 |
Climate change: the basics ©Iris de Vericourt
(AFP)
|
The planet's three most dangerous greenhouse
gases are rising, and fossil fuels must be taxed to protect children from the
costly turmoil of rising seas and extreme storms, world-renowned climate
scientist James Hansen warned Tuesday.
Otherwise, young people face the
"dubious" proposition of somehow sucking carbon dioxide from the air
at a price tag of hundreds of trillions of dollars in the next century, said
Hansen, who leads the climate science program at Columbia University's Earth
Institute.
"The science has become crystal clear,"
Hansen told reporters on a conference call to discuss his latest research
paper, titled "Young People's Burden: The Requirement of Negative CO2
Emissions."
"We have to phase out carbon emissions over
the next few decades," said Hansen, describing the actions of the US
government up until now as "grossly inadequate."
Hansen, formerly of NASA, is suing the US
government along with 21 youths across the country, including his 18-year-old
granddaughter.
The suit alleges that US leaders are not doing
enough to curb climate change and are and failing to protect essential
"public trust" resources such as clean air and water, thereby
depriving future generations of their constitutional rights to life, liberty
and property.
The paper, published Tuesday in Earth Systems
Dynamics Discussion, has not yet been peer-reviewed, but Hansen said he wanted
it released now because time is of the essence.
"Some people might object to discussing such
a paper before it has gone through the peer-review process, but I am going to
do that simply because we are running out of time on the climate issue,"
Hansen said.
- Leaving 'a mess' for young people
-
The paper, authored by Hansen and 11 prominent
climate scientists, warns that the global average temperature is already 1.3
degrees Celsius (2.3 Fahrenheit) warmer than pre-industrial times, defined as
1880-1920.
That is perilously close to the level agreed
during last year's Paris talks, when global leaders committed to "holding
the increase of global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels."
Meanwhile, the heat-trapping gases of carbon
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are all rising, ensuring more global warming
in years to come.
 |
The planet's three most dangerous greenhouse
gases are rising, and fossil fuels must be taxed to protect children from the costly
turmoil of rising seas and extreme storms, says world-renowned climate
scientist James Hansen ©Oli Scarff (AFP)
|
Already, fossil fuel burning has unnaturally
propelled the Earth to a temperature range last seen 115,000-130,000 years ago,
"when sea level was six to nine meters (20-30 feet) higher than
today," said the paper.
As a result, glaciers and ice sheets are melting,
the oceans are acidifying and rising seas will engulf coastal cities worldwide
in the coming centuries.
"That's not fair. Today's adults benefit
from fossil fuel burning and leave the waste for young people to clean
up," said Hansen's granddaughter, Sophie Kivlehan, in a video message released
along with Hansen's paper.
"We should be moving on to clean energy,
leaving dirty energy in the ground."
- 'Like a cancer ' -
"The assumption that young (people) will
somehow figure out a way to undo the deeds of their forebears has crept into
and spread like a cancer through United Nations climate scenarios," said
the paper.
In the absence of sharp cuts to emissions, future
generations are saddled with figuring out some way to extract CO2 from the
atmosphere in order to limit climate change, Hansen argued.
That would require risky, unproven technologies
such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), at a price tag of
between US$104-570 trillion this century.
"It is a very dubious idea and the cost of
it is not negligible," Hansen said.
- Proposed solutions -
Hansen said the way to reverse course is to place
a gradually rising tax on carbon and end government subsidies for polluting
fossils fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.
"Make the price of fossil fuels honest. Stop
subsidizing them. And make them pay their cost to society," Hansen said.
"If we put a gradually rising fee on carbon
emissions, it will spur the business community and entrepreneurs and the public
to develop carbon-free energies and energy efficiency, and it will spur the
public to change their choices so that we move rapidly to reducing emissions
and move to clean energy."
Hansen said he was optimistic that the lawsuit,
organized by Our Children's Trust, will go forward.
In April, the case survived an attempt by the
fossil fuel industry and US government to get it tossed out of court, and is
currently under review by US District Judge Ann Aiken.
