Breakthrough: Is James Hansen Undermining his Credibility?

Those of us who are children of the climate movement must never forget that we are standing on the shoulders of all those who came before us. One of those great individuals is Dr. James Hansen, a man who has dedicated his life to getting the facts right and raising scientific awareness on global warming. For his unwavering courage and commitment we should be deeply grateful.

But as the national debate has shifted from climate science to climate policy, Dr. Hansen has proven his limits as a political spokesperson. The latest incident took place two days ago in a testimony to Congress (PDF), when Dr. Hansen declared the fossil fuel industry should be tried for high crimes against humanity and that he would "fight" against any policy proposal except a 100% cap-and-dividend agenda.

The crux of the matter is this: Dr. Hansen is a climate scientist -- not a policy expert, nor an energy scientist, nor a politician. He has limited political and policy instincts, and he is undermining his scientific credibility. From here on out, Dr. Hansen should concentrate on the climate science -- and climate advocates should be wary of placing him on the pedestal he has been given.

1) Extremist politics alienates the public and creates enemies

There's a good rule of thumb about the use of the Holocaust Bomb: as the length of any debate increases, the probability of someone citing Nazis or the Holocaust to support their argument approaches one. Dr. Hansen is a case study. He has compared fossil fuels to the Holocaust on multiple occasions. In a public email to energy policy experts in July 2007, Dr Hansen stated:

"If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains -- no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."

Despite objections, Dr. Hansen went on to repeat the statement verbatim in a testimonial (PDF) to the utility board of Iowa on October 22nd, 2007. Once again:

"If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains -- no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."

Andy Revkin of the New York Times carefully documented the political fallout on Dot Earth. It began with an outraged response from the president of the National Mining Association, who demanded an apology for miners and railroad workers:

"The suggestion that coal utilization for electricity generation can be equated with the systematic extermination of European Jewry is both repellant and preposterous" Mr. Naasz wrote. "Your advocacy on behalf of global warming is ill served by an invidious comparison that manages not only to trivialize the suffering of millions but undermines your credibility as a rational observer of a complex phenomenon."

Kenneth Jacobson, deputy national director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote:

"From every side, I think the use of these kinds of holocaust analogies is counterproductive, disturbing, and offensive. People who use these kinds of arguments, as Hansen did, are trying to be deliberately provocative, knowing full well that the Holocaust is the epitome of evil in the world. But I think there's a price to be paid, in terms of the offensive element for Holocaust survivors, and it also debases the currency of genocide. It trivializes what the Holocaust was about. Clearly there are serious environmental issues, and I think he's raising very important matters. But to resort to this kind of argumentation it also makes you wonder about the confidence he has in his own argument."

How did Dr. Hansen respond to the political fallout? Here's an excerpt:

"There is nothing scientifically invalid about the above paragraph. If this paragraph makes you uncomfortable, well, perhaps it should."

Andy Revkin wrote his own letter in response to Dr. Hansen's statements:

"Your letter back to the coal rep says:
"There is nothing scientifically invalid about the above paragraph. If this paragraph makes you uncomfortable, well, perhaps it should."

As I said above, we live in a world where science is not the only thing that matters."

Now fast-forward to Monday, June 23rd. In a testimony (PDF) to Congress -- an arena where words will be recorded for the remainder of history and are chosen with the utmost circumspection -- Dr. Hansen said the following:

"CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

2) Dr. Hansen opposes public investments in clean energy technology -- ignoring the world's top energy scientists

In his June 23rd Congressional testimony, Dr. Hansen declared he would fight against any agenda other than cap-and-dividend:

"The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: "One hundred percent dividend or fight!""

In other words, he believes 0% of the money raised from a carbon tax or auctioned carbon permits should be provided for the development and deployment of clean energy technology. In essence, Dr. Hansen thinks carbon pricing and regulation will be the silver bullet for climate policy.

As I documented in a recent post -- and as we have documented time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again (and again) -- an immense and ever-growing body of evidence, supported by energy scientists and policy experts across the board, challenges the efficacy of carbon pricing and calls for massive public investments in clean energy.

One recent example of an expert criticizing cap-and-dividend is Jim Barret, an economist and Executive Director of Redefining Progress, who wrote a smart critique, "Against cap-and-dividend," in the June 13th edition of Gristmill:

"To make climate policy work economically, the money must be invested in energy efficiency and renewables...
I am virtually certain that, despite the fact that [cap-and-dividend] is easily understandable and very good in terms of income distribution, it won't attract massive public support from people who would not support other forms of cap and trade. Telling people that climate policy won't be as bad as they think is not a message that will drive people to get on board with enthusiasm."

