Students at the University of Sheffield have donated four tonnes of goods to city charities. As...
page
Why Recent Graduates Should Join Code for America
page
Sympathy for the dodgy salesmen of Australian politics
page
Babel Rising
page
T.C. Boyle: Incorporating Environmentalism in Art
page
The Stone Roses confirm all planned shows to go ahead after Ian Brown calls Reni a 'c**t' onstage
Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them - From James Hansen

The government is expected to give the go-ahead to the coal-burning Kingsnorth power plant. Here, one of the world's foremost climate experts launches an excoriating attack on Britain's long love affair with the most polluting fossil fuel of all.

A year ago, I wrote to Gordon Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and other leaders. The reason is this - coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.

The climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades. As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting. As the tundra melts, methane, a strong greenhouse gas, is released, causing more warming. As species are exterminated by shifting climate zones, ecosystems can collapse, destroying more species.

The public, buffeted by weather fluctuations and economic turmoil, has little time to analyse decadal changes. How can people be expected to evaluate and filter out advice emanating from those pushing special interests? How can people distinguish between top-notch science and pseudo-science?

Those who lead us have no excuse - they are elected to guide, to protect the public and its best interests. They have at their disposal the best scientific organisations in the world, such as the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. Only in the past few years did the science crystallise, revealing the urgency. Our planet is in peril. If we do not change course, we'll hand our children a situation that is out of their control. One ecological collapse will lead to another, in amplifying feedbacks.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has already risen to a dangerous level. The pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 parts per million (ppm). Humans, by burning coal, oil and gas, have increased this to 385 ppm; it continues to grow by about 2 ppm per year.

Earth, with its four-kilometre-deep oceans, responds only slowly to changes of carbon dioxide. So the climate will continue to change, even if we make maximum effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide. Arctic sea ice will melt away in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years - if carbon dioxide continues to increase at current rates. Coral reefs, harbouring a quarter of ocean species, are threatened.

The greatest danger hanging over our children and grandchildren is initiation of changes that will be irreversible on any time scale that humans can imagine. If coastal ice shelves buttressing the west Antarctic ice sheet continue to disintegrate, the sheet could disgorge into the ocean, raising sea levels by several metres in a century. Such rates of sea level change have occurred many times in Earth's history in response to global warming rates no higher than those of the past 30 years. Almost half of the world's great cities are located on coastlines.

The most threatening change, from my perspective, is extermination of species. Several times in Earth's history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks. In each case, more than half of plant and animal species became extinct. New species came into being over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But these are time scales and generations that we cannot imagine. If we drive our fellow species to extinction, we will leave a far more desolate planet for our descendants than the world we inherited from our elders.

Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher. Climatic disasters would occur continually. The tragedy of the situation, if we do not wake up in time, is that the changes that must be made to stabilise the atmosphere and climate make sense for other reasons. They would produce a healthier atmosphere, improved agricultural productivity, clean water and an ocean providing fish that are safe to eat.

Fossil-fuel reservoirs will dictate the actions needed to solve the problem. Oil, of which half the readily accessible reserves have already been burnt, is used in vehicles, so it's impractical to capture the carbon dioxide. This is likely to drive carbon dioxide levels to at least 400 ppm. But if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide - coal - it will be practical to bring carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm, lower still if we improve agricultural and forestry practices, increasing carbon storage in trees and soil.

The German and Australian governments pretend to be green. When I show German officials the evidence that the coal source must be cut off, they say they will tighten the "carbon cap". But a cap only slows the use of a fuel - it does not leave it in the ground. When I point out that their new coal plants require that they convince Russia to leave its oil in the ground, they are silent. The Australian government was elected on a platform of solving the climate problem, but then, with the help of industry, it set emission targets so high as to guarantee untold disasters for the young, let alone the unborn. These governments are not green. They are black - coal black.

The three countries most responsible, per capita, for filling the air with carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are the UK, the US and Germany, in that order. Politicians here have asked me why am I speaking to them. Surely the US must lead? But coal interests have great power in the US; the essential moratorium and phase-out of coal requires a growing public demand and a political will yet to be demonstrated.

The Prime Minister should not underestimate his potential to transform the situation. And he must not pretend to be ignorant of the consequences of continuing to burn coal or take refuge in a "carbon cap" or some "target" for future emission reductions. My message to Gordon Brown is that young people are beginning to understand the situation. They want to know: will you join their side? Remember that history, and your children, will judge you.

James Hansen is director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. He was the first scientist to warn the US Congress of the dangers of climate change

Share |
blog comments powered by Disqus

Tags

 

Related Articles

The pointless battle against binge drinking
5 may  |  By Stephen Myles

Since the days of Alexander the Great, binge drinking has been a very popular past time - leading to him apparently killing a friend and burning down Persepolis while drunk.

Those are some Great shoes to fill.

Yet, governments, schools and the media have repeatedly tried to teach us of binge drinking's dangers. 

Dartmouth University has taken the lead, instigating a new nationwide policy to curb heavy drinking by their students.

Pour me another glass.

Binge drinking is defined as "the consumption of five or more drinks in a row by men — or four or more drinks in a row by women — at least once in the previous 2 weeks. Heavy binge drinking includes three or more such episodes in 2 weeks."

Seems I don't know anyone who isn't a heavy binge drinker.

