NASA’s Hansen Presses Obama for a Carbon Cost and Nuclear Push (before STOU)

[joshcryer]

It would have made good sense to give energy/climate a high priority right at the start. Solving our fossil fuel addiction and altering the course of global warming can be handled with a good overall strategy, but that strategy would not be based on a compromise that has special interests defining the details.

That’s why I http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf">wrote a letter to Michelle and Barack Obama , starting it while stuck in London, where Anniek had a heart attack. John Holdren agreed to deliver the letter, but not until after he was confirmed, so I made it a public letter. I understand that John told the media that he was not free to discuss what he communicated to the President and what reaction he received. In any case, I never heard back anything from the White House.

Another reason for concern: the President’s comment on global warming in his 2009 State of the Union message, which began with something to the effect: I know some of you don’t believe in global warming…

It is not a matter of belief. Galileo had to accept the reality that whether the Earth orbited the sun or vice versa was a matter of belief (if he did not want to go to an early grave), so he recanted his statements (probably with his fingers crossed).

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/nasas-hansen-presses-obama-for-a-carbon-cost-and-nuclear-push/

Good going Hansen.

[bananas]

1. Hansen is mistaken about nuclear energy

The Administration has been reluctant to admit that the Carter and Clinton/Gore administrations made a huge mistake in pulling the U.S. back from development of advanced nuclear technology.

Unfortunately, Hansen has fallen for a lot of the pro-nuclear hype.
It's also unfortunate that he's fallen for the conservative hate speech which blames Democrats, environmentalists, and hollywood liberals for any and all problems, including the problems with nuclear energy.

[joshcryer]

2. If the Clinton administration didn't cancel IFR we'd be burning nuclear waste by now.

We wouldn't be wondering what to do with it. Hansen is right.

[bananas]

3. No, we wouldn't be burning nuclear waste. nt

[joshcryer]

4. Wrong, IFR burns the vast majority of nuclear waste leaving only a 400 year byproduct.

A far different scenario from the plutonium stockpiles that the LWRs are creating.