[indiscernible] which is a good start. But we need to take this moment and gain some momentum. And say that we need to educate america. What role you think there is in the Mainstream Media and to try to get some designated shows the talk about this day in and day out . This is not the fiscal cliff, but the climate cliff . Getting politicians, authors, experts, so that the rest of america hears it. I really hope that this will be the next wave, talking about solutions. The good news is that there are already some wonderful things coming. If is a great series. It is coming out of showtime. They go interviewing people around the country and record any impact on the lives. I think that increasing the awareness, that this is an issue that happens to me in my life, where i love, none of the people of bears for the island, but me living in san antonio tx or me living in concord or seattle for miami. You can make it directly relevant and interesting to cubas lives. The more interest there will be. Thank you so much to each of you for coming. I want to draw on a couple of things. As the education director with the power and passion of my generation wanting one of the things that i think is so critically missing is clear pathways to support the translation of informed inspiration and its desire to be part of interaction. I was curious it, if we had to lift up in a threeyear window, how do we prioritize the leverage point in terms of production . Is it a rebate system . Will it make a difference in the general public . My generation of young people would want to be a solution to the change. That is a whole other panel. As scientists, our job is to solidify the suns with the best possible information. Honestly, i am thankful that i am not in policy making because that is the hardest thing to do. But i believe that there is a great amount of lowhanging fruit. There are a lot of things that we can do, leaving climate out of it, still have benefits. Old malay, there is a worthy debate be had on what the rule is that government plays. Ultimately, that is what we have to do. There is a debate to be had. Should it be a carbon tax, a cat capt. Trade legislation . There are now conservative groups who are advancing with freemarket branded solutions. The other day, a filler in the conservative booth, came out in support of a carbon tax. [applause] Grover Norquist chemo for about 16 hours. Came out for about 16 hours. [laughter] definitely carbon taxes is bubbling up. Rush right. And from a surprising source. People on the conservative side of the political spectrum, ultimately, i should not be a bar a partisan political issue. The day the sandy hit, i was with many people. Of is just about to touch on that. Fires burned homes with their democrats for republicans. The climate system does not care. Hopefully, what we can do as scientists, is checked the risks and then the location details. But that is a whole different ball game. My name is carol stone. Do you think the mayan calendar this year will have any effect . And what is the effect of the population in the world a billion on this issue of carbon violation . That there is a number of factors. When you look at local government in emissions. If there are more people on the planet burning carbon for energy, we will be adding more carbon to the atmosphere. On the other hand, people who are living in a westernstyle exist then use a lot more energy than people in the developing world. One of the terms in the product of terms from which we deduce future Carbon Emissions is global population. We tend to believe the global population will stabilize with 10 billion people by the middle of the century because the developing world will take on some of the characteristics of the western world in terms of their rate of production, for example. When you look at some of those projections, built into many of them is the assumption that the global population will eventually stabilize. If it does not do that, it means that the problem is even worse. That is the key uncertainty, the wild card. The bottomline is a really nice where people are in the world, but how many people want a u. S. Lifestyle. Thomas rugen talks about an america that has 3 billion people. My name is wayne rauf. It is wayne rth. What will it take to make the sacrifices to save our planet . My basic metaphor for what were doing to plan a is putting a stick in a hornets nest. A look at the pale ale for maximum and that lasted a thousand years. When we were bombed in pearl harbor, we acted very quickly. We do not recognize that were in a program right now. But it is spreading all of the planet and nothing is raising the consciousness of the Common People to the degree to say that we have to do something. Where is the sense of urgency . What will it take . Will it take another hurricane katrinawould take another drought in the midwest where they have no food to eat . How many people in the United States will have to die before the United States political system recognizes and becomes a leader should quicken actually make some changes . One thing that Steve Schneider always emphasized to students is that if is worth thinking about the matter for which apply to Climate Change. Coral harbour is one which is an urgent one. But certainly apartheid or Civilrights Movement were things that are every bit as urgent where the time skills are much longer and the accuracy takes on how you talk to people. I think we can learn a lot from the past. Look at the issue of slavery. We were the bad guys than also. It was the foundation of