly can

In fact there are a number of analysts who, after careful review of the options, have prioritized the way we should address the issue.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[JohnWxy]

24. I really like wind power. Especially since it's having an impact right now.

I think the Government needs to set up and agency to facilitate the buildiing of power transmission lines across states. It is very time consuming to do this when dealing with multiple states. THis really needs to be streamlined.

Anything we can do to start to reduce coal use is of course good not only for GW but also for human health.

............................................................................................................................................
NOw, dont' everybody speak up at once!

[Turborama]

28. If Obama was reading this I'd point him in this direction>>>

America has deserts big enough for this, it's an emergency in more ways than one and they should have started building enormous solar farms on 01/12/09...

$550 billion solar farm in the Sahara

Alex Salkever
Jul 20th 2009

Last week came word that a number of German industrial and financial giants, including Siemens (SI) and Deutsche Bank (DB), are planning a http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=11601.php">massive solar farm to be built in the North African desert. The farm would supply roughly 15 percent of Europe's power requirements. Power would flow through cables under the Mediterranean and into the European grid.

The kicker on all this? The farm would rely on a technology called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrating_solar_power">Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) that involves using mirrors to collect and redirect the heat of the sun into a small beam that heats up a container of liquid (oil or water). Does this $550 billion plan signify a turning point with the world moving away from standard photovoltaic arrays that use silicon to produce energy and towards CSP?

The ambitious plan is being spearheaded by the http://www.desertec.org/">DESERTEC Foundation, an organization founded to shepherd the massive solar effort. Already 12 major companies have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish a DESERTEC Industrial Initiative (DII). The MOU is the first step in the initiative which remains in the very early stages. Signers included insurer Munich Re, Deutsche Bank, solar photovoltaic panel giant SCHOTT Solar, utility giant E.ON, and industrial conglomerate Siemens.

The choice of CSP over traditional panels is instructive. Unlike PV arrays, CSP installations can continue to produce power for a number of hours after the Sun has gone down. That's because its fairly easy to insulate hot liquids, thus conserving the generating power of the installation. And because CSP plants rely on heat to turn turbines, in a pinch standard fossil fuels can be used to generate power and ensure an uninterrupted supply -- something that is considered a major problem with photovoltaic systems. Also, CSP systems are not reliant on the supply of fluctuating commodities such as silicon and can be built without the use of toxic materials such as cadmium telluride, a heavy metal that is a key ingredient in many of the emerging thin-film photovoltaic panel technologies.

Full article: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/07/20/550-billion-solar-farm-in-the-sahara/

-- --- --

America's Solar Energy Potential

=snip=

Large Concentrating Solar Power plants create the thermal energy equivalent to conventional fossil fuel power plants. After the sun sets, CSP plants generate electricity from cost-effective thermal storage, providing 24-hour service to the power grid.

Consider the solar energy potential of one acre of land. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre. Divide the number of square feet in one acre by 9 (the number of square feet in one square yard) and you find that there are 4,840 square yards in one acre of land. A CSP dish, tower, or trough receiving an acre of sunshine would yield about (1.5 kilowatt-hours per square yard times 4,840 square yards per acre) 7,260 kilowatt-hours of electricity per day, at 30% efficiency. One acre has enough solar energy potential to yield 7.26 megawatt-hours of electricity per day, using technology that exists now. (Each thousand kilowatts is one million watts. A million watts is a megawatt.)

Consider the solar energy potential of one square mile of land. A square mile is 640 acres. One square mile of sunshine has the potential of providing (640 acres x 7.26 megawatt-hours) 4,646 megawatt-hours per day of electricity using existing CSP technology at 30% efficiency.

Ten thousand square miles is a plot of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide. Multiply 640 acres by 10,000 square miles equals 6,400,000 acres. With a yield of 7.26 megawatt-hours of electricity per day per acre, a CSP system receiving 6,400,000 acres of sunshine would produce about 46,464,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.

What does this mean?

