James Hansen – Scientific Reticence: A Threat to Humanity and Nature

James Hansen – Scientific Reticence: A Threat to Humanity and Nature

Hello, and thank you for coming to another Climate Matters press conference. I am the executive director of the United Planet Faith and Science Initiative. My name’s Stuart Scott, I’m the host of these programs, and we’re coming to you live from
Bonn Germany COP 23. I’d like to give my email address at
the beginning and end of each show so that people can write me afterwards
with any questions or comments. Now today’s guests with me are three: Dr. James Hansen, former director of
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, currently the director of Climate Science
Awareness and Solutions Program at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, and Pam Pearson, founder and director of
the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative. On my right Dr. Philip Duffy Who is
the president and executive director of the Woods Hole Research
Center in Massachusetts. He’s also former senior adviser to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Today’s show we’re calling Scientific Reticence a Threat to Humanity and Nature. Dr. Hansen, would you start us off ? Jim: yeah, that title I think is directed to my fellow scientists and also to the negotiators at this climate conference and to the public. Richard Feynman, who I would say is the second greatest physicists of the 20th century liked to poke fun at his fellow physicists about, I’m not sure he used the word reticence, but there was this famous Milliken’s oil-drop
experiment which was designed to measure the electron charge, and they got an answer
which we now know was not quite right because he didn’t have the right
viscosity of air in the calculation. But his fellow scientists as they did their
experiments were getting different answers than Millican just to move the value
a little bit away from Millikan’s. And then they had moved a little further,
and a little further, and after enough years they finally got to the right answer. But there is a reticence to
challenge an expert number. I used this as an example. In 2005, in 2007, when I heard from glaciologists, you know they were beginning
to get really worried about the stability of the ice sheets and the threat that they pose to sea-level, and yet you didn’t hear that in public. In the IPCC documents you had little if any contribution from the ice sheets. So I wrote an article about that, but the problem is we don’t have decades to come to the right answer,
we need to understand that. So, you know, we now know that the temperature rise of the past few decades has raised global temperature far above the prior level in the Holocene, the period the last 11,000 years during which civilization developed, and in fact the temperature now is comparable to the maximum
temperature in Eemian, 120,000 years ago, when sea level
was 6 to 9 metres higher. Now the temperature over the last 50 years has been rising almost linearly and that’s brought us to this high level well above prior Holocene temperatures. Why has it increased almost linearly ? The planet is out of energy balance. There is more energy coming in than going out as heat radiation because the increasing greenhouse gases are like a blanket: They reduce the heat radiation to space. And the warming would then bring the planet back to energy balance except we keep adding more
gases to the atmosphere at a rate indicated in this chart of about 0.04 watts per meter squared per year, and that has been more or less
constant for the last several decades. Now, IPCC has added to their scenarios RCP 2.6 which is designed to keep global
warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. And based on what I showed you already about how warm the planet has already become relative to the Eemian, we really need at most to have global warming of one and a half degrees. But, what’s happening is this has no relation to reality. Reality is that climate forcings are not only
continuing to increase but even increase faster. So there’s a gap already between the real world and the 1.5 degrees scenario. Well, we could do something about that gap. We could say okay, let’s suck
some co2 out of the atmosphere. Well, with the estimated costs
of 150 to 350 dollars per ton, at the low end of that range
you’re talking about 600 billion dollars to remove the excess of just one year’s emissions. Or, if it is $350 a tonne, it’s 1.4 trillion dollars. Now you can compare that, just if you don’t know what a trillion dollars is, to the global military budget. Last 2015 it was 1.7 trillion. The United States military
budget is 600 billion dollars. We’re not going to spend two trillion dollars every year to suck co2 out of the atmosphere. So what we’re doing instead is handing young people a situation that’s beginning to run out of control. And we have to recognize, you know, scientists are trained to understand, to analyze complex problems. And as we look at this problem, we need to look at the whole picture and make sure that the negotiators and the public understand the situation. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 was intended to reduce emissions, but you see that even the developed world, the mature economies, all that happened is their
emissions have flattened out. And that happened already by 1980,
they had flattened out. Kyoto protocol, where you
have each country has a goal, 195 different goals, simply is not effective. And you can see what’s
happening in the real world. This 1.5 degrees scenario requires that emissions be decreased rapidly. It’s the equivalent of three percent per year decrease in emissions plus extracting some co2 from the air with improved
agricultural and forestry practices. And this is simply not happening. The fundamental thing is, on our recent papers I have economists as co-authors. It’s well understood that as long as fossil fuels remain cheap we’re not gonna phase them out. And each country is saying well,
we’ll try to do better and we’ll maybe increase our targets, next year or next decade
or two decades downstream. That simply has no effect.
We’ve proven that with the Kyoto Protocol. What you have to do is make the price of fossil fuels include their cost to society. That includes air pollution,
