Dear Prime Minister, Dear Chan

-
Aa
+
a
a
a

9 December 2007Grist

The following is a draft letter from noted climate scientist James Hansen to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on the subject of proposed new coal-fired power plants. (A similar letter is in the works to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.) The author would appreciate feedback.

-----

Dear Prime Minister Brown,

Your leadership is needed on a matter concerning coal-fired power plants in your country, a matter with global ramifications, as I will clarify.

For the sake of identification, I am a United States citizen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor at the Columbia University Earth Institute. I write, however, as a private citizen, a resident of Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, on behalf of the planet and life on Earth, including all species.

I recognize that you strongly support policies aimed at reducing the danger of global warming. Also Great Britain has been a leader in pressing for appropriate international actions.

Yet there are plans for construction of new coal-fired power plants in Great Britain. Consummation of those plans would contribute to foreseeable adverse consequences of global warming. Conversely, a choice not to build could be a tipping point that seeds a transition that is needed to solve the global warming problem.

Basic Fossil Fuel Facts

The role of coal in global warming is clarified by a small number of well-documented facts. Figure 1 shows the fraction of fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that remains in the air over time. One-third of the CO2 is still in the air after 100 years, and one-fifth is still in the air after 1000 years.

Figure 1. Decay of a pulse of CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

Figure 2. Percent contributions of different fossil fuels to 2006 CO2 emissions (left side) and contributions to the excess CO2 in the air today relative to pre-industrial CO2 amount.

Oil slightly exceeds coal as a source of CO2 emissions today, as shown in Figure 2 (left side). But, because of the long atmospheric lifetime of past emissions, fully half of the excess CO2 in the air today (from fossil fuels), relative to pre-industrial times, is from coal (right side of Figure 2). Moreover, coal use is now increasing, while oil production has stagnated. Oil production will peak and will be constrained by available resources earlier than will coal production.

Figure 3. Estimated fossil fuel reserves (purple portions have already been used).

Figure 3 shows reported fossil fuel reserves and resources (estimated undiscovered deposits). Reserves are hotly debated and may be exaggerated, but we know that enough oil and gas remain to take global warming close to, if not into, the realm of dangerous climate effects. Coal and unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale contain enough carbon to produce a vastly different planet than the one on which civilization developed, a planet without Arctic sea ice, with crumbling ice sheets that assure sea level catastrophes for our children and grandchildren, with shifting climate zones that drive countless species to extinction, and with intensified hydrologic extremes that cause increased drought and wildfires but also stronger rain, floods, and storms.

Oil and coal uses differ fundamentally. Oil is burned primarily in small sources, in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the CO2 emissions. Available oil reserves will be exploited eventually, regardless of efficiency standards on vehicles, and the CO2 will be emitted to the atmosphere. The climate effect of oil is nearly independent of how fast we burn the oil, because much of the CO2 remains in the air for centuries. [It is nevertheless important to improve efficiency of oil use, because that buys us time to develop technologies and fuels for the post-oil era, and high efficiency surely will be needed in the post-oil era.] However, the point is this: oil will not determine future climate change. Coal will.

Avoiding dangerous atmospheric CO2 levels requires curtailment of CO2 emissions from coal. Atmospheric CO2 can be stabilized by phasing out coal use except where the CO2 is captured and sequestered, as is feasible at power plants. Indeed, agreement to phase out coal use except where the CO2 is captured is 80% of the solution to the global warming crisis. Of course, it is a tall order, as coal is now the world’s largest source of electrical energy. Over the next few decades those coal plants must be closed or made to capture their CO2 emissions. Yet it is a doable task. Compare that task, for example, with the efforts and sacrifices that went into World War II.

Responsibility for Global Warming

Responsibility for global warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions, not to current emission rates (PDF). This is a consequence of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO2. Responsibility of the United States is more than three times larger than that of any other nation (Figure 4). Despite rapid growth of emissions from China, the United States will continue to be the nation most responsible for climate change for at least the next few decades.

