Too late

In the United States, climate change is a touchy subject.

Some Americans still doubt that humans are altering the climate. Not James Hansen. He stands among those who have been concerned the longest with humans' rising output of carbon dioxide and its implications for the planet.

His spacious New York office is filled with heavy 70s wooden furniture.

Piles of books and scientific studies cover every available surface. Photos of his grandchildren hang on the wall. "The newest one is Lauren Emma," he says, indicating one picture. "She's two-and-a-half days old there," he adds.

Hansen is director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University.

He says he doesn't want to scare his grandchildren about the future, but does use them "shamelessly" to pull at the heartstrings of adults "because what we are doing is affecting the lives primarily of these young people."

Neglected climate protection

With so many immediate concerns, climate change doesn't figure highly for many people in the US.

On Capitol Hill, most energy has been spent addressing the poor state of the economy and health care reform. Action on climate has drifted into the background in Washington.

That disappoints Hansen. He says President Barack Obama missed a rare opportunity.

"When he came into office his popularity was so high," Hansen said. "The public would [have been] willing to move the country."

Now, with the economy in turmoil, his sheen tarnished and his team's attention focused on reelection, Obama has no room to maneuver - even though attacking the climate problem would also help address energy security and the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Cap-and-trade solution

Though the US lobbied hard at climate negotiations in the 1990s for a market-based approach to solving the problem, today federal 'cap-and-trade' legislation looks like a distant prospect at best.

Yet Hansen opposes the kind of European-style emissions trading scheme that many environmentalists would like to see the US embrace.

"There is no way to prevent big banks from being involved in a cap-and-trade system," Hansen says.

"Where does the money come from that the banks are making? It comes from the public of course, in energy prices."

Hansen fears that emissions trading schemes are too open to money-making while doing too little to curb emissions.

Though shy by nature, in recent years Hansen has increasingly stepped out of the confines of academic discussion to take a more prominent role in advocating the urgency of the task at hand.

He has attended climate demonstrations in Washington, D.C. He was even arrested. In editorials and open letters to President Obama, he has appealed to policymakers and taken aim at industries that profit from fossil fuels.

But his criticism isn't directed only at them.

He also takes aim at large environmental organizations, some of which "have been in Washington too long," for pinning their colors to a cap-and-trade mast.

"They've become part of the system and are willing to promote ineffectual policies in order not to upset too much the powers that be."

For transparency's sake

As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest source of energy, they'll continue to be bought and burned.

The trouble is, the true costs of their pollution are not factored into their final price - they're picked up by the public.

The US National Research Council estimates that coal alone causes at least 21 000 premature deaths each year and generates $120 billion dollars annually in hidden costs – not including those tied to climate change.

Hansen would like to see these costs levied at source, and their revenues returned directly to the public. He says a 'fee-and-dividend' system would be fairer, more transparent and more effective than carbon trading.

"You have to put a price on carbon emissions. It should be collected on the fossil fuel companies, and the money would have to be distributed to the public," Hansen says. "Rather than governments deciding 'oh I'm going to use this money to fund solar panels' it should be the market that makes those decisions."

Yet he fears that democracies appear ill-placed to take this kind of action.

It's estimated that the oil and gas industry in Washington spends more than a billion dollars each year on lobbying. Democracies in which decision-makers only stay in power for two-to-six years seem too focused on short-term objectives, Hansen laments.

He is, however, optimistic that China recognizes its long-term interests in weaning itself from fossil fuels.

"If we are going to get action, if that's going to happen soon, it will probably have to be led by China, which is not a democracy, but which seems to be making rational decisions," he says.

Author: Miriam Braun / sad
Editor: Nathan Witkop