water pollution, climate change. And if you do that,
then we can move to alternatives, like renewable energies, energy efficiency, nuclear power. Let everything compete, but as long as we don’t make
fossil fuels pay their cost to society, we’re not going to solve the problem. And so we can’t pretend that we’re doing that. And we can see the scientists
should be standing up and, in my opinion, telling the public, and telling negotiators, you know you have to do something
that actually has an impact. Stuart: So the reticence is
really that scientists are not going out of their strictly informational, and they’re not telling what their gut feel is. Jim: Yeah, I think that’s right, that the scientists who have looked at this whole problem, if they’ve got to look at the data. I mean that science is a case of looking at data, and explaining the data your theories have to fit the data. And the theory that you can solve this problem without a rising price on carbon has no foundation, whatever. Stuart: Yeah, I know another climate scientist, a glaciologist, Jason Box,
has tweeted a naughty word when he heard about
methane release in the Laptev sea and came under a lot of storm and
of course if scientists get emotional about what they see going on
then they’re subjected to criticism. Is that part of the reason for their
reticence to come out with them? Jim: That’s a good translation to our next speaker. She’s going to address the kind
of things that Jason Box was… Stuart: Okay, Pam? Pam: This is just a little bit of a preview
of a side event where we’re looking what we call through a cryosphere lens and I actually am an ex or perhaps recovering diplomat. I was involved in the Kyoto talks under Clinton so I spent 20 years at the US State Department. And I get how hard this is, but at the same time, increasingly, over the past five to ten years, cryosphere scientists have
been trying to sound the alarm and trying to get through
some of that reticence that dr. Hansen was talking about. Really, for climate policy goals the cryosphere has been called a
canary in a coal mine, but it is becoming a driver of climate very very rapidly and in many ways an
irreversible driver of climate. The thresholds, in the cryosphere snow
and ice regions, they are determined not by where we end up but by peak
temperatures, in a lot of cases, and the length of time you spend at that peak, regional and seasonal temperatures. For example the Arctic, although we’re looking at, say, a global mean temperature of two degrees in the summer, the Arctic is projected
to be at about nine degrees, and in the winter months twelve degrees C over current temperatures. Stuart: 12 C equates to about 20 Fahrenheit? Pam: Yeah, Fahrenheit. So in other words the winter temperatures are rising higher than the summer temperatures which are rising much higher
than global mean temperature. Stuart: Remember it was raining in the Arctic
on New Year’s Day a couple of years ago? Pam: Yeah, it’s going very very quickly there, and at times, unfortunately, when the
cold air is down over the middle latitudes, giving a false sense that, you know,
things maybe aren’t that bad when it’s actually that the heat is being
displaced in a sense up to the Arctic. So overshoot scenarios are being discussed, hold much greater risk, and the other issue is that 2100 is in many ways a very misleading goal. A lot of the data that you see stop in 2100 but for sea level rise in particular
that is just the beginning and the worst is that it is locked in and the current NDCS allow way
too many thresholds to be crossed. This is a busy slide, I’m not
going to spend much time on it, but basically what the bright red shows is where the Paris INDCs will get us in 2100, but the less shaded red shows
where it will get us in 2300. You can’t just stop at 2100. There’s enough heat and energy built into
the system that under the current way that commitments are structured,
temperatures are going to continue to increase. The blue lines represent different
cryosphere thresholds. I think that those are conservative. This was produced by a
consensus group of 36 scientists about half of them are IPCC scientists working on either the oceans in cryosphere or the one point five degree reports. And it was out of date even
when it came out in 2015 because the one arrow showing
the temperature today was at 0.8 and now we’re at 1.1,
and this is just two years later. Stuart: It’s interesting to me that you’re knocking down that straw man of the day 2100, the year 2100, by going beyond it,
but I, in my presentations about climate, go the other way and say we’re lulled into a sense of complacency by the fact that all of the data we’re told is: Oh by 2100 sea level may be and so people say I won’t worry about it till 2099. Pam: Exactly, and the problem is that, again, sea level rise in particular is locked in, we will see if we could halt temperatures today. We’re probably looking at between
two and three meters of sea level rise from mountain glaciers, from ocean expansion, thermal expansion, and also from melting that has already started on Greenland
and on the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet. What really keeps cries for scientists up at night, however, are irreversible thresholds, particularly the Western
Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland. The consensus figure for irreversible
melt of Greenland is at 1.6 degrees. And if we remain above that
for more than a few centuries the altitude of Greenland
will be lowered to an extent that it will continue to melt irreversibly. It will take thousands of years to happen, but we won’t be able to stop it unless we, in essence, induce a new ice age, in other words go down to temperatures below zero degrees, below pre-industrial, and that is a message unfortunately
that is not getting out there even though it’s a fairly consensus figure that
has been out since really 2012, and nobody has found a better
figure than that one point six. Stuart: But it’s also I find it a confusing
message because what you said was if we stay at 1.6 for a longer than a few centuries, and again that allow
people into a sense of complacency. So… The question of thresholds,
of tipping points, is one that concerns me greatly, and when we get to 1.6 is there a chance that we’re going to step back? Pam: this gets into dr. Hansen’s