Figure 4. Cumulative fossil fuel CO2 emissions through 2006 by country of emission.

It is also useful to examine per capita fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Figure 5 shows per capita emissions for the eight nations with largest total emissions, in order of decreasing total emissions. The United States and Canada have the largest per capita emissions, while emissions of Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom are half as large per capita.

Figure 5. Per capita fossil fuel emissions today in order of national total emissions.

Per capita responsibility for climate change, however, must be based on cumulative national emissions. The United Kingdom has the highest per capita responsibility, as shown in Figure 6. The United States is second most responsible and Germany is third. Increased responsibility of the United Kingdom and Germany is a consequence of their early entries into the industrial era. Recognition of these facts is not an attempt to cast blame. Early emissions of CO2 occurred before the climate problem was recognized and well before it was proven. Yet these facts are worth bearing in mind.

Figure 6. Per capita cumulative 1751-2006 fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Human-made climate change is unambiguously underway. Yet the urgency of the situation is not readily apparent to everybody. Chaotic weather fluctuations mask climate trends, even as climate change alters the nature of weather. Urgency is created by the very inertia of the climate system that delays the effects of gases already added to the air. This delay means that there is additional global warming "in the pipeline" due to human-produced gases already in the air.

Climate system inertia is due in part to the massive oceans, four kilometers deep on average, which are slow to warm in response to increasing greenhouse gases. The effect of this inertia is compounded by positive (amplifying) feedbacks, such as melting of ice and snow, which increases absorption of sunlight, engendering more melting. Such feedbacks are not "runaway" processes, but they make climate sensitive to moderate forcings, both natural and human-made forcings, such as increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Climate inertia and positive feedbacks together create the danger of passing climate "tipping points". A tipping point exists when the climate reaches a point such that little if any additional forcing is needed to instigate large, relatively rapid climate change and impacts. Impacts of these large climate changes tend to be, overall, detrimental to humans and other species, because life is adapted to the relatively stable interglacial period that has existed on our planet for about ten thousand years.

Based on current information, we now realize that we have passed or are on the verge of passing several tipping points that pose grave risks for humanity and especially for a large fraction of our fellow species on the planet. This information is gleaned primarily from the Earth’s history and ongoing global observations of rapid climate changes, and to a lesser extent from climate models that help us interpret observed changes.

Potential consequences of passing these tipping points include (1) loss of warm season sea ice in the Arctic and thus increased stress on many polar species, possibly leading to extinctions, (2) increasing rates of disintegration of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and thus more rapidly rising sea levels in coming decades, (3) expansion of sub-tropical climates adversely affecting water availability and human livability in regions such as the American West, the Mediterranean, and large areas in Africa and Australia, (4) reduction of alpine snowpack and water run-off that provides fresh water supplies for hundreds of millions of people in many regions around the world, and (5) increased intensity of the extremes of the hydrologic cycle, including more intense droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and greater floods, as well as stronger storms driven by latent heat, including tropical storms, tornados and thunderstorms.

The nearness of these climate tipping points is no cause for despair. On the contrary, the actions that are needed to avert the tipping point problems are not only feasible, they have side benefits that point to a brighter future for life on the planet, with cleaner air and cleaner water. It will be necessary to roll back the airborne amounts of some pollutants, but that is plausible, given appropriate attention. Already all pollutants except CO2 are falling at or below the lowest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scenarios, and there is much potential for further reductions.

The tendency of the media to continually report bad news on climate change and the human-made factors that drive climate change sometimes paints a picture that is bleaker than that shown by careful analysis. Such information is often misleading about the true status of the Earth, and the impression created may be harmful if it leads to despair about the prospects for achieving a relatively stable climate with a cleaner atmosphere and ocean. I illustrate with data for CO2, the most important climate forcing.

