The plot thickens:
White House aides Monday were mum about what would happen to the Office of Energy and Climate Change except to declare that Browner, a former Senate staffer to Al Gore, believed energy issues would remain front and center for the president.
One wonders now if Obama will even mention climate during the State of the Union Address Tuesday night. With jobs and economy taking front and center and Browner’s announcement right before SOTUA, government climate initiatives may be relegated to the back-burner. We’ll have to wait and see.
And it gets stranger, Haunting the Library writes:
Andy Revkin of the New York Times reported that Hansen was not happy with the current Obama administration, as despite offering his services “I never heard back anything from the White House”. This “lame” approach, he said could be seen in past Democrat administrations:
Nowhere is the lame middle-of-the-road go-slow compromise approach clearer than in the case of nuclear power. The [Obama] Administration has been reluctant to admit that the Carter and Clinton/Gore administrations made a huge mistake in pulling the U.S. back from development of advanced nuclear technology.
That is the way to make nuclear power safer (nuclear power already has the best safety record of any major industry in the United States) and resistant to weapons proliferation
New York Times. Dot Earth. NASA’s Hansen Pushes Obama for a Carbon Cost and a Nuclear Push.
Hansen also slammed President Obama for buckling to advocacy groups who impede progress on nuclear power, rather than being a “responsible leader” and authorizing a major new programme of building new nuclear power stations:
Nevertheless, the easiest thing that he could do, and perhaps the best that we can hope for, is for him to give a strong boost to nuclear power.
Unfortunately, he seems to fall prey to Democratic politics on this, rather than being a responsible leader.
New York Times. Dot Earth. NASA’s Hansen Pushes Obama for a Carbon Cost and a Nuclear Push.
Hansen’s comments may well be a dig at blogger Joe Romm (Climate Progress), formerly Acting Assistant Secretary at the Department of Energy for the Clinton administration. Despite frequently proclaiming global warming to be an existential threat to humanity, Romm has hindered the move to low emissions energy by waging a campaign against nuclear power, which – as Hansen notes – has “the best safety record of any major industry”. Why is Romm ignoring the advice of the scientists he himself champions? Is it science, or is it politics?
============================================================
Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark.
Seems like the climate/green energy movement is self destructing on the eve of the SOTUA.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gettin’ out while the gettin’s good.
Is this the lady who was monikered “Energy Czar”?
I’m kinda sad to say that I actually agree with Mr Hansen on this one. We should have more nuclear plants. The only problem most of the population has very little understanding of how the plants are built, or the basic concepts of what makes a reactor work.
That is something I agree on with Hansen. The Western world definitely needs a stronger and broader nuclear industry (irrespective of AGW). In Finland we are a small country (population ca. 5.5 million), but we are in the process of building 3-4 new nuclear power plants (despite raging protestations from the environmentalists). In semi-distant future breeder reactors can go a long way to establish a steady and firm basis for mankinds energy infrastructure, potentially for centuries to come.
I guess this is where the Law of Averages kicks in – Hansen has to be right sometimes and here it is:
“Hansen also slammed President Obama for buckling to advocacy groups who impede progress on nuclear power, rather than being a “responsible leader” and authorizing a major new programme of building new nuclear power stations”
Politics is politics…
One of the things that got got me launched into the entire global warming debate was nuclear power. I was baffled that people that considered CO2 the greatest danger would oppose nuclear power. Any slightly intelligent person would realize that nuclear is the ONLY viable alternative.
So I will give Hansen a rare compliment. At least he truly believes in AGW. I will give him that. It isn’t political to him, he really believes it is real.
Any warmist that opposes nuclear power doesn’t deserve the time of day.
John Kehr
Rats fleeing a sinking ship.
And now for something completely different.
Ocean acidification surely caused by me.
The Birth Of An Island (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/birth-of-an-island_n_811134.html#comments
Good riddance!
And if Hansen’s so for nuclear power he should use his influence to help push congress and this administration to support it and mandate it. Hansen, you can’t close the coal plants before the nucs are built and up and running.
Never thought I’d say this, but, I have to agree with Hansen on this one issue at least. The US must aggressively promote nuclear power.
worth a read:
24 Jan: Business Green: Updated: Huhne seeks to raise nuclear clean up cost cap to £1bn
Energy Secretary to propose increase in liabilities cap nuclear power operators face in the event of an accident
The agreement was a compromise as the Liberal Democrats are traditionally opposed to the construction of new nuclear reactors. Lib Dem Minister Huhne told the Observer that he is determined to stick by that promise, but at the same time provide certainty to low carbon investors…
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1939015/huhne-seeks-raise-nuclear-clean-cost-cap-gbp1bn
didn’t obama announce loan guarantees for the nuclear industry about 6 months ago? must have been a fraud or a p.r. stunt….only the leftist stuff actually gets implemented…
Take nobody’s word for it
We in the UK had our own clown on the TV. Basically saying: “scientists are so misunderstood, we are all good chaps, please believe me I’m a scientists” … basically an hour of someone pushing their opinion at us as to why we should believe him about global warming without a single fact being presented in his favour.
And then without even a hint of irony he quotes the motto of the Royal Society:
“nullius in verba” – “Take nobody’s word for it”
In other words, establish the facts via experiments,… not by listening to some clown on the TV bemoaning the good old days before the internet when the scientific elite could tell the public any BS they wanted and the plebs had no choice but to swallow it!
On this issue – this could really do with some coverage on WUWT as the “quality” media over here in Old Blighty appears to have missed it:
The UK government’s current plans, and justifications for, imposing energy rationing on the UK in the form of “tradeable energy quotas”.
Just wait till Gore rips into Hansen. More nukes mean cheap(-er) energy.
Cheaper than the green investment of Gore & Co.
Hyenas do rip in to the flesh of each other, for social power.
Neither Gore or Hanson will be the queen of the flock, but only one lieutenant can exist.
Gore is a “rationalist” (money-making wise) Hansen is a ideologist.
Pres. B.H.O. is a pragmatist. Eventually.
I hope!
Go nuke-hydrogen, and screw all despot in the Middle-East. I would vote for that.
( I’m not a USA citizen.)
Just drop the AGW/human-guilt/lefty-collectivism propaganda.
Over to you B.H.O!
P.S. My hero is Pres. R. R. (the com. slayer!)
The first step is always the hardest. Browner should have gone years ago, it was only PC that kept her there.
I hate to agree with Hansen but nuclear is good, but so is coal and oil, and both are cheaper than nuclear.
I expect America has the same problem as UK with burying rubbish. The EU has stopped landfill now despite the UK having lots of holes to fill. But burying rubbish produces its own problems- it rots and produces methane which is wasted. It would be a good ides to convert rubbish into methane to burn in a power plant producing electricity. This could be done on a local level to save trucking rubbish long distances. Power would be slightly more expensive than that produced in the larger generators but the up side is that the fuel, rubbish forming methane, cheaper than fossil fuels. Many farms in the UK have this system and find it profitable for farming under glass.
So now this “up himself Hansen” presumes to tell the President of the United States (past and present) what to do.
The man must have a very flexible spine.
And if he supports nuclear, I’m against it. Coal coal coal coal and more coal for me.
If he doesn’t mention government climate initiatives, someone will be very dismayed.
Kerry: Obama to embrace ‘major initiatives’ on climate in SOTU – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/139753-kerry-obama-to-embrace-major-initiatives-on-climate-in-sotu
So we learn that Jim isn’t a green rent seeker, he’s just (partially) psychotic. I think I would rather he were the former.
We also learn that (most likely slick Willey) explained to Obama that he must at least pretend to care about the country if he wants to get re-elected. Then he can return to his mission of destroying it.
Now with Abercrombie and (supposed) friends making public statements that Hawaii holds no Long Form Birth Certificate, one must wonder if TX and others will successfully crash the re-election party with a state requirement for proof of citizenship.
God help us.
Agreeing with Hansen on anything leaves me feeling dirty all over. Of course being dirty all over is way better than freezing, in the dark, with no food or running water.
So I say HOORAY for Hansen, let’s give him a ton of support on the issue, build nuclear power plants until we don’t know what to do with the extra watts and we can sell them to someone else. With all that cheap power running around I won’t care so much if Hansen talks fools into giant emissions cuts. Just as long as my house is warm, I have lights to see by, food in the fridge, and running water. Lots of running water. Lots of HOT running water. gotta wash this dirty feeling off me somehow.
Browner leaving is to make Obama appear to move to the Center. Nothing more or less. Hansen is cukoo, but right on nuclear. The Left will never permit it, though.
What bothers me is when they say “We need clean renewable energy to reduce the need for foreign oil “.
They all only make electricity. Petroleum creates only 1 to 2 percent of America’s electricity.
Meanwhile…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
Scroll down to the China sub-heading and weep…
I strongly agree with Hansen in his promotion of commercial nuclear power. Commercial nuclear power is not competitive with coal-sourced power if thermal coal landed at the power station costs less than approximately $75 per tonne; at these landed coal prices and above, nuclear power competes successfully (C1, C2, and C3 costs all considered). However, we should ALL go the nuclear power route as this is far SAFER than coal-sourced power through the whole fuel cycle for the respective technologies. For example, accident frequency and fatalities are FAR higher per kwh of power produced in the MINING and transport of coal, burning of coal, and coal WASTE disposal, namely fly ash, SO2 and CO2. Fly ash contains above background concentrations of poisonous elements such as As, Mo, Pb, Bi, Se, heavy hydrocarbons, and other nasties with permanent half lives (!), and contains above background concentrations of U and Po, which means that coal fly ash is also characterised by above background radiation levels. There are also emissions of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. Furthermore, an average houshold of four people, with power sourced from nuclear, generates one aspirin-tablet sized package of radwaste per year; an identical household with power sourced from coal generates approximately 12 tonnes of CO2 per year, and approximately 1 tonne of fly ash per year, not considering SO2 emissions. Methods for disposal of radwaste are now well engineered, within rocks known to be stable beyond the half-life of the radwaste: it is a non problem compared to the disposal of the far more voluminous coal fly ash and the products of scrubbing sulfur dioxide and soot from the coal-sourced power station flue emissions.
Generation III and IV power reactors, and the proposed Th-fuelled reactors, can be run to produce fission products that cannot be diverted to nuclear weapons production. World resources of U and Th are easily sufficient for 1000 years or more of nuclear fuel production, the whingeing of greenies notwithstanding.
So I heartily agree with James Hansen on the power issue. However, I reserve judgement on his other crusade to “halt” AGW, as evidence that there is an anthropogenic contribution to the post 1970 global warming is equivocal at best.
Finally something I can agree with Hansen about.
the motto of the Royal Society:
“nullius in verba” – “Take nobody’s word for it”
—————————————————————-
Indeed. I am a fan of Agatha Christie, especially her Miss Marple stories. Miss Marple is an elderly lady who has extraordinary skill in solving mysteries. Her first principle, stated in various forms throughout the books, is to believe nothing that anyone says. She says over and over – until I have proved a thing for myself, I don’t believe anything that I am told. And, it is this principle that gives her the edge over the police and public. Christie’s other novels operate on a similar principle.
The point is, one of the biggest selling authors in history understood – as did her readers – the importance of the Royal Society’s motto – or its US equivalent – ‘it ain’t necessarily so’. 🙂
As a pragmatic politician, Obama will probably jettison a few more liabilities including the EPA boss in coming months. All successful politicians know that it ain’t necessarily so, but sometimes they temporarily forget it when they are the ones doing the saying.