the economy. People were making the same argument at them. It was not so bad. It would destroy the economy if we got rid of it. I think people have a lot to learn. There are many examples we can build on from the past year in the past. Admitting that we have a problem is the first step. Slavery abolishing slavery did not room economy. Did not ruin the economy. Right. Nobody objects to a medical researcher over what we need to do to save lives. That when a clear researcher says what we have to do to save lives, people get upset. One of the things that i tried to stress in my book is a theme that i touched on earlier, that this should not be partisan political issue. With the attacks those of you to by politicians who wanted to discredit my work and wanted to discredit the signs of Climate Change, some of the heroes came from what you might be considered as surprising quarters. Probably the greatest defender of against defender against the attacks of joe barton of texas, trying to find something to discredit me, it turned out that it was a fellow republican, the chair of the house science committee, pro sons, proenvironmental republican who came to defend my colleagues and me in this political witch hunt by his own fellow republican. A think youll find this among many of my colleagues and scientists today. We do our best to frame this not as a bipartisan or political issue because it should not be. It is a fact of life that it has become somewhat of a partisan political issue. But there is some evidence that there are people on the republican side of the aisle were stepping up to challenge and do something about this problem. We sometimes make the mistake of saying that [indiscernible] science and values can provide the same information. I think they are completely complementary. Signs is able to tell us what the problem is and what the consequences are of the trees is we make. Our values is what happens from the sources. A village in alaska considers it already happened. A town and a texas might think it will not happen for a few tickets are lunker. We have to bring our values and to it. Otherwise we do not know what to do. Left it to more questions in here. Correct there has been a lot of the has been a lot of talk and im wondering if have we seen a similar rise in the denial . Unfortunately, we have seen that. Some of it at a fairly high level. It turns out a lot of lobbyists and advisers who were behind some of the efforts to stifle scientists and in the previous president ial administration here in the u. S. Literally moved up to alaska. They used the same playbook. The government set aside to being centered, not being allowed to talk to the media about the threat to the environment from Climate Change. I have colleagues. Scientists to study and were told specifically they were not allowed to talk to the media. But if that was being orchestrated at a highlevel. It was the same playbook. Some of the same advisers and lobbyists running the show. I do not think that is unrelated to some of what we have seen happen with policy, with regard to the mining it into canada under this administration. You mentioned hoping to hold the line or the parts per million. How many billion metric tons are pumping it in this year . What do we have to do to get it to stay down to that line . James hansen has made a passionate argument for 450 ppm being too high. Even we we bought co2 back to 350, that would barely be necessary to make some of the changes. Were well above 350. We are now at 394 ppm. There may not be a magic number. It is a matter of extent and how much risk we want to subject ourselves to. If you want to think of it as a freeway, you would like to get off at the soonest exit ramp you can but if you missed that first exit ramp, you still want to take that next ramp. It does not mean you stay on the freeway in oblivion. He has done the numbers pretty carefully. We have 5 times as much fossil fuels already the available known reserves that we are ready to access. We have five times the amount necessary to give us 2 degrees celsius, three and a half degrees fahrenheit. Dangerous warming of the climate system. We cannot afford to tap into the reserves we already have available, let alone be exploring, investigating other additional reserves. That is the bottom line. It is hard to look this issue issue in the face and not lose hope. When we see the signs rose ever more certain year after year. And the doubt regarding the seriousness of this issue has climbed as well how does each of us get up and in the morning . I think we all have enormous hope and faith in the fact that the trugth can win out. That we are survivalists. We want a better world, we want a better future. With some work, i think we can get there. Lets end it there. ,. Thank you for coming. Continue the discussion now with james hansen at the Goddard Institute for space studies and author of the storms of my grandchildren. He spoke of the Commonwealth Club of california and was awarded and the board at the event. It was named for a Stamford University environmental scientists who advised several u. S. President s. This is about an hour and 15 minutes. [applause] i interviewed a lot of fantastic people in this room and that does not happen very often. Welcome to climate one. Im greta dalton. In 1988, james hansen told a congressional hearing he was 99 certain that burning fossil fuels was hurting the earths atmosphere. The next day, and New York Times had nine set Global Warming has begun. A quartercentury later, he and other scientists are still