Figure 7 is the "airborne fraction" of fossil fuel CO2 emissions. This is the ratio: the annual increase of CO2 that appears in the Earth’s atmosphere (well measured) divided by the annual human emission of fossil fuel CO2 into the air (also well known). On average, the increase of CO2 in the air is only 57% of the amount emitted in burning of fossil fuels. This is despite the fact that humans are also causing extensive, mostly unwise, deforestation, which adds CO2 to the air. In addition our agricultural practices typically do not encourage storage of carbon in the soil.

Figure 7. Ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase to fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

There is tremendous potential for reducing atmospheric CO2 via reduction of deforestation, improved forestry practices, and improved agricultural practices that increase carbon storage in the soil. If governments were to encourage such practices, rather than the converse, and if coal use were phased out except where the CO2 is captured, it would be possible to literally roll back the net human-made climate forcing to levels below those defining critical tipping points.

We must remember, at the same time, that the ability of the principal CO2 sink, the ocean, to soak up human-made emissions is limited and slow (Figure 1). If we burn most of the available coal (Figure 3) without CO2 capture, even with the lowest estimates of available coal reserves, it will be impractical if not impossible to avoid passing climate tipping points with disastrous consequences.

I am optimistic that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize atmospheric composition at a level avoiding disastrous climate effects. My optimism is based in part on the fact that young people are beginning to make their voices heard. They have a powerful effect on our consciences, with an ability to influence policy makers and the captains of industry.

Many individuals are beginning to recognize and appreciate the nature of the climate problem. People want to take actions and they are willing to make sacrifices. However, individual actions cannot solve the problem by themselves.

Based on fossil fuel and carbon cycle facts summarized above, we cannot continue to burn the coal reserves without CO2 capture and sequestration. Solution of this problem can be achieved only via strong government leadership.

Governments must recognize the relative magnitudes of fossil fuel resources, i.e., oil, gas, coal, and unconventional fossil fuels, and they must establish policies that influence consumption in ways consistent with preservation of our climate and life on Earth. The fossil fuel facts dictate essential actions (PDF):

Phase-out of coal use that does not capture CO2. This is 80% of the solution, creating a situation in which CO2 emissions are declining sharply. (Coal use will also be affected by the second essential action. Indeed, it is likely that much of the coal will be left in the ground, as incentives spark innovations and positive feedbacks, accelerating progress to the cleaner world beyond fossil fuels.) A gradually but continually rising price on carbon emissions. This will assure that, as oil production inevitably declines, humanity does not behave as a desperate addict, seeking every last drop of oil in the most extreme pristine environments and squeezing oil from tar shale, coal, and other high-carbon sources that would assure destruction of our climate and most species on the planet. Recognition by industry of a continually rising carbon price (and elimination of fossil fuel subsidies) would drive innovations in energy efficiency, renewable energies, and other energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gases.

These are the two fundamental actions that must occur if we are to roll back the net climate forcing and avoid the dangerous climate tipping points, with their foreseeable consequences. Both of these actions are essential.

We can make a long list of supplementary actions that will be needed to avoid hardships and minimize dislocations as we phase into a cleaner world beyond fossil fuels. However, the two essential actions must be given priority and governments must explain the situation to the public.

Supplementary actions include improved efficiency standards on buildings, vehicles, appliances, etc. Rules must be changed so that utilities profit by encouraging efficiency, rather than selling more energy. But governments must recognize these actions as being supplementary to the essential actions dictated by the physics of the carbon cycle, specifically the requirement to constrain release of CO2 to the air from the large carbon reservoirs.

Further actions will be needed to achieve a rollback of the net climate forcing. These actions (PDF) include reduction of non-CO2 climate forcings and improved agricultural and forestry practices. These actions are important and have multiple benefits, especially in developing countries, but they do not have the great urgency of halting construction of new coal plants without carbon capture. Power plants have long lifetimes, and once their CO2 is released to the air, it is impractical to recover it.