She heard oral arguments on September 13 and is
expected to announce her decision by mid-November. Then, the case will head
either to trial or appeal.
 |
In
this April 2, 2010 photo, a Tesoro Corp. refinery, including a gas flare flame
that is part of normal plant operations, is shown in Anacortes, Wash. after a
fatal overnight fire and explosion. Voters in Washington state will weigh in on
Initiative 732 in the 2016 election as they consider whether to approve the
nation’s first direct carbon tax on the burning of fossil fuels. (AP Photo/Ted
S. Warren)
|
NEWS POST: Washington Voters To Decide On US's
First Carbon Tax
Associated Press reports that Washington
lawmakers have tried and failed in recent years to make polluters pay for their
carbon emissions to fight climate change. Now, voters will get to decide.
An initiative on the November ballot asks voters
whether the state should impose the nation's first direct carbon tax on the
burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gasoline.
Sponsors say residents have a moral
responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and a carbon tax is the best
way to do it. The tax encourages businesses to conserve or switch to clean
energy by making fossil fuels more expensive, and it makes the tax system
fairer by using the revenues to reduce other taxes, they say.
Businesses say the tax will drive up fuel and
energy costs and put Washington companies at a competitive disadvantage.
And in a move that has bewildered some, major
environmental and other groups — including those that backed Gov. Jay Inslee's
proposal last year to cap emissions and make carbon polluters pay — oppose the
initiative. They say it takes the wrong approach.
Yoram Bauman, an economist who founded Carbon
Washington, the grassroots group that gathered more than 350,000 signatures to
qualify Initiative 732, defended it as great climate and tax policy.
"It does almost everything right for
Washington," he said.
Audubon Washington supports it.
"Our members came down on the side of
urgency. We don't have time to wait," said Gail Gatton, the group's
executive director. "Climate change is happening, and this is our best
available option right now to protect birds."
But the Sierra Club, Washington Environmental
Council and the advocacy group Front and Centered say the initiative is the
wrong carbon-pricing approach and will hurt the state's revenues. Whereas
Inslee's pollution fee would have raised money for education, transportation,
clean energy and programs to help disadvantaged communities affected by climate
change, Initiative 732 provides no such investments, critics say.
"It's not a path that makes sense for our
communities," said Rich Stolz, executive director of OneAmerica, which
works on social justice issues. Stolz said the initiative ignores climate
justice and lacks input from communities of color.
Stolz's group is part of a coalition that worked
on an alternative carbon-pricing measure. Last-minute talks between that
coalition and I-732 supporters to collaborate on one ballot measure fizzled
last year.
The initiative is designed to be revenue neutral,
meaning the tax revenue increase from fossil fuels would be mostly offset by
decreases in other taxes. In this case, revenues would be returned to people
and businesses by cutting the state sales tax by one point, virtually
eliminating business taxes for manufacturers and providing rebates for working
families, sponsors say.
A state analysis, however, estimates the measure
could cost the state about $800 million in lost revenues over the first six
fiscal years. Initiative sponsors dispute the state's analysis, saying it
double-counted the rebates in the first year.
 |
In
this photo taken Oct. 29, 2015, Carbon Washington campaign organizer Ben
Silesky, left, leads a group of supporters and organization members into the
Elections Office for the Washington Secretary of State in Olympia, Wash. to
deliver signatures in support of putting Initiative 732 on the ballot.
|
The carbon tax is modeled after one in the nearby
Canadian province of British Columbia. California has a cap-and-trade program,
which limits emissions and allows carbon polluters to buy and trade pollution
credits. If approved, Washington's carbon tax starts at US$15 a ton of carbon
emissions in July, goes up to US$25 the next year and incrementally increases
afterward.
The Washington State Tree Fruit Association,
which represents growers, packers and marketers, is among those opposed.
It takes a lot of fuel to grow and transport
produce, and the tax will be paid by those in the state, not competitors
outside it, said Jon Devaney, the group's president.
"Raising food prices in Washington state
will make us less competitive compared to others," he said.
Initiative sponsors say a US$25 carbon tax would
raise the price of gasoline by about 25 cents per gallon and the price of
coal-fired electricity by about 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. They say power
plants and fuel suppliers likely will pass those costs on to consumers, but
that consumers will see price reductions in other things they buy because the
sales tax is cut. The tax wouldn't apply to electricity from renewables like
hydro, wind or solar power.
The campaign has raised US$1.2 million from
nearly 1,200 unique donors; more than half of those total contributions are
under US$200.
The No on 732 campaign sponsored by the
Association of Washington Business has raised US$300,000 to oppose the tax.
Originally published (STORY 1) in Agence France-Presse and (STORY 2) in Associated Press