presentation. It would depend on removal of carbon from the atmosphere that we honestly don’t really
know how to do effectively. Stuart: And it’ll cost trillions of dollars. Pam: Well, if we can even do it. It’s in our CP 2.6 but it was simply
thrown in there as something that we were hoping technology could do without any clear way towards that. Stuart: You know, I’m not trying
to say that we’re locked into doom. I’m just trying to get the scientists
to say “Oh my God!” in public. More, you know, to get out of there, measured tones, we’re just presenting data, and do as Dr. Hansen and some of
the scientists are doing, as Dr. Mann, and saying “Oh my God!” We can’t do this! Thank you. We will go to Philip, our third guest. Philip: So I’m gonna say “Oh my God!” And the subject I’m going to
talk about I think is arguable. It’s certainly very important, arguably the best example of scientific reticence and the consequences of scientific reticence, and what I’m talking about is permafrost and specifically Greenhouse gas emissions from thawing permafrost, and this is a case where I think the natural conservatism of the scientific community, which in many
ways is a good thing and a healthy thing, has in this case seriously failed to meet the needs of climate policy makers and therefore seriously failed to meet the needs of humanity as a whole. So let me just give you a little
background on the problem. What is permafrost? Permafrost is ground that
has been frozen for a long time. The name implies, it suggests permanently frozen if only it were. 24 percent of the northern
hemisphere land area is permafrost. We think that in that permafrost there is about 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon, and for context that’s about twice what is in the atmosphere. So it’s
a truly enormous amount of carbon, and what is happening is as the
Arctic warms, and I think you all know the Arctic is warming at least twice
as fast as the rest of the planet, this previously frozen matter is starting to decay, and as it starts to decay and decompose it emits greenhouse gases, co2
and methane, into the atmosphere. This is what we call a climate feedback. It’s a self-reinforcing loop whereby warming induces more greenhouse gas emissions. It’s absolutely essential that this feedback loop not get going strongly. If it does there’s simply no way to control it, so where does the scientific failure come in? The scientific failure comes in because
none of this is in climate models, and none of this is considered
in climate policy discussions. Now that may seem crazy. And it is crazy, and here
is where I say “Oh my God!” But the reason is simply the
natural conservatism of scientists, which as I say in many ways
is a very very healthy thing. Scientists don’t like to be wrong. It’s bad for the progress of science if you put forward ideas that are wrong. So as a result climate models simply omit greenhouse gas emissions from thawing permafrost, but we know that’s the wrong answer because that is then tacitly assumed that these emissions are zero, and we know that’s not right. So this is a huge and underappreciated threat. And what it does is, I think, mostly underscores what we know already. It underscores the urgency and the need to increase ambition and doing the things that we
already know we need to do, which is to stop emitting greenhouse
gases by burning fossil fuels and to start removing Co2 from the atmosphere. Stuart: I want to ask any or all of you how do we get there from here? To get more scientists to be more publicly alarmed to give policymakers a counter sense to the complacency that the IPCC report tends to generate? Jim: Well, I think scientists are beginning
to flap their arms and then get excited. But what we also have to do is to look at the whole problem because I think the negotiators now realize there is a problem. But what they don’t seem to realize is that they’re not proposing solutions that will effectively deal with it. And, as scientists, when we look at this big picture we can see that, I think. I mean we went by the Kyoto Protocol as if, okay, we did something. Well, you look at the data: It didn’t do anything. Basically humanity needs energy and the countries are going to do what is best for the well-being economic,
well-being of their people. And they’re going to burn the fuels that are available and
which are the cheapest fuels. And that’s what we have to look at. It’s cheapest this day if we
ignore the long-term consequences, so we’ve got to get those
long-term consequences in there, in the price of the fossil fuels. It’s not there if your child
gets asthma from air pollution. Fossil fuel company doesn’t pay for it, you pay for it out of your own pocket. The climate damages ain’t not
paid for by fossil fuel companies, but the taxpayers or you if you own a house on the beach, you know. So that’s the big problem, which is clear enough, but yet somehow is not, does not seem to be, impacting the policy decisions. Stuart: We have three minutes left, I think we have time perhaps for
one question from the audience. I don’t want to go too close to the end. Intervener: Yes, I would like to ask you, the last presenter, do you have a method to measure emissions from permafrost? Philip: What our research centre
is one of the things we do and yes we do that. It’s difficult because we use basically in situ measurements and the problem is that the Arctic is a vast and inaccessible place. The emissions are very very heterogeneous. They’re also different in summer versus winter, and it’s particularly difficult
to work in the Arctic in winter. But, so, what we’re working on is making in situ measurements and also trying to use models and remote sensing to integrate across, to integrate the emissions across
the vast territory of the Arctic. So thank you very much for coming
to another Climate Matters show. My name is Stuart Scott, here’s my email address. As I said you
can come and get my card afterwards if you don’t have time to take a photo and I’d ask you one thing as an action item please go to this very simple website: NP4SD.org. It’s a Nobel Peace Prize
proposal that I’ve come up with and am proposing which
might change the paradigm if the committee decided to implement it. Thank you very very much.