Do you think this definition should be changed or should we change people's attitudes? Or should you follow HPD's no fools guide to drinking a lot but not dying?  . . read more

What a difference a year makes for Lord Monckton
6 dec  |  By Don Reilly

You might remember Lord Monckton, he was the climate change denier that was seemingly everywhere around the the Copenhagen climate change conference; spouting off talk about how a global agreement would destory US sovereignty and that global warming was a myth. Not surprisingly he was picked up by conservative news programs all over the world as his peerage and 'scientific' credentials gave him a weight that other deniers failed to match. . . read more

Rain rain go away for the Sunshine State
2 feb  |  By Stephen Myles

As Queensland braces for its second apocalyptic weather event in recent weeks, many in the ironically nicknamed 'Sunshine State' must be starting to wonder whether the next two horsemen are on their way. 

Well not to give away any spoliers but they will be, and soon.

Yes, maybe not in Queensland (hopefully that battered State gets some respite) but as blackbirds fall from the sky and mud slides hit Brazil; the increasnig frequency of bizarre and freakishly strong climate change based catastrophes means something will hit hard and hit soon. 

   . . read more

Cop16: Completely Disinterested
18 nov  |  By Don Reilly (The University of Indiana Bloomington)

November 29th 2010 marks an important date in the world's calendar- struggling to think why? Leafing through your diary to find some obscure anniversary you should have remembered?

Well I'll kill the suspense; November 29th marks the beginning of COP16- the follow up meeting for fighting climate change a year after the disaster that was Copenhagen.

Now, I think there will be a few reactions you could be having to this news:

- Complete disinterest as global agreement on climate change (bar CFCs in the 1990s) has been wildly ineffective- why should this be any different?

- Or complete disinterest because you don't believe in climate change and think this meeting is either a waste of time or proof of a shadowy new world order being created as we speak.

- Or finally, you might be feeling complete disinterest as you find yourself surprised that there has been absolutely no media coverage leading up to the event or really on climate change at all- yet you still find yourself shrugging.

So for the first and third reactions, I have to ask, do you really think complete disinterest will solve any problems or make the media want to write about them?  . . read more

Agriculture out of the ETS but who will suffer?- by Sean Maguire
18 nov  |  For worried farmers, Rudd's announcement that agriculture would permanently be outside the ETS must have brought some relief. The announcement was also sweetened when the possibility was raised that farmers may be able to buy carbon credits with good land management and a reduction of carbon emissions.  . . read more
Al Gore Plays With Fire- by Sean Maguire
16 dec  |  His detractors may not agree, but for most people Al Gore and his arguments on why climate change is dangerous and why it should be the top priority of all government decisions has been well reasoned. 

He gave us in An Inconvenient Truth a melee of graphs based on sound scientific data; the affect of which was amazing in bringing the issue of climate change to the homes and cinemas of the middle-classes. 

However in a worrying change of tone, Al Gore stated yesterday in a speech in Copenhagen that:

''Reason based analysis has thus far proved of limited value in motivating action''

Now this may be true but the alternative- to rely on emotion and fear- plays right into the hands of deniers who claim the climate change movement is one built on unlikely doomsday prophecies. 

The risk is also enormous when you consider what has happened to the climategate emails. Those much analysed documents seemed to show a similar reasoning by renowned scientists who were frustrated by inaction so they used their credibility, and reputations to fuzz the numbers. 

Now it may have been a throw away comment, but I really hope that Al Gore- still the climate change movement's most prominent face- stays patient and prudent.  . . read more

Copping it Sweet
3 dec  |  By Sean Maguire (UNSW, Sydney) 

Tomorrow I'm heading to Cop 16 in Cancun with the hope that something can be achieved against climate change. Although the world media has shown almost complete indifference (as opposed to Copenhagen), it isn't unreasonable to think that with lowered expectations and a meeting outside the media's glare, something might be achieved. 

Let's just hope that the world of diplomacy which has been unearthed by WikiLeaks is less self-centered and duplicitous than they currently appear.   . . read more

Copenhagen and Cynicism-by Sean Maguire
7 dec  |  If the world's initial faith in the Kyoto Protocol can be seen as an anecdote for collective naivety, then the Copenhagen conference will soon exist as a short-hand for cynicism.

Without a single day of talks, the vast majority of pundits have already set the bar of expectations so low that it seems we should be popping the champagne if the most anodyne of political agreements is reached.

Not to fall into the trap of optimism, but shouldn't we be a little bit hopeful and a little bit proud of the victories this fight has already won?

For instance, there cannot be a single sane leader on this planet who can realistically ignore this issue.

Yes, so far most of the world's responses have bordered on the tokenistic, but the sheer awareness and the fear of backlash, is a sign that the movers and shakers are getting scared.

Not to exaggerate but there could also be a dangerous connotation to this wide-spread cynicism-that connotation being that the most modest of successes will cause surprise and a spark of hope amongst a grey and apathetic public.

Sort of takes the heat off government leaders who thought they'd have to thrash it out in debates and eventually return to their countries exhausted, treaty in hand proclaiming that the problem was finally solved.

Instead, with the contour-less global media poised with their fingers quivering over keyboards (and the letters that spell 'failure'), an undue amount of column inches will be written for the promised funds for developing nations, as renewable technolgies are extolled and the great demon coal is exorcised. 

My point?

Well we really have to keep our collective critical thinking cap on, because this about to become a no-holds barred grudge match where everything will be too little, too late, too much, too weak etc.

Just don't be too pessimistic because fatalism never fixed anything.   . . read more

Senate Climate Debate: Two Futures, One Choice
7 oct  |  Now that John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have introduced their climate bill in the United States Senate, this fall will be all about the dogs. To get the 60 votes they need to pass a bill, progressive Democrats will be trying to turn Blue Dog Democrats into Green Dog Democrats-by Bill Becker . . read more
Enviroweek- 11th-17th October
15 sep  |  Enviroweek- 11th-17th October . . read more
blogs   100words
student
student
 
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Ronald Reagan (1986)