James Hansen, NASA’s ex-climate chief at the forefront of the global warming movement, has a new paper that previews an apocalyptic future from climate change unless we stop emitting all carbon dioxide. And he wants the fossil fuel industry to foot the trillion-dollar bill.
For Hansen, these types of papers are nothing new. He has been warning of Earth’s looming demise since 1988 when he told Congress that the Earth was heating up and it was our fault; he gave a ten-year temperature prediction that was off by 300 percent. Other predictions over his storied career were just as unsuccessful.Now the scientist-turned-activist wants fossil fuel companies held responsible and forced to pay for the so-called climate change problem via judicial activism.
And he wrote this paper to support his contention.
He has called the Paris Climate Agreement “toothless” and no better than its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol. He noted the countries that have signed on to this latest climate deal are deluding themselves. These “governments clapped themselves on the back but when you look at the science it doesn’t compute, it’s not true.” Ouch.
Lawsuit = Fines & Settlements. "Extract" needs to be replaced with "Extort." Consumer pays more vs supply/demand.
— Mike Baker (@michaelmbaker) October 4, 2016
https://t.co/0mgTSgN9lW
Suing President Obama
Hansen believes the current global warming predictions will cost future generations trillions of dollars and leave young people a problem they can’t control, namely the climate.
“It’s not clear they will be able to take such actions,” Hansen told reporters.
He also said fossil fuel companies need to pay for the hundreds of trillions of dollars that a warming world will cost, seemingly mindless that trillions have already been spent on renewables, carbon capture technology, zero emission vehicles, the Clean Power Plan, and much more to little effect.
Hansen’s paper wasn’t peer-reviewed but submitted to ‘Earth System Dynamics’ journal. It was written to support a legal case being pursued by Hansen, his granddaughter, and 21 other claimants aged 8 to 19 years old and filed against the current administration.
The suit charges President Obama isn’t doing enough to slow climate change and the “government has violated their rights to life, liberty, and property.” Yet the Obama administration has written more regulations than any predecessor in history:
Obama Admin has set a record for implementing the most major regulations - which cost our economy $100M or more each https://t.co/y6A3eQDcSu
— Richard Hudson (@RepRichHudson) August 10, 2016
‘Running out of time’
Since retiring from NASA in 2013, Hansen has become even more critical of any global warming efforts and realized that publicizing a non-peer reviewed paper to support a lawsuit he’s involved in may be objectionable but a viable option.Indeed, he believes we are “running out of time.” But the godfather of the environmental movement, James Lovelock, says anyone who claims to know what the climate will be in “five or ten years is a bit of an idiot.”
Lovelock on the future: https://t.co/Ualnyd1sOo
— Tim Howles (@AimeTim) September 30, 2016
Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State, reviewed Hansen’s paper and told the Guardian that using it as a tool in a lawsuit is “unconventional,” and it will raise a lot of eyebrows because it crosses the wall that exists between policy-driven agendas and the hallowed scientific method.
Hansen said the Legislative and Executive branches have become corrupted, so now it’s up to the Judicial branch. Hansen believes this third branch of government has not been tarnished and should get involved in the climate debate. The courts, he said, are less likely to be influenced by outside interests.
Global carbon tax
Hansen wants the courts to step in and impose a global carbon tax on all emissions and force fossil fuel companies to pay for “emissions extractions,” just like Big Tobacco. Except carbon-based products have lifted people out of poverty, saved lives, and carried the world into a higher level of prosperity not seen in recorded history.
Hansen, though, is correct about one thing: The Paris accord, which the EU is expected to ratify this week, would avert warming by only 0.02 degrees Celsius while costing nations trillions for a largely symbolic gesture. And because it’s legally non-binding, so any country can withdraw from it at any time.