Author: Kennedi Daugherty

56 thoughts on “James Hansen – Scientific Reticence: A Threat to Humanity and Nature

  1. WW two like conversion of consumer production to addressing climate disaster like the existential threat it is, millions of jobs and a world society for the future

  2. People need to recognize that every dollar they have is a representation of the energy that was used to create it. Simply put, the more money you have, the greater your impact and therefore responsibility for climate change. As Jim Hansen pointed out, the oil companies do not pay for your child's asthma treatment, just as they don't pay for the rising seas and the destruction of life and property caused by them. That means that there is a monumental transfer of wealth going on between the taxpayers and the very rich. This is not going to change until we introduce a total accounting method into forms of production. In the meantime, there needs to be a massive redistribution of wealth from those who have accumulated it to address this existential problem.

  3. ("But when the data and the conclusions it leads to are alarming, isn't it imperative that the alarm be transmitted publicly? Here is another facet of society's apparent inability to assess and respond appropriately to the present immense, existential threat of climate change.")

    When crop production becomes more problematic due to climate change then and only then will mankind be alarmed and respond,if by then its not to late.?

  4. You have to recognize the difference between a problem, and a predicament. Abrupt climate change is predicament. It is one of the drivers of the sixth great extinction, and loss of our symbiosis with certain species that will cause our human habitat to collapse. We have already lost 76% of flying insects in the last 27 years according to studies done in Germany. That is just one of over 60 positive feedback loops that are going to drive humanity to extinction in a relatively short amount of time. I see no real way, abrupt climate change can be reversed.

  5. Excellent discussion, a refreshing (?) relief from the incessant focus in the US on sexual misconduct. Fiddling while Rome burns.

  6. Thank you. Great to hear respected scientists saying just how it really is. Just three things that were not mentioned : Global Dimming _ human population growth _ a world economic model predicated on consumption and continued growth. Reducing emissions is not going to be enough if there are more people increasing demand for energy, resources and in turn contributing to more emissions. The simple fact is that no matter what is done, the planet can not support the current population, let alone more.