striving to convince much of the United States. Seas are rising, floods are increasing. Humans are the cause. Half of americans now accept that fact. 40 to not, according to gallup. We will discuss climatized communication, Public Policy and opinion with james hansen and our Live Audience here at the Commonwealth Club of california. Today dr. Hanson received a Steven Schneider award for outstanding communication. He was a pioneering scientist at stanford. Please welcome dr. Hansen. [applause] welcome back. It has been two years since you were here. I would like to begin with hurricane sandy. You lived in manhattan. Where were you when it was approaching . I was on our farm in pennsylvania. Where we ended up losing power for the better part of a week. Four big trees blown over. Railings blown off. Our deck and windows blown out of the barn. Even in pennsylvania, separate it from the Atlantic Ocean by new jersey, all this still new jersey did not do much to offer it. But that is where i was. The lights went out. We heard these noises on the second floor as these billings were getting blown off. It was an interesting experience. Your first big storm like that . I think this was the biggest one i was a in. Even though im from western iowa upper but we get these tornado warnings all the time to go to the basement. Where we would get these tornado warnings all the time to go to the basement. When did you go to new york . I drove to new york excitedly as a 25yearold graduate of the university of iowa. In 1967, i met Steve Schneider, as did dent a student at that time. It is ironic that im getting the Steve Schneider war. We could not have been more opposite. Award. We cannot have been more opposite. He had the gift of gab. He is so particulate as it didnt as a student. And, as i say, we couldnt have been more opposite. He as i was this tactiturn midwest scientist who wanted to do the numbers and do my science and not talk about it, but he would come to my door, he would be in the door of my office and talking to me and, eventually, i would turn around and be working on my desk and he somehow, he couldnt take the hint. [laughter] but when anniek who was then my girlfriend, would visit me, then she would see that, well, i really didnt want to talk to steve. So she would talk to him, and that was good, let me try to work. But if you try to work, you know, like when the television is on, and youre trying to do work, its very hard. But, anyway, we actually despite this, we became friends and anniek and i went mountain climbing with him in the small mountains around new york. But and youve actually delegated to him some of the communications requests that came to you. Yeah, because i didnt and when i after i testified in 1988 and realized all the hoopla that went with that, which is not what i do, im not a communicator and i dont enjoy it. So, when there were request for interviews, steve said he was happy to take them. So and that division of labor was fine with you . Yeah, that was fine with me. And if they insisted on someone on the east coast, then i send them to michael oppenheimer, but hes at princeton. So yeah. So on sandy, when you went back to new york after sandy, what did you see and what were you thinking . You wrote a book, storms of my grandchildren. Were you thinking, aha, the storms ive been writing about are here now . Well, it was an example. The storm you know, i titled it storms of my grandchildren because, if we pass the point where greenland begins to shed ice fast enough to cool the north atlantic, which only requires that you get up to about half a meter or so from greenland, that will increase the temperature gradients between the high latitudes and low latitudes and that is what drives cyclonic storms. So some of these storms of the century that weve had, the really big cyclonic storms which, unlike a hurricane, they stretch for thousands of miles. So you can have one that stretches from the caribbean to canada and with Hurricane Force winds. And now, if we increase the temperature gradients by several degrees, which we can do, were going to get those types of storms and europe will particularly suffer from them. But when you get a hurricane embedded within one, then you get double dose and thats what happened with sandy and that kind of thing will happen, too if we get stronger cyclonic storms. And the damage goes like the cube of the wind speed. So its not like you know, if the wind speed had been 10 Miles Per Hour less, we wouldnt have had all that damage. Those trees have been standing there for centuries. These were really big trees on our property. So there havent been storms like that, or those trees wouldnt still have been there. And was there a human fingerprint on sandy . Could you say how much Climate Change contributed to the ferocity and the intensity of sandy . Well, theres a human fingerprint in several ways. The ocean was unusually warm along the eastern seaboard and it was warmer by more than the global average, so people are saying, oh, you can only credit one quarter of that to Global Warming. Well, the warming, its like, these extreme events that were getting, were getting them much more frequently. Of course, you cant say where and when they are going to be, but if you just as i say, the climate dice are now loaded, and they are loaded in such a way that, not only do we get more unusually warm seasons, but those which are most extreme are much more frequent than they used to be. So this warm patch of water, i would say, you would not have had unlikely that you would