Energy departments, influenced by fossil fuel interests, take it as a God-given fact that we will extract all fossil fuels from the ground and burn them before we move on to other ways of producing usable energy. The public is capable of changing this course dictated by fossil fuel interests, but clear-sighted leadership is needed now if the actions are to be achieved in time.

Tipping points and positive feedbacks exist among people, as well as in the climate system. I believe that the action with the greatest potential to initiate positive feedbacks, and lead to the benefits that will accompany a clean energy future, is a moratorium in the West on new coal-fired power plants unless and until CO2 capture and sequestration technology is available. Such a moratorium would provide the West with sufficient moral authority to sit down with China and other developing countries to find ways, likely including technological assistance, for developing countries to also phase out coal use that does not capture CO2.

As shown above, responsibility for the first step rests with Great Britain, the United States and Germany. Despite lack of government leadership, citizens in the United States are stepping up to block one coal plant after another, and the next national election is less than a year away.

If Great Britain and Germany halted construction of coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester the CO2, it could be a tipping point for the world. There is still time to find that tipping point, but just barely. I hope that you will give these considerations your attention in setting your national policies. You have the potential to influence the future of the planet.

Prime Minister Brown, we cannot avert our eyes from the basic fossil fuel facts, or the consequences for life on our planet of ignoring these fossil fuel facts. If we continue to build coal-fired power plants without carbon capture, we will lock in future climate disasters associated with passing climate tipping points. We must solve the coal problem now.

For your information, I am sending a similar letter to Chancellor Merkel.

Godspeed,

James E. Hansen Kintnersville, Pennsylvania United States of America

As a private citizen ...one doesn't really have two or three thousand words to work with, when buttonholing heads of state. If one expects to be able to get that many words in, one is relying on the reputation one has earned as a professional public servant.

One should perhaps not be so firm in saying,

once [power plants'] CO2 is released to the air, it is impractical to recover it.

Reacting pulverized silicates quickly with concentrated CO2 in a pot is expensive, but using the troposphere as the pot and using years to tens of years as the reaction timescale looks very practical to me, as I've been saying here recently.

--- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convertHow shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

"Godspeed"is indeed a chummy way to sign off, sort of like what Elizabeth I must have said to Francis Drake when he left to go defeat the Spanish Armada.  Not very rip-snortin' cow-punchin' American, to be sure; but what the hell, a proper Yank wants to impress the Brits that he still can handle the mother tongue.

"For the sake of identification," though, toward the beginning, is a bit starchy, not to say crusty.

My guess is that if Gordon Brown is the sort of non-scientific reader anything like I am, he might wish the long, graph-decorated bit about the story of coal vs. the story of oil were a bit more concise.  But on the other hand, he might welcome a more purple blossoming of the items in the paragraph beginning, "Potential consequences of passing these tipping points include ..."

Also, in the version of the letter to be sent to Angela Merkel, James should be sure to work in somewhere his "death train" analogy.Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

tell us when you send it...Great letter.. I hope it has the desired effect. In order to help it on it's way, perhaps you can anounce when it has been sent, so that any other 'private citizens' writing to the prime minister/chancellor can write in support?

It's nice that......they wanna do this, and I hope that the Prime Minister listens...but I imagine there are plenty of climate scientists in England who agree with your letter and also wish to do away coal power.

If one of them (or a large group, preferably) sends the letter, or they talk to him personally (as I imagine they already have), it would probably have more of an effect than for just one scientist (even if it is James Hansen) from America to say so.

Also, although the graphs, charts, and figures are all great evidence to support the case, they might wanna tone it down a little.  I'm sure the Prime Minister of the country has access to similar data, and they probably wouldn't want to either take up too much of his time on just this one letter (if it gets too long, he might just skim over it), or by making it appear that they think he isn't already aware of the situation.  