  7. 30 years ago Prof Degens in the final Press Conference was clear about Methan and Permafrost at the Hamburg Environment and Development. So we know, we do not need sooo many data, and graphs but go back to meanings, frames and the

  8. ooops – ​​We know all this about ​GLOBAL CHANGE, ​Methan and Perfamfrost since 30​++​ years, have presented in the CHALLENGES to SCIENCE and POLITICS in the German Chancellery here in Bonn in 1990and all was exhibited at the COP1 in Berlin in 1995 …. jump-page: ​http://benking.de/Global-Change/
    So WHY are we not learning, acting and the data are worsening!?
    I recommend the * UN AMR 2008 recommendqtions: http://www.quergeist.net/AMR-2008/ * have asked in IS HUMNANTY DESTINED TO SELF_DESTRUCT (for Lyton Calwell) http://benking.de/show-schau.htm and proposed how to synoptically address all SDGs by identifying root-causes: ECOSOC Global Commons "caucus": ​http://www.weturn.org/OSI-UN-Geneva-2016/Abstract-3-Heiner-SDGs-Leverage-Solutions-UN-OSI-2016.pdf​​​

    ​D​ata, words, ​figures, ​busy slides – we are getting dizzy with​ ​busy slides …. but hopes without getting solid and synoptic​ blaming and shaming acress sectors and so terminology, Sectarian Sectors allover.

    B​urned out like only after the COP1 in Berlin I feel we need to revisit old approaches and insights ! ​
    and also check new forms of dialogue as we already did in the INTERNATIONAL CORNER in Berlin in 1995.

    I envision a real and outhentic Talanoa Space as I discussed with the FIDJI delegation,
    befor they left from the Marriot yesterday, that we need to go beyond this panels and small group kindergarten Worldcafes to old and new formats ! Maybe this article for MOTHER PELICAN- Journal for Solidarity and Sustainability outlines what I mean by Sharing and Gifting, Encourage, Listen and walking t
    alks without the "talkers": http://weturn.org/Spoons-Beads-Birds-Phaenomenon.pdf

    On the road to Berlin now, Poland next year !?? for a COPPP ? Conference of the Parties – Peoples – Planet !!

  9. More shit and shineola is my forecast for COP23! And of course the elephant in the room at COP23 is the absence of the world's biggest CO2icide fucktard, the United States of Absurdistan, who BTW, will be there on a trade mission to sell more fossil fuels! You seriously can't make this shit up! SMFH! Whatever comes out will undoubtedly be a day late and a dollar short. In fact I'm taking bets that amongst the myriad failures of COP23, they will again fail to call our planetary climate emergency! Dollar to a doughnut if you are keen! "The good Earth — we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy." Kurt Vonnegut

  10. Continuing conferences continue to FAIL to offer concrete solutions.

    Continuing HeatRise FAILS to prod Parents to DEMAND that something be done.

    Should they DISCOVER that our sole source of POSSIBLE salvation is the IMMEDIATE STORAGE of all personal vehicles: 

    Will they recommend and ACT on such? Or pay heed to President Trump's recommended "GAKKA" rule: "Go Ahead! Kiss Koch Ass!"

    Ghost grey,  
    Industrial pall.   
    Screening our greed,   
    Hiding our gall.  
    Deflecting our view   
    Of a dust laden extinction.  
    Answering our follies,   
    Our demands of MORE!! 
    D.J.L. Meanderings  Spring/85


  11. Thankyou so much for this presentation. I can't leave a comment, because I can see the predicement we find ourselves in and it is too emotional, and scary.

  12. Curious that no one ever seems to mention the universal first priority of MAXIMIZING FINANCIAL GROWTH. I think that's both the real main cause of our global footprint swelling uncontrollably, and directly interferes with the response to climate change as well as our various other existential threats.

  13. James Hansen makes a great point regarding the failure of governments to force the energy producers to pay their share of the negative externalities. We all enjoy using energy, yet we neglect the damage done to breathable air, drinkable water, habitable land, animals, and fish. Energy has been over valued at the expense of the more basic necessities of life. I'm perplexed by the indifference of our legal system to address any of these things.

  14. Our best scientists almost unanimously tell us WHY the Earth is warming (excessive build up of CO2/methane in the atmosphere), and they know WHERE these increasing greenhouse gases are coming from identified by their chemical signatures of origin (indicating human activity).

    The terminal mess that we are in is because scientists don't run the world. It is ruled by a short sighted greed driven corporate elite and their proxy political whores who in the Middle Ages would have been torn limb from limb for their war on human civilization.