Dr. Hansen is obviously committed to tackling the climate problem head-on -- so why does he ignore the growing expert energy consensus? The burden is on Dr. Hansen to prove why public investments in clean energy are unnecessary. Where is the evidence that a high enough price on carbon is politically achievable? Almost all the evidence we've encountered -- domestically and internationally -- demonstrates that we will never achieve a price for carbon high enough to develop and deploy clean energy at the pace necessary to tackle global warming.

Political and policy realities must guide everything from word choice and framing to effective policy strategy. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that no matter how loudly we call for a high carbon price -- or how loudly we call for high crimes against the opposition -- industry, policymakers, and the public will continue to demand measures to reduce the costs of any climate policy. Major public investment to reduce the price of clean energy -- as opposed to carbon prices that increase the price of dirty energy -- is not only a more viable political strategy. It is a policy necessity that should be accorded the privileged status usually reserved for carbon pricing.

A cap-and-dividend approach to energy policy is not mutually exclusive with government investment in renewable energy technology. I don't know the details of Dr. Hansen's policy preferences well enough to know if he would support, say, ending oil subsidies to fund renewable energy research, but as I'm sure you know it is an idea that has been thrown around. It would be difficult to enact due to the clout that lobbyists tend to have, but for this same reason I am nervous about the idea of Congress distributing the proceeds of a permit auction. You just KNOW that carbon capture, 'clean coal,' nuclear, etc. will make out very well in any negotiations about how to spend this money, and even with investment in wind and solar consumers will be hurt in the immediate aftermath of carbon caps. You write that "the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that no matter how loudly we call for a high carbon price -- or how loudly we call for high crimes against the opposition -- industry, policymakers, and the public will continue to demand measures to reduce the costs of any climate policy." I agree completely, which is why I am surprised that you are so adamantly against cap-and-dividend. Subsidies to clean energy is not a guarantee that clean energy will be cheap, at least in the near future. Also, a large percentage of Americans will not have access to clean energy for years even under the best-case scenario. If some money is not returned to consumers to counteract their rising energy costs, any sort of carbon capping will be politically unfeasible and will quite frankly hurt the most vulnerable Americans. I don't think we necessarily need 100% dividends, but I don't think it should be rejected out of hand. And I don't mean to say that you've arrived at your own position haphazardly; I know that's not the case at all. But I think that we need to be realistic about the short-term effects on energy prices and how to shield consumers from that if we have any hope of really addressing the climate crisis. Finally, while Dr. Hansen may be venturing into areas that are not exactly his expertise, his understanding of climate science makes him more qualified than many politicians and economists to speak about climate policy. For proof, see any of the politicians who think global warming is a hoax, or economists who think it isn't, but that we shouldn't worry because it's poor nations and not the U.S. that will be the most screwed. Posted by: Diana at June 25, 2008 5:37 PM

Max and Diana, thanks for your comments. Max -- 1) I don't think asking Dr. Hansen to concentrate on climate science is an attempt to limit his freedom of speech. If the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that his role as a political spokesperson is harming his credibility as our movement's top climate scientist, it should be our duty to bring this to his attention. 2) The ETS is a case study of the inadequacy of carbon pricing. See here for more -- http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/03/it_has_become_an_article.shtml Diana -- 1) Remember that Hansen explicitly declared "100% dividend or fight." That doesn't seem to leave much room for flexibility. But please let me know if you find evidence that Dr. Hansen supports large-scale public investments. 2) The government has a much better track record at promoting technological development than managing massive regulatory schemes like cap-and-trade. See our documentation in "Fast,Clean,Cheap" http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Fast%20Clean%20Cheap.pdf 3) I never said I was adamantly against re-distributing a portion of the funds. I'm not against distributing some of the proceeds from a carbon tax or permit auction to spur job creation and retention and to provide a safety net for the disadvantaged -- it's good politics, and it's equitable. But let's be clear: funding clean energy development and deployment should be our top priority, for both policy and political reasons. Politically, funding innovation to reduce the price of clean energy is popular. The funds should likely originate from a carbon tax or permit auction, and that's how they should largely be seen -- as a mechanism to raise funds for a big investment in clean energy innovation -- not as the ultimate and primary policy goal. Let's not imagine that the woes of establishing a high carbon price can be solved by simply telling people it won't be as bad as they think. Jim Barret, Executive Director of Redefining Progress, summed it up here: "I am virtually certain that, despite the fact that [cap-and-dividend] is easily understandable and very good in terms of income distribution, it won't attract massive public support from people who would not support other forms of cap and trade. Telling people that climate policy won't be as bad as they think is not a message that will drive people to get on board with enthusiasm." Posted by: Teryn Norris at June 25, 2008 9:01 PM

Post a comment