have such extreme warming without this Global Warming underneath that. So thats one thing. But in addition, the Global Warming makes more water vapor in the atmosphere which makes the rain fall heavier and the floods greater. So there is a connection with Global Warming, even though as scientists always like to say, well, you cant blame a single event and connect that in a simple way to Global Warming. But the frequency and extreme extremity of those events, you can connect to Global Warming in a very straightforward way. Because i had heard from some people that hurricanes was where the data was less firm. Sea level rises very good data, precipitation events, floods has very good data, but hurricanes is where people who are skeptics or deniers like to say, aha, not so. The frequency of occurrence of hurricanes is affected by many factors, not just the global temperature. But the storms that are driven by latent heat are that like have their fuel from latent heat and that includes hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornados, you have more fuel for those, so the strongest ones are going to be stronger. The number of hurricanes is a is more difficult and that is a matter of research, but the region in which you can possibly have hurricanes is expanding and the seasons in which you can have sandy was the end of october. Its very unlikely that we could have had that without the fact that the seasons are now getting longer warm season is getting longer. So what can you say about the probability of more sandys, bigger sandys, a bigger area of the country, the world that could have Something Like super storm sandy . Well, the strong storms are if we continue down this path and i dont think we need to continue down this path, were going to have more strong storms, thats clear. As i said, the fuel is the Latent Energy that youll get from water vapor. The author and advocate, paul hawken, has often said that two category 5 storms up the i 95 quarter in one year would be a game changer for the United States that thats when people would wake up. Thats basically happened. Two large storms yeah, yeah. Up the eastern seaboard yeah. In one year, is it a game changer . Well, it could be. It does require that we put the pressure on the political system that causes it to be a game changer. And we need to be doing the right things, as you know, we need to put pressure on the system, and its not just saying, do something. You have to actually look at what politicians are proposing to do. And you, unlike a lot of scientists, actually went, got arrested and have kind of gone from a scientist to an advocate. Do you think thats the right way a civil disobedience direct action is a way to pressure the government . Well, thats one. I think peaceful disobedience is one way to draw attention. Im not suggesting that young scientists do that and get an arrest record, but when youre my age, its not its fine. [laughter]. [applause] but, again, its important to really think through the problem, through the solution. And i really object to politicians and others who say scientists should just stick to narrow science and not look at the whole problem, because you do have to connect the dots and scientists are actually trained to be objective and to understand complex problems and this is a complex problem. But some people would say that your activism clouds your science. Well, the science has to be judged on its own merrits. I frankly think that the scrutiny of my papers has become greater. And but, anyway, they have the fbi or who are you talking about . [laughter] no, im talking about scientists. Not even as much the scientists as editors. You know, theyre very cautious, even when i recently got the strongest reviews possible, the highest ratings on a paper that i submitted to the proceedings of the National Academy of science. The editor was apparently got a little worried when he saw the title of the paper which was the case for young people and nature. And there were statements in the abstract which apparently attracted his attention. So he gave the paper to the Editorial Board, and the anonymous Editorial Board says, scientists should not be making normative statements about intergenerational injustice and such things. So, i think, i frankly find that, in some ways, its become harder. So, anyway, the science you are held to a higher bar, is that what youre saying . Yeah, it becomes yeah. And back on in pressuring the government. So direct civil disobedience is one way. What are other ways that can you say this thing you know, science is clear, government is the problem. How can the well government be pressured . Yeah. There are multiple ways and i think we need to use a number of them. One of them that were using is to File Lawsuits against the government to do their job. So our Childrens Trust is has filed a suit against the federal government and against some state governments, asking the court to require the government to give a plan for how its going to protect the rights of young people. Whether this will work, i dont know, because courts do not tend to get way out in front of the public. In the case of civil rights, that tactic worked eventually, but by that time and the courts told the government that they should desegregate schools, give a plan how youre going to give equal rights to minority children. And but by that time, the public was marching in the street. So we have to get the public behind this, but also we have we have a democratic process, we need to try to influence that with the people we