  15. I think. We need to retire people age 40 and up. We need to get Universal basic income going. I'd like to see a extremely effient rail system through out the US. taking 80% of the cars off the roads.

  16. Sadly, where i live, there are three givens; you must be republican, climate change is not real and no one has enough guns. You have to get the republican leadership on board but how do you do that when the koch brothers and the nra own the politicians?

  17. After understanding the whole picture as clearly explained by these three finest scientists, the solution is cristal clear to me; just as every household must pay for the recollection and disposal of its domestic garbage, every household must also pay the cost of putting back in the ground its Green House Gas emissions (currently estimated in 150 to 350 dollars per ton of CO2 equivalent, as informed by Dr Hansen in this video). The way to start getting there is through Carbon Fee and Dividend, a simple and straight forward piece of legislation proposed by Citizens Climate Lobby .org

  18. Situation today is beyond belief…Fake news seems to have suspended reason.
    Rampant environmental problems are happening … and yet we do not act … with measures appropriate to the obvious crisis.

  19. Concise and to the point. Why can't the various IPCC submissions to policy makers be as direct without all the flowery rhetoric, graphs and cluttered data?

  20. I used to worry a great deal about Climate Change, but then Trump became president and I quickly realized that we will all die in a nuclear war long before the runaway greenhouse effect kicks in. Ironically, Trump, in his utter stupidity, will inadvertently save the Earth from a second Permian-level Extinction by destroying the "heat engine of Civilization"
    before it is able to pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to push the global temperature above 5c. This sixth mass extinction will mark The End of the Anthropocene epoch–a brief but spectacularly destructive period of geologic history.

  21. Thank you all so much, what a relief. I in the ranching / farming business in Colorado and the weather has a huge impact on us, the last 30 years or more having been very kind. Though our irrigation systems, farming plans and grazing plans were designed in the very cold 1800s, we easily adapted to the past 100 plus years of warming. My great grandfather settled one of the lowest valleys he could find and scoffed at my grandfather for proposing taking the cows to the mountain for the summer. "It'll take ya two weeks to drive em up there, they'll eat for a week and freeze to death on the way down". Today this system of ranching is universal here do to the warming climate. We can endure a lot of sea level rise here, cooling would be more difficult. Solar cycle 24 scared some of the boys at the CO-OP but I will send them this link and tell them not to worry.

  22. The planets is already in runaway warming , reducing carbon emissions will not stop it. Reducing CO2 levels will only reduce the rate at which the planets increases in warming, the planet will continue to warm even if CO2 levels are reduced.

  23. "The consence figure for irreversible melt of Greenland is 1.6 C degrees" . At the 2017 AGU conference scientist reported we will be at 1.6 in 2019 … In other words in less than a year the Greenland ice sheet will be in a state in irreversible melting.

  24. So since the most optimistic estimates say 20 years to decarbonize the planets energy system the question is will 20 years be soon enough or will it be to late ?

  25. I've been calling this since 2006 without university education and now with east Antarctica melting we are well within Permian territory. Smarten up folks pay higher carbon taxes and outlaw excess CO2. shutdown these oil barons.

  26. RED ALERT RED ALERT Science will not save us from Science. We need to save ourselves from GLOBAL WARMING. If the U.N. had a plan it would start something like this.

    1. The world’s total population would have to accept to not bring children into this world for the next 20 years. ( there are plenty of children that need love and a home )
    2. People that would likre to end their lives should be legally and socially accepted.( euthanasia) (a persons dignified right)😀
    3. All wars must stop today. ( people get to go home to live in there own places )
    4. The automobile industry must stop producing Fossil Fuel Powered social vehicles ending 2017. ( people get to still have a job in the motor industry building alternative vehicles )
    5. All countries that can ,will need to produce their own products (reducing ocean travel fuel burn)( sustain a work force)
    6. All global business will need to move investment to full blown Renewable energy supply. ( they and their investors still make money )
    7. All countries will need to grow billions of tons of Indian Hemp. The hemp will provide for a huge carbon store by making everything you can from it. Replacing all petrochemical products. (diversity will create contentment and PEACE and UNDERSTANDING. )
    8. Socially all drug addicts will be supplied with there drug of choice at a place of convenience. At a cost that will cover the cost. ( social rest,the end of the black market and the decline in overall drug use and deaths.)
    9. The amounts of Fossil Fuels (burnt) in the countries that will still need them will be calculated so as to keep the atmosphere stable as the gasses are reduced. ( the second and third world people will still have their first world comforts and thus we all become one world people accepting all cultures.) Sounds great hey.
    10. Understanding that there is a lot more to UNDERSTAND and DO to save LIFE. The Scientific COMMUNITY have a colossal job in helping to do this. We need all of us to DO this, ALL OF US. And the list goes on.
    (Patience and faith in one another)

    Imagine the UN achieving that, when they can’t even stop the ethnic cleansing that happens daily.