The graphs, figures, and paragraphs about specifics would be better suited if the letter was aimed at some lower-level government official who may not know all the facts on how global warming works, who contributes, and why coal-plants are bad.  But I'm pretty sure that the Prime Minister knows this already and has probably had several discussions about it with experts.

Though I don't know for sure, I think that the letter might benefit alittle bit more if it was a little shorter and more to the point, and was signed on by other climate scientists and organizations.

But that's just my personal opinion.

What a messThe UK has some aggressive emissions targets, but no clear and concrete policies as to how they are ever going to reach these targets. There is complete political indecision on the whole topic.

And then last week we have the leader of the opposition party, David Cameron, (who complains that Brown isn't doing enough) telling Greenpeace how he will bloack any plans for Nuclear Power stations. Just where do they think all this energy is going to come from??

We need to realise that if we are going to be green then we will all need to compromise somewhere..

Dr. James E. Hansen for President..........The current scale and rapid growth rate of the global economy cannot be sustained much longer, much less forever, on a planet with the size and make-up of Earth. Many intellectually honest and courageous people, like Jim Hansen, possess this knowledge of Earth's limitations, and are following Jim's example by standing up in larger numbers now and speaking out loudly so as to share their understandings with others.

Given the purposes of too many leaders today, of course, speaking out in intellectually honest and courageous ways are not examples of human behavior that support these leaders' pervasively proclaimed view: only we know how to live. Afterall, have you ever heard one of these leaders say something like, "Our way of life is non-negotiable. There is no other. It is either our way of life or else......."?

These leaders hold a monolithic, potentially pernicious view of the way the world works and, consequently, may present themselves in our time as a formidable challenge for humanity. The global challenge presented to humankind by this leadership could be every bit as formidable a global challenge as human-induced global warming.

Here we want to objectively identify an overlooked but primary aspect of the distinctly human-forced predicament that is presented to humanity in these early years of Century XXI. I would like to submit that too many leaders among us, all espousing their insistence upon their one right way to live, present themselves to humanity and to life as we know as a global challenge.

Through 'talking heads' in the media and bought-and-paid-for politicians, super-rich powerbrokers have predominantly established their view about this world and what about it is most important to them. Can they say what they intend more clearly? What more can they say to be better understood? They report their message ubiquitously in the mass media.

These leaders are making themselves crystal clear. They are all about endless economic growth, come what may. For any of them to so much as suggest an alternative to maximal expansion of human consumption, production and propagation activities on Earth, would be politically inconvenient, economically inexpedient, socially disagreeable and religiously intolerable.

Nevertheless, it appears worth noting that their "24/7" message via mass media endorsing unrelenting economic globalization could soon be generally recognized as a scientifically unsupportable fabrication. Their contrived, consensually validated 'necessity' for unbridled economic growth could be eventually seen as fraudent as well as an willful exercise of governmental and corporate malfeasence, all of it based upon the self-interests of a tiny minority wealthy and powerful people.

These wealth accumulating and power-driven leaders and their not negotiable view of the right way for all human beings to live, I am supposing, will shortly stand out as an ominously looming threat to humanity. One day this threat will be given the attention it deserves. Sometime thereafter, this threat will be acknowledged and addressed in an intellectually honest and courageous way. Then the global threat posed by a small number of people advocating evermore patently unsustainable economic growth, come what may, will be confronted by the family of humanity.

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.AWAREness Campaign on The Human Populationhttp://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Dr. Hansen, I'd like to know......why you never mention renewable technologies when you discuss solutions.  There have been quite a number of articles at Grist concerning sequestration, and it doesn't seem to be a winner, while renewables (solar/wind/geothermal) seem to be technologies for which global warming mitigation monies would be better spent.  

I submit this question in full support of your activities, because I think you have been very courageous in overcoming the reticence, which you have also written about, of scientists to come forward and try to influence policy.  But I think it would strengthen your case to include policy proposals concerning renewable energy.

