Global warming is a moral issue on par with slavery: NASA scientist
By Severin Carrell, www.guardian.co.uk
6 April 2012 Averting the worst consequences of human-induced climate change is a “great moral issue” on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen. He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an “injustice of one generation to others”. Hansen, who will next Tuesday be awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal for his contribution to science, will also in his acceptance speech call for a worldwide tax on all carbon emissions. In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use. Ahead of receiving the award – which has previously been given to Sir David Attenborough, the ecologist James Lovelock, and the economist Amartya Sen – Hansen told the Guardian that the latest climate models had shown the planet was on the brink of an emergency. He said humanity faces repeated natural disasters from extreme weather events which would affect large areas of the planet. “The situation we’re creating for young people and future generations is that we’re handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control,” he said. “We’re in an emergency: you can see what’s on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction.” Now 70, Hansen is regarded as one of the most influential figures in climate science; the creator of one of the first global climate models, his pioneering role in warning about global warming is frequently cited by climate campaigners such as former US vice president Al Gore and in earlier science prizes, including the $1m Dan David prize. He has been arrested more than once for his role in protests against coal energy. Hansen will argue in his lecture that current generations have an over-riding moral duty to their children and grandchildren to take immediate action. Describing this as an issue of inter-generational justice on a par with ending slavery, Hansen said: “Our parents didn’t know that they were causing a problem for future generations but we can only pretend we don’t know because the science is now crystal clear. “We understand the carbon cycle: the CO2 we put in the air will stay in surface reservoirs and won’t go back into the solid earth for millennia. What the Earth’s history tells us is that there’s a limit on how much we can put in the air without guaranteeing disastrous consequences for future generations. We cannot pretend that we did not know.” […]
Nasa scientist: climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery
"We cannot pretend that we did not know."
Yet this is exactly what the global warming denier crowd claims, that it is "unproven" and incessantly spew their mindless chant that "humans are not responsible".
We DO KNOW. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Many of these models and evidence were all gathered during the solar minimums, which showed a significant increase. The trends are very clear now and there is no doubt that the warnings of significant and extreme events will come to pass (as they already are).
Now that we are entering into a new solar maximum period, we can only expect this to contribute to what we've already set in motion.
It's clear that there is a huge disconnect (cognitive dissonance) between what we "know" and what we are "willing" to do.
A global tax might help, but since humans only truly worship 1 thing and 1 thing only, then this is probably the best approach to forcing us to start changing behavior.
Personally, I am a real pessimist about all of this, since our ongoing abuse to each other, and the environment, and everything this planet contains is so easily documented as being absolutely terrible. I see no reason to believe that we are going to change (other then wishful, hopium "thinking", ie., self-delusion).
A tax would mean that the worst offenders (industry and business) would simply continue to function, while passing this new cost down to the brain-dead connedsumer, who will go right on doing what they are doing now. They, in turn, would pay this new cost if they can.
This also means that the developed countries (the worst polluters in global warming) would continue to pollute just as much (in my opinion, I'm no economist) but the least developed (and least offensive polluters) would be forced to use other energy sources, many which cannot be taxed or regulated, and many which will contribute to the problem we're trying to solve anyway.
This will impoverish those that have the least more then those that have the most, while still enabling those that are already the worst offenders to continue their global warming ways.
Humans will essentially due whatever they "have to" to continue on this same path of comfort and expansion, all of which requires intensive energy consumption.
An example of this would be the automobile. Nobody "needs" an automobile, but most of us have one (or several). We will do anything we have to to get one. We're not about to give it up. Our supposed "need" is driving our behavior versus changing our lifestyle to end this "need".
This analogy is true for all of modern civilization, an energy intensive and highly pollutive existence that has directly led to global warming. Nobody "needs" any of this, but we WILL do it anyway, no matter what. We are not about to voluntarily give it up. A new tax won't stop this either, just make it more expensive. I also doubt that it will slow anything down either. It will simply transfer wealth, permitting "polluters" that can pay to keep on paying, and those that cannot, to resort to other means (but they are not the problem, it is the developed world that IS the problem).
I applaud any efforts to bring attention to this issue, as I greatly fear for the lives and future of my own children. My generation has chosen to remain largely ignorant and uninformed about what the future now holds for humanity, what I consider a crime. Calling deniers climate terrorists, especially those that are actively suppressing the facts and the information and are funding the denial movement, is serious business, but it's true nonetheless. They are willing to sacrifice countless generations of humans yet to be born for their incredible arrogance and apathy. They ARE terrorists, on the same scale as mass murderers of history.
Millions will now die due to our ongoing ignorance and arrogance, directly and indirectly due to climate change effects(drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, famine, disease), with the later two being the most deadly. We already know that millions will have to relocated.
It is my opinion, through my own efforts at examining our culture and history, that we will actually fail, and fail miserably to prevent catastrophe, because we cannot bring ourselves to change in fundamental ways. Our civilization is at fault, ie., the methods by which is was constructed and continues to exist (energy intensive). This has to change, but probably won't. ~Survival Acres~
He should say energy should be rationed, not taxes.