The entire State of California uses about 50,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per hour at peak time, and much less during off-peak hours: Sweltering California declares power emergency —Cal ISO expects record demand at 52,336 megawatts.
www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/2004-07-08_SUMMER_DEMAND.PDF size: 68 Kb
www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/2003-01-28_OUTLOOK.PDF size: 170 Kb
www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/peak_demand/2002-07-10_CHART.PDF size: 20 Kb

Suppose that California uses an average of 38,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per hour over a 24-hour period, then 24 hours x 38,000 megawatts = 912,000 megawatt-hours per day, multiplied by 365 = 333,880,000 megawatt-hours per year or 333,880 Gigawatt-Hours (GWh) per year. This supposed average is too high because in 2005, California actually consumed 288,245 Gigawatt-Hours (GWh) for the entire year: www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html

A CSP farm large enough to capture the solar energy radiating on an area of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide can produce about 50 times more electricity in a day than California consumes in a 24-hour period. For example, 50 x 912,000 = 45,600,000 megawatt-hours per day.

Imagine driving your car 100 miles along one side of the CSP farm, then turn 90 degrees right and drive 100 miles along another side, then turn 90 degrees right again and drive another 100 miles, then make another 90 degree right turn and drive another 100 miles to complete driving a 100 mile square. Inside that area is 10,000 square miles or 6,400,000 acres.

A 10,000 square mile solar energy farm that produces 46,464,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day would produce 365 x 46,464,000 = 16,956,360,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year or about 17 trillion kilowatt-hours, which is 17,000 terawatt-hours or 17 petawatt-hours.

=snip=

Full article: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.aspx

-- --- --


Edited to add this image...


A concentrating solar power (CSP) plant in Spain that uses panels to
reflect light onto a central tower to produce electricity. Similar
plants are proposed for north Africa.

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower

[EnergyRevolution]

29. A Thread on Solar Thermal Technology and Company

Check out this Discussion and Click (here)

Source: Solar Millennium



Source: DESERTEC

[Turborama]

30. Thanks a lot and welcome to DU!

Excellent 1st post!!

:hi:

[GliderGuider]

8. The replies to the Guardian article are truly horrifying.

If they represent the current state of Everyman's awareness, we really are screwed.

[phantom power]

9. Search your feelings... you know it to be true!

[GliderGuider]

10. True? What is Truth, grasshopper?

[phantom power]

11. Oh, well I don't know about The Truth, but "a truth" is...

that those comments represent Everyman's level of awareness, and we are screwed. Coincidentally, another truth is that Empire Strikes Back was totally the best of the star wars movies.

[GliderGuider]

13. I agree on all three points.

Not to wax too philosophical here, but it's not "we" who are screwed by climate change. It's our current way of life that's screwed. "We" are all screwed regardless of what happens, if by screwed we mean "certain to die at some indeterminable point in the future." Even if CO2 was stable at 280 ppmv "we" would still be screwed.

Do we want our current way of life not to be screwed? Given the damage it's causing to a lot of human beings and the other species that share our planet? Maybe screwing our current way of life is a good thing. At least that would give us opportunities to try different ways of life. Who knows, we might like some of them better. We're still screwed no matter what happens, after all.

Maybe the worst thing for all concerned would be if we found a way to stabilize our CO2 at the current level and just kept on screwing for another couple of hundred years...

[Viking12]

17. Horrible writing. It's not the Earth that's of concern, she'll get by in the long run.

It's the people that inhabit the Earth that are at peril.

[stuntcat]

25. and also all the other species

if the humans were the only animals I'd feel a lot better about how we're trashing our future. The beautiful animals who we're wiping out give me the sickest sadness though.
The Earth is indestructible by ANY animals, even the conceited bald monkeys. But to me it is a cosmic violation of the most real beauty in the universe for one species to wipe out so many others. Big as space is, there are probably only a handful of planets with such complex systems on it and so many kinds of life.

[valerief]

20. Other countries can invade us, y'know, to save the world. nt

[glinda]

22. I don't doubt this at all. It's gonna take everyone working.

[Mithreal]

26. Political muscle? We are bankrupt, fighting two wars, and lost our way. nt

[shireen]

27. Hansen is wrong

The Earth does not need saving ... she'll do just fine for the next 5 billion years, until the sun swells into a red giant and engulfs her.

It's humans that need saving. We're the problem. Earth is only reacting to the way we're changing the atmosphere. If we don't knock it off, we'll eventually go extinct. But Earth will continue to be a beautiful blue planet with a vibrant diversity of life that does not include humans.

[The2ndWheel]

31. Humans can only do so much though, good or bad

Our ever increasing large scale institutions are where the real money is.