Why transportation should be mentionedI applaud your understanding of the limits to oil production.  But as oil production declines, vehicles are likely to be powered more and more with electricity.  Unless that electricity is renewable, therefore, the decline of oil production will lead to an increase in coal use.

The other problem is that, if the world continues to become more and more dependent on cars and trucks, there will be a huge effort to use tar sands, oil shale, coal-to-liquids, and unsustainable biofuels.  Therefore, in order to give people an alternative to cars and trucks, and to avoid the problem of massive increase in electrical vehicle use, I think it is worthwhile to mention the benefits of public transit, and particularly rail, which are much more efficient for passenger and freight traffic.

Some suggestionsI think the language and the message could use a bit of polishing. I am more familiar with the standard format & lingo of a scientific paper than I am with a diplomatic one, but I suspect that the language of diplomacy has a standard & comfortable rhythm of it's own, and this letter reads a bit like a war between scientific writing and diplomatic writing, while doing an incomplete job of delivering either message.  

The tone seems to me to be a bit dictatorial; I try to imagine myself the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of a great European nation, getting advice on how to run my country from a private citizen of the US, and I can't help but feel that I would be defensive from the start.

If faced with the challenge of writing such a letter myself, I would probably arrange it like a scientific paper; start with a brief summary up front (abstract), go into more detail in the middle (introduce problem, present data & analysis) and then provide conclusions.  I think you have to start with the assumption that the Prime Minister & the Chancellor know that coal is evil, but face difficult choices; again, if I am in the PM chair, I have to provide adequate power supply to my country, I have to ensure that I do not accept, or force upon the populace, crippling debt, I want to ensure clean air, jobs, limited GHG emissions, etc., etc., and it is all a balancing act.  So, I would be looking for some real-world advice: clearly, I want to invest some  time and money in research dedicated to renewable energy, increased efficiency and the like, but what do I do about the next 20 years?  How do I ensure uninterrupted power supply to my growing populace?  Is oil less evil than coal?  What about nuclear?  I have all sorts of reports from all sorts of experts on my desk; which do I believe, and how do I make a fair and balanced decision that protects my people without destroying the planet?  

These are my worries in the PM chair.  The above letter simply tells me why I should lie awake at 3am worrying about coal; it doesn't point me in the right direction.  As a policy-maker, I would like to hear "Investment in renewable forms of energy is clearly a key towards maintaining plentiful energy supply while protecting the Earth's climate; however, until increased efficiency and renewable energy production can meet to provide all the energy needs for Great Britain, XXXXX [oil, nuclear, etc] is less environmentally destructive than coal without sequestration." Or even better, provide a simple list:

Most Environmentally Destructive Energy Production

1. Coal2.3.4.Coal with sequestration at 80%Wind, solar, etc....

As author, I would assume I had two paragraphs to grab their attention, so I had better say everything I want to say in those two paragraphs, and use the rest of the letter to back up my statements (and try to make my up front two paragraphs compelling enough to make them keep reading).  

Finally, a little flattery goes a long way.... an opener such as "I applaud Great Britain for being a world leader in effecting change in fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. Legislation such as blah, blah, and blah, clearly shows that you understand the critical nature of the Earth's climate crisis and are dedicated to practical, sustainable energy solutions."

All in all, I think all the data are there to make a very strong argument - but a little sugar makes the medicine go down.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment,Kaela

Crystal clear - send it.I would add in self-reliance via examining how electricity is used, where the coal comes from, and the reliability of those sources.  There will come the day when coal exporters recognize the value is not worth the cost and legislate the end of coal exports.

I am a developer of renewable low-carbon energy technologies and I have often declared here on Grist that the industrial inertia of vertically integrated renewable energy is too slow to displace coal this decade. Shutting down plans for new coal power plants should not have qualifiers.  

England, Germany, and hopefully the US could export low-carbon energy technology information around the world for rapid horizontal indigenous integration.  (Photovoltaic cells and ethanols are not low-carbon energy sources.)