elect and the things that we ask of them. So, for example, theres an Organization Called citizens climate lobby. And they now exist in apparently some of them are here. [laughter] infiltrated. They have theyve doubled in size each year the last four years and they now exist in all 50 states and they are going to visit their congress people, writing op eds, and, in particular, theyre advocating a putting a price on Carbon Emissions which on carbon, which will be collected from fossil fuel companies at the source, at the domestic mine or the port of entry, and the money would be distributed 100 to the public on equal amount to each legal resident of the country on a per capita basis. That would provide the thats what is essential. As long as fossil fuels are the Cheapest Energy, then people will keep burning them, and theyre only cheaper because they partly theyre subsidized, but mainly because they dont pay their costs to society. So the air and Water Pollution that they produce causes lots of Health Problems and about 40,000 deaths a year at the United States and about a million worldwide. All those health costs are born by the public, not by the fossil fuel companies. The climate costs, which are already enormous, 50 billion for new york, from sandy, 50 billion in new jersey, the drought last summer, these are these have enormous costs. Who pays those . The taxpayers, basically. That drought alone took half a point off of the gep growth the gdp growth from estimates. Yeah. So those costs are not built into the fossil fuels, and they should be. And the way so what you should do is have this gradually rising price on carbon collected from the fossil fuel companies with a 100 distributed to the public. It would spur the economy and what would the fossil fuel Companies Think about that . You know, the fossil fuel companies well, they are the problem in a sense, but, you know i described this to a meeting of International Labor leaders. And i said, if you do this, then the marketplace will make the decisions, instead of the government saying, lets subsidize solar panels or lets subsidize this. the government usually doesnt get things right and it doesnt provide an incentive for all the other things that could help. There may be things that are much better than solar panels. So you have to just put the price on carbon, let the marketplace decide whether solar panels or windmills or Energy Efficiency or some things that we havent thought of. But this an International Labor leader stood up and said, thats libertarian letting the marketplace of course, it is libertarian with a small l, but its also populist because most people are going to get more in their dividend and it gives them the opportunity to reduce their Carbon Footprint and make money in the process. But its also democratic because it treats everybody equally. And i was going to say, the other group oh, the when i gave a talk at Grover Norquists wednesday meeting oh, that must have been interesting. One of the this was at the i gave two. There was first a meeting with him and some of the Republican Leaders which was open, and then there was one which was closed and i cant talk about that one but im sure it was at the first one. That one [laughter] one of them said, thats income redistribution. Well, yeah, it is. The people who do a good job will get some of the money from somebody else. And but thats what if we dont do Something Like that. Thats you see, we would reach if we did that, we would reach tipping points where alternatives would be cheaper than say, coal, and then you would quickly phase out the fossil fuel. So you then leave it in the ground and thats what we have to do. British columbia is doing Something Like this so that maybe theres some different details, but British Columbia replaced one kind of tax, it was a payroll or Corporate Tax yeah. And imposed the carbon tax. Now, you think thats not high enough, but it didnt for example well, i think the problem with that is and, Grover Norquist, by the way, he did decide well, you know, the thing i think what convinces conservatives is the fact that once they are smart enough and those who are smart enough to realize were not making this stuff up, and there are most and i think a lot of them are smart enough to realize that, then, they start to think, well, gee, if we let if we continue to deny this, well reach a point where things happen like super sandys. And then, the government is going to thats pearl harbor and the government will take over like the government took over detroit and said, you cant make cars anymore. Youre gonna make airplanes and youre not gonna make money. They dont want that to happen, so something gonna do about it before intervention now yeah. Is better than more intervention later, more government right. Intervention later. But i forgot what your question was. Well, British Columbia oh, British Columbia. Yeah, let me because i want to its you dont like that example. I do want to comment on British Columbia because and so, Grover Norquist said, well, maybe a tax is okay if we remove some other tax equal amount. So its revenue neutral. And then, within one day, he changed his mind because, undoubtedly, some people helped him change his mind. But, i sent him a note that said you but youre right, because if you replace one tax with another, probably well soon the public will soon forget about that one that went away and theyre gonna see every day at the pump, theyre gonna see their gasoline is costing them more and theyre gonna object ; theyre not gonna let it go