Comments on: The Climate in Copenhagen http://www.earthbeatradio.org/copenhagen/ Your climate change broadcast. Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:10:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: estaciones de radio en vivohttp://www.earthbeatradio.org/copenhagen/#comment-1022 estaciones de radio en vivo Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:13:36 +0000 http://www.earthbeatradio.org/?p=1512#comment-1022 I digged this for more news from you. thanks, Caroline I digged this for more news from you. thanks, Caroline

]]> By: David Lewishttp://www.earthbeatradio.org/copenhagen/#comment-651 David Lewis Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:45:08 +0000 http://www.earthbeatradio.org/?p=1512#comment-651 You said on this show that Hansen's widely heard view is that Copenhagen should fail rather than create an agreement that doesn't get us heading toward 350 ppm. It isn't.Hansen, as published in his NYTimes op-ed, and in interviews such as the one he gave to The Guardian, is saying something else. He isn't mentioning his view that the present target assumed by most at Copenhagen to be what civilization should be aiming for, i.e. 450 ppm, is a "recipe for global disaster". What he is doing is pushing carbon tax and dividend, saying if the Copenhagen negotiators choose cap and trade it will be better if there is no agreement.Its preposterous. The guy who has more stature to argue that 350 ppm is what we should aim for, when he steps up to the plate in the biggest spotlight there has ever been for the climate issue, has something better to do than take this opportunity to so much as mention that the target all these other people call the borderline between safe and "dangerous" climate change is actually not supported by the science.Krugman cut up Hansen's arguments about cap and trade in a few sentences. That's what a liberal Nobel winning economist thinks of our best climatologist's understanding of economics.Hansen's case is so weak he is pissing away his voice. As he makes weak arguments about his choice of policy, more people will be led to question how strong his arguments can be on climate science.Its one thing to advocate policy you believe in or prefer, and quite another to go so far as to call for destroying the best chance likely to come up for years to get domestic and international commitment to do something, because you don't like the method others support to get it done.Nothing is better than something?That's what Hansen wants us to believe. He'd rather have nothing, than binding international action which includes the US for the first time, aimed at a target which can be strengthened at any time, because he doesn't like cap and trade.Read "Saving Kyoto" by Chilchinisky. She wrote the cap and trade section of the Kyoto agreement, during the last two days, after Gore and Clinton prevailed against the EU and got them to drop their preferred idea of carbon taxes. You may prefer the idea of carbon taxes, but at least understand that there are reasons that people supporting cap and trade have that aren't touched by the arguments Hansen, and you, are making. You said on this show that Hansen’s widely heard view is that Copenhagen should fail rather than create an agreement that doesn’t get us heading toward 350 ppm. It isn’t.

Hansen, as published in his NYTimes op-ed, and in interviews such as the one he gave to The Guardian, is saying something else. He isn’t mentioning his view that the present target assumed by most at Copenhagen to be what civilization should be aiming for, i.e. 450 ppm, is a “recipe for global disaster”. What he is doing is pushing carbon tax and dividend, saying if the Copenhagen negotiators choose cap and trade it will be better if there is no agreement.

Its preposterous. The guy who has more stature to argue that 350 ppm is what we should aim for, when he steps up to the plate in the biggest spotlight there has ever been for the climate issue, has something better to do than take this opportunity to so much as mention that the target all these other people call the borderline between safe and “dangerous” climate change is actually not supported by the science.

Krugman cut up Hansen’s arguments about cap and trade in a few sentences. That’s what a liberal Nobel winning economist thinks of our best climatologist’s understanding of economics.

Hansen’s case is so weak he is pissing away his voice. As he makes weak arguments about his choice of policy, more people will be led to question how strong his arguments can be on climate science.

Its one thing to advocate policy you believe in or prefer, and quite another to go so far as to call for destroying the best chance likely to come up for years to get domestic and international commitment to do something, because you don’t like the method others support to get it done.

Nothing is better than something?

That’s what Hansen wants us to believe. He’d rather have nothing, than binding international action which includes the US for the first time, aimed at a target which can be strengthened at any time, because he doesn’t like cap and trade.

Read “Saving Kyoto” by Chilchinisky. She wrote the cap and trade section of the Kyoto agreement, during the last two days, after Gore and Clinton prevailed against the EU and got them to drop their preferred idea of carbon taxes. You may prefer the idea of carbon taxes, but at least understand that there are reasons that people supporting cap and trade have that aren’t touched by the arguments Hansen, and you, are making.

]]>