Some quibbles with the letterThe point about coal being the main driver is of course valid and all important. We have to stop building coal plants and put a price on carbon. This is the gist of the letter but the letter went too far downplaying the impact of oil, present and future.

Available oil reserves will be exploited eventually, regardless of efficiency standards on vehicles, and the CO2 will be emitted to the atmosphere.

That is not a 100% probability. I agree that the odds of all oil reserves being exploited are high mostly because there is so much less of it than coal. But, it is also much easier to use less oil than coal. My family has reduced oil use 80% by simply switching to high mileage vehicles. As a consumer, I can't control what my power plant burns but I can control the mileage of my car.

If we do leave some of it in the ground, as we are trying to do in the ANWR for example, it would help a great deal. The chart shows oil is contributing as much as coal. Hansen says that it won't contribute as much in the future simply because we will run out of it, but he is dead wrong.

We may simply run out of low carbon oil first. We will then turn to fuel made from tar sands, oil shale and industrial agrofuels if we don't get our transport weaned off of liquid fuels.

The climate effect of oil is nearly independent of how fast we burn the oil, because much of the CO2 remains in the air for centuries.

This is also true for coal. We have to slow the use of coal for power generation and liquid fuel for transport.

[It is nevertheless important to improve efficiency of oil use, because that buys us time to develop technologies and fuels for the post-oil era, and high efficiency surely will be needed in the post-oil era.] However, the point is this: oil will not determine future climate change. Coal will.

This could have been put much better. It is important that we greatly improve efficiency not just because we will run out of cheap, lower carbon sources of oil but because if we don't we will turn to tar sands, shale, and our living carbons sinks for that liquid fuel.

Hansen is predicting the future and predicting the future can change the future. Give humanity the false impression that using liquid fuel for transport does not matter and you may find in the future that liquid fuel's contribution to global warming via the conversion of tar sands, shale and living carbon sinks  will continue to be greater than coal.

Some money quotes:

Based on current information, we now realize that we have passed or are on the verge of passing several tipping points that pose grave risks for humanity and especially for a large fraction of our fellow species on the planet

There is tremendous potential for reducing atmospheric CO2 via reduction of deforestation, improved forestry practices, and improved agricultural practices that increase carbon storage in the soil.

Indeed, it is likely that much of the coal will be left in the ground,

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Drastic emissions cuts are unfeasibleDr James Hansen is a hero of mine, but he is approaching a feasible planetary rescue plan incorrectly.  He calls for a moritorium on new coal-fired plants that don't have CCS (carbon capture and storage), but this is a non-starter.  Coal is 1/3 the cost of either oil or natural gas generating electricity, plus it is a stable cheap domestic energy source.  CCS technology is pie-in-the-sky, where each power plant would have to be individually engineered, and old power plants unlikely to be retrofitted.

Dr Hansen himself says that the climate is more sensitive to CO2(e) than commonly thought, where in the short run doubling the CO2(e) level from pre-industrial would cause the air temperature to rise about 3C (Charney 3C), but feedbacks in the long run would double the temperature increase to 6C!  We are at 455 ppm CO2(e) now, and will very likely double the CO2(e) from pre-industrial levels (560 ppm) by 2030.  Also, nature is expected to low the amount of CO2 removed from the air 1/3rd by 2030.

No feasible planetary rescue plan can be without a method of removing the excess CO2 from the air-I suggest the low cost method of biosequestration (see my blog at www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod for further information).  There is even a practical mechanical method of removing CO2 from sea water.

Dr Hansen is proposing unfeasible drastic emission cuts (like a moritorium on new non-CCS coal-fired plants).  There is no difference between global warming deniers and those who prescribe only drastic emission cuts: both will end in catastrophe.

Either we will deploy a method of removing some of the excess CO2 from the air, or we will return to the hothouse climate of 55 million years ago when most life died.