up. So that system of trading taxes, i dont think is the right one. I think, instead of reducing another tax, give the money to the public. It will stimulate the economy, it will lead to innovations because, then as long as entrepreneurs know that that price is gonna keep going up, theyre gonna work very hard on finding alternatives. So one more thing on British Columbia and all of that. It goes with this, but they put a price on carbon in place, it is lower than it you would probably want it, but they still reelected the government that did that. Right. It did not wreck the economy, it is still an example that right. The carbon price that doesnt sink the economy that can be a step in the right direction. Yeah. Thats its not an unuseful thing, but if you look at their Carbon Emissions, youre not gonna find them going down. We have to actually get Carbon Emissions to go down at a rapid rate and thats only gonna happen with a substantial price which is rising over time. Well, thats and thats why i you know, a state like california which is a leader, which really has people who understand this and want to do something about it, so im very disappointed when they choose a halfbaked system like capandtrade with offsets. [applause] so lets talk about that california system. Its a law signed by governor schwarzenegger ab 32. Capandtrade is 20 of that system. It gets most of the political attention and oomph and youre a critic of capandtrade because because its not its half assed. [laughter]. Its going because they gave away too many free allowances to polluters . You know, so there was this waxmanmarkey bill, 3,000 pages long. The lobbyists controled that so that it had giveaways to utilities, to fossil fuel industry and it brings big banks into it. Why do you want big banks in this problem . Why should they be making money . Every cent that they make is coming out of the publics hide and they add absolutely nothing. What you want is a system which is very simple, and it makes clear. You know, theres this people will see in the marketplace thats something that is using fossil fuels is gonna cost more because of that carbon price, and so they will make their decisions based on that, and theres no money going to banks at all. You dont want a system with caps where then you have this trading, you have derivatives and you have markets that then collapsed and you dont actually reduce the emissions much. Thats been tried in europe and it didnt do much. And we have to really get major reductions. The advocates of capand trade would say, it allows for price variability, but an environmental outcome that is more certain than with the no. With the carbon absolutely not. Its certain that it wont be effective; thats what certain. It get because of youll get thats it because of the offsets and the carveouts and the scheming and gaming by traders. Yeah. Theyre saying well, first of all, you dont even know. All we really know is that we have to reduce emissions as rapidly as we practically can. And, unfortunately, 450 ppm parts per million of carbon parts per million of co2 is a disaster scenario on the long run. We are actually going to have and 450 ppm would make the planet warmer than it was during the eemian. So a 120,000 years ago, the last interglacial period on sea level is now estimated was at least six meters higher than it is now. So we would be setting the planet on a path to disasters. We cant say when the ice sheets are going to melt enough to cause that large sea level rise, but, you know, we already can see with co2 in the atmosphere now which is about 390 or 300 between 390 and 395. But the system has not come to equilibrium with that, we know that the planet is now out of that equilibrium for about seven tenths of a watt per meter square, which means theres almost as much warming in the pipeline as that which has already occurred. And look whats happening with the eight tenths of a degree warming now. And if were going to double that so what we really are gonna have to do, the right and i understand why i mean people are trying to argue for the saying, well, if you ask for something that seems unrealistic, then people will dismiss you. Well, you have to say whats honest. We have to keep the climate close to the holocene. Civilization developed during the last several thousand years the holocene which was we were not at the peak holocene temperature at the pre industrial, but now, weve probably reasoned out of the of thely risen out f holocene range. Because sea level, for example, is now going up 3. 1 millimeters a year which is 3. 1 meters per millennium. Its way out of the range that existed during the holocene. So were already a little bit above the holocene. Weve got to stay close to the holocene if we want to have a stable climate. And thats what and thats still possible, because there are lots of ways we can actually draw co2 out of the atmosphere with better agricultural practices and reforestation. So its not an impossible problem, but the key thing is weve got to start to get off fossil fuels soon. Fossilt burn all the fuels. Its really funny. Ive been going around for five years showing these bar graphs for how much carbon there is in oil, gas, which is less than oil, and coal, which is much larger, and then i also had these unconventional fossil fuels. I hardly sometimes, i didnt show those because i didnt think anybody is gonna be so stupid as to burn unconventional fossil fuels like tar sands and tar shale. But i was showing and i have the purple part on the bottom of those bars and showing this is only a small fraction of the total fossil fuels. We cant we cannot burn all these fossil fuels without going to the ice free state which means sea level 250 feet higher. Butso its just crazy, somehow, i never made that sink in, and is now then bill mckibben. You know, ive talked with him frequently and hes a much better writer, and he wrote this article for rolling stone. He said the same thing but he said it in a much better way, and suddenly, he said, the reserves that these Oil Companies are counting on their books and their stock prices are based on this, those are five times greater than what we can burn and still hope to have a livable planet. Then, suddenly, some people, started to realize, weve got a problem. And you, at one point, said that, you think some of those Oil Executives or Energy Executives are they could be crimes against humanity. Oh, oh lets go the other side. They are the i sometimes say, the captains of industry are the ones who can really help us solve this. And the theyre not these are smart people. You dont get to be the top dog in these organizations unless youre pretty smart and pretty capable. And, you know, ive met with jim rogers of duke energy . Duke energy, and then, the one the other one in new jersey, the big one, and then the florida light and power and i forget the names, but all these guys say that, if you would give us knowledge of how that carbon price is gonna rise, we can deal with that. We will make the investments so that electricity becomes carbon free over a few decades. They but weve got to give them that. If we dont give them that, then theyre not gonna do it. As long as they can get away with coal plants as the Cheapest Energy or now gas as a cheaper thats what they will use. So we they we some of them have a heart and they understand this and they have children and grandchildren, too. So they could be our friend, but as long but if theyre doing like the ceo of exxon mobil and like the koch brothers, and if they fund disinformation and actual change in textbooks, thats the thing which im over between christmas and new year, i have an appointment to talk to legal scholars again because i think we should file suits against those people for crimes against humanity, because they know [applause] theyre smart enough to know what theyre doing and they should be held responsible. And whats the status of you mentioned the atmospheric trust litigation. I believe there was a judge in texas, of all places, that actually nibbled at that one. So whats the status . You sued the suit against california was disbanded. Youre still Going Forward with another one yeah. And your hope is, you want a plan from these governments to have yeah. The courts force them to do something. Yeah. It looks promising in a couple of states and i cant i dont really know the details but thats what a legal scholar has told me and the julia olson whos the head of the our Childrens Trust. Our Childrens Trust. The federal court the federal case, unfortunately, the judge in the district of columbia, who we thought was would be favorable, ruled against it saying that it should first go to epa, that epa has responsibility, not the courts. And our Childrens Trust is appealing that decision. It and theres also just back from the netherlands where i went to help launch a case against the dutch government. Theyre amazing. I mean theyre at sea basically at sea level, and yet, they are burning coal. And they are most recent government there is pretty much in denial about this problem. But, that and theyre theyre an intelligent country, so i think theres a good hope that the courts there might have a do something about it. Do something, yeah. Should we do research on geoengineering . Geoengineering is the idea of putting things into the atmosphere to buy some time to deflect some solar radiations, some heat, some light. We may need that as an insurance policy if things get thats sort of break the glass, pull the emergency switch situation. Yeah. Well, research we should understand the system. In some of the burning fossil fuels is geoengineering, and there would be some ways of drawing co2 out of the atmosphere which makes sense. And that you know, you may want to one reason to develop Carbon Capture and storage is not just to let us burn fossil fuels and without putting co2, but also because were probably going to have to suck some co2 out of the atmosphere, because 450 ppm is certainly too much. And so we could burn biofuels in a power plant and capture the co2 and then sequester it. So thats a kind of geoengineering which i would call soft geoengineering. The idea of putting up one pollutant to block the effects of different pollutants doesnt seem to make a lot of sense to me. And, furthermore, putting up reflection reflecting sunlight away will not solve the Ocean Acidification problem, so not much there. Not much there, yeah. But as we theres also aerosols that come partly from coal burning and if we reduce coal burning, then we could reduce the aerosols which could yeah. Exacerbate warming. Yeah. And im actually working on a paper which is called doubling down on the Faustian Bargain. The aerosols are a Faustian Bargain are part of the Faustian Bargain by burning coal and putting aerosols up there, and reflecting some sunlight, we minimize the warming. But those aerosols only stay up there five days, so once we stop burning, theyre gonna fall out and then we get the full warming. Well, in the last 10 years, if you look at the fossil fuel burning, which have been going up one and a half percent per year, suddenly it started going up 3 a year as china and india really kicked in. Other things being equal, if you change the rate of emission of co2 to the atmosphere, the socalled airborne fraction, the fraction of the co2 that appears in the atmosphere should increase, simply because that quick injection of co2 causes the Ocean Surface layers to be relatively saturated so it cant get in to the ocean as fast as it used to. But whats actually happened in the last 12 years is the airborne fraction has plummeted. Its now only about 40 . The other 60 is disappearing. And its not mostly going in to the ocean. The good fraction of it is being taken up, somehow, by the terrestrial biosphere. Of i think thats because the we were doubling i think were doubling down on the Faustian Bargain because were fertilizing the terrestrial biosphere, both with the co2 in the atmosphere and the combination of that with more nitrogen which will spread in part of the nitrogen is being spread around by these aerosols which china and india are putting out and its actually reaching canada and some of it is reaching asia. And so that and a lot of nitrogen comes from fertilizing. But, in any case, i think were doubling down. That is all the more reason why we got to get off this rapid curve, we ve got to get on a downward curve and the only way thats gonna happen is if we put a price on carbon. If youre just joining us, our guest today at climate one is dr. James hansen, head of nasa Goddard Institute for space studies and adjunct professor at columbia universitys earth institute. Im greg dalton. How would you grade president obama in addressing Climate Change . He missed a great opportunity to be a great president. You know, when he was elected and had 70 popularity four years ago, he could have gone to the public. And like Franklin Roosevelt explained, that for the sake of our national defense, for the sake of the economy, for the sake of climate, we should deal with this problem in an honest way, putting a price on carbon. You know, when i was in United Kingdom with anniek after she had a mild heart attack there, so i was stuck there for a week. This is right after he was elected before he took office. So we wrote a letter to him and explained this to him. I tried to get john holdren to deliver it to him, but he wasnt sworn in yet so he couldnt do it. The president s science adviser. Yeah. But that its a shame because he said he understood the problem. He said we have a planet in peril. But in a way, i dont think he was getting very good advice. I think that people were telling him well we need more solar panels and we need more efficient vehicles, and those things are true, but theyre not gonna solve the problem by themselves. Without a price on carbon, all you do by reducing your emissions in those ways is reduce the demand for the fossil fuel, make it cheaper and somebody else will burn it. We have to actually leave those fossil fuels in the ground most of what remains. And the only way that will happen is if they are an if theyre honestly priced. Right now, they are heavily subsidized by you, the public. And people would say even if the u. S. Does something bold, if he went big in a second time, china and india would still continue to burn as much coal and oil as they can get their hands on to have the standard of living that you and i and everyone in this room and everyone listening to this, enjoys. Yeah. Thats and thats their right thats wrong, and the reason is, if we put a price on carbon, the World Trade Organization rules, preferably we and europe or we and china youd rather not have the United States alone, but were so still so powerful economically that we could even go alone and say were going to put a border duty on products from countries that do not have a carbon fee thats equivalent. So its fair, and it would be an enormous incentive for that other country, china or other country, to put their own carbon price on, because then they could collect the money, rather than us collecting it at our border. Thats the only way that you can get an international agreement. Cant do it by begging the kyoto protocol approach was to beg. Beg all the other countries to pick some target and then reach that target without any and, of course, even though many countries agreed like canada, they soon abandon it when its not convenient, they abandon it you have to the only way you can enforce it is with the price, and that so that could be done. And, you know, i was in china and the china chinese leaders understand this. They dont deny their climate problem. They are engineers and theyre rationale, and they dont want to be addicted to fossil fuels the way the United States is and have to protect the supply line around the world, so they are, number one in solar panels, wind power and Nuclear Power, building thirty Nuclear Power plants. So i dont but, of course, they do have a major problem with so many people in poverty and theyre and they need they know they need to get them out of poverty or they may their government may not survive. So the of course, theyre doing everything they can to raise the standard of living, but they are planning, by the middle of the century, to really have all their electricity from both india and china are really looking to go nonfossil fuel. But to make that happen soon enough, we have to have a price on carbon. Well, im gonna touch quickly on the keystone xl pipeline then were gonna have the audience participation. Theve been an opponent of keystone xl pipeline. I wonder what you think about