  27. James Hansen says "the countries are going to do what's best for the economic well-being of their people". Wrong. The countries are ruled by the ultra-rich elites.. and they are manipulating the people to remain in a state of paralysis on the climate. Because the ultra-rich would see their money-making machines collapse if the people are allowed to demand laws that truly tackle the production and release of greenhouse gases. It is capitalism which is the root cause here. Unbridled profiteering from natural resources, short-term profit.. that's what rules the world, and prevents humanity from taking the necessary steps to reverse our climate-destroying culture. We only managed to start to heal the ozone hole because a vanishing few rich industrialists saw their profits drop as a result of banning CFCs. Slapping a real carbon tax on industry is not going to happen because it threatens to reduce profits for way too many ultra-rich. As capitalism has proven for several centuries, capitalists don't give a fck about the consequences.. as long as the profits keep gushing out.

  28. Why is 'money' an issue???! I don't get it. We 'chose' the value of money, everyone knows 'economics' is a pseudo science created to mindfully introduce intricacy into a system in order to bedazzle the public from the method that puts them in debt. It is a game devised just for that, and then addressing this as a 'problem'… in this context, is criminal.

  29. Idiots keep talking about 2100, which is a long ways off and no one cares. Scientists are the problem…

  30. I would say OMG, except that there is no god. I will just say the following. For humanity please Work towards solutions. Otherwise we are screwed.

  31. James Hansen is missing the elephant in the room. Oil sales which are done in U.S. dollars keeps the $ where it is and allows the U.S. to be top dog in the world financially and militarily. The idea that the petrodollar will be allowed to fade away is rather fanciful. And as Hansen says We don't have decades. Even if the will was there it would take longer than that for the world to get of oil.

  32. Conservative IPCC scientists are the jokers and buffons. They have consistently and repeatedly underestimated the effects of climate change.

    Why are IPCC scientists deemed conservative when the consequence of their underestimation would result in extreme or even an environment where we could no longer live?

  33. Fun to watch these older videos as we see each time nothing has been done again and another year goes by lol.
    My Family has done every thing we can to help but just one neighbour destroys all the benefits that we do so although not pointless is as I have slowly gotten others that I know to be a little more aware.
    Until at least 50+% of the population start giving a damn we will see new videos explaining we should be doing something and they will get ignored exactly the same as this one.
    I know Scientists that I work with and they say it's to late, we would need to stop totally 100% all carbon emissions today and we will still see the Earth rise above 1.5C in the next 5 to 10 years.

  34. The Companies will never pay for the problem they will pass the costs onto us so pointless saying that, we the people pay for these things as we always do, profits will never be lost to pay for their damage.

  35. That's an idea, make fossil fuels so expensive it is no longer able to be used economically. So we make poor people poorer and make the shrinking middle class poor? Poor people are thinking about how they will be able to pay their ever increasing bills. Not next year. Not next month. Tomorrow. They are not thinking about tipping points. They are thinking about just making it past tomorrow. It's easy to say, just raise the price of fossil fuels until it is no longer viable. So how do we do it without hurting people who are struggling right now? We, as a country, are many trillions of dollars in debt. So do we just starve people out right now to correct this problem? To pay for what needs to be done are we going to expect nations about to go bankrupt to pay for it. No. They won't do it. The people struggling everyday will be the ones who will pay for it. It always is.

  36. The market has already proven itself inadequate for addressing a problem of this speed, severity and magnitude. Pricing carbon, "let them compete" and other market solutions are an utter fantasy. Capitalism rewards the worst in human nature, gives the worst people the power to reshape our governmental and societal systems to benefit themselves. The elite' s goals are not those of the 99% and they will continue to pursue an agenda of blocking and obstructing the necessary transition to a completely different way of life — a way of living in balance with Earth's natural systems. We need to make their money, land, power, influence, irrelevant, as we move into a future for all of us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *