Skip to comments.Ex-NASA scientist says re-industrializing with fossil fuels makes no sense
Posted on 05/16/2013 1:35:27 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A noted climatologist and recently-retired NASA research chief has entered the EUs energy policy debate, with a warning that any re-industrialization strategy that increases fossil fuels use can only be short-term, irrational and economically wasteful.
In a wide-ranging interview with EurActiv, James Hansen branded the EUs Emissions Trading System (ETS) ineffectual and flawed, and accused energy firms of preferring government bribes over investments in clean technology. Hansen, whose Congressional testimony on climate change in 1988 first popularized the issue in the United States, also said that approving the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to bring tar sands fuel from Canada to Texas would gravely tarnish President Barack Obamas legacy.
We do not make fossil fuels companies pay for their effects on human health, or on the climate, and we even subsidize them, he said, so it is a very short term argument to say that you should re-industrialize in a way that uses more fossil fuels. It doesnt even make economic sense from a long-term perspective, he argued. By any rational assessment, those fuels need to be left in the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at euractiv.com ...
Wrong in ‘88. Wrong now. At least we see where our tax dollars went paying this useless POS.
Thing is, I don’t think they are fossil fuels any more than I think I use my phone to tape stuff. It’s just a phrase. Evidence is increasing that the earth itself generates that stuff.
That's OK, Mr. Hansen. Give me a quark reactor instead, or at least a working fusion reactor.
Oh, you don't have one? Then come back with your helpful advices when you do. Humans on this planet need all the energy they can lay their hands on just to survive.
Reminds me of when taxonomists classified the giant panda as a raccoon rather than a bear, merely because the red panda is actually related to the raccoons. Scientists need to stick to the scientific method.
oh look the most prominent member of the dark earth society is still causing trouble.
Might be a reason why he’s an EX Nasa scientist.
Nothing about nuclear energy. They don’t want to talk about that.
Fine... it’s becoming more and more apparent that oil and NATURAL gas are not “fossil fuels”...
Welcome to the real world Hansen, you didn't actually think any of this horsesh** you were peddling was actually taken seriously do you?
So we should leave the toxins in the ground, unused, where they may poison the water table and come on the shores of our beaches?
Because of some fantasy that man is changing the Earth’s temperature?
The fuels may not even be fossil based.
“Ex NASA Scientist Makes No Sense” would be a better headline...
What a maroon.
Yeah. When I argue with liberals about AGW (human caused global warming) they inevitably accuse me of hating science. My response is always the same. I LOVE science. I HATE JUNK science.
How did I know it was going to be Hansen?
What the hell does “re-industrializing” mean?
If, by "short term", this "scientist" means the next 1000 years, then yes, by all means, use fossil fuels for the short term!
[drilling for oil needs 1,000,000 years from now is RIGHT out!].
it is NOT a fossil fuel!!!!!
Jimmy, buy a vowel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.