“Recent events have been spiraling down so rapidly that I find it hard to sleep. Ex-President Clinton campaigns for a huge pipeline to carry Canadian tar sands…. Dogged insistence by environmental groups that intermittent renewable energies are the only alternative to fossil fuels.…”
Writing from China earlier this week, and no doubt preparing his testimony for Thursday’s “Keystone XL and the National Interest Determination” hearing in Washington before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, climate scientist/policy activist James Hansen has once again laid bare the internal contradictions of Big Green’s codependency on dilute ‘green’.
In his missive Sleepless in Ningbo, Dr. Hansen described how the Chinese authorities during a tour of the country’s renewable projects gave him some sobering news. China’s energy pie is divided into 78% coal, 12% gas, 7% oil, and 3% renewables. “They [are] making a major effort to increase the portion from renewables, striving for a goal of 6% within a few more years.” However, with demand growth of nearly 9%, net emissions are rising, not falling Hansen pointedly notes.
Hansen has distain for all-hat, no-cattle renewables, was the subject of two recent MasterResource posts: Is the Environmental Movement Net CO2 Positive? (James Hansen wants to know) and Energy Realism Amid Climate Alarmism: James Hansen Rides Again. It is nuclear or bust, if it is not already bust, according to Hansen’s energy math.
Just two weeks later, Hansen continues to rev up the reality-versus-imaging conflict within the mainstream environmental movement. Added to the grassroots rebellion against wind turbines, particularly in the Northeast and in southeastern Canada, a civil war of sorts is underway among anti-fossil-fuel environmentalists.
Dr. Hansen’s most recent quotations speak for themselves:
“… efficiency and renewables are not causing carbon emissions to decline – on the contrary, emissions are growing rapidly [because of demand growth]. This situation was predictable.”
“Foundations and major environmental organizations (“greens”) are pretty much on the same page, so don’t expect to get support if you question their position. Instead, expect to be attacked.”
“[Green] groups have scientists on their staffs, but they do not act like scientists, continually questioning their own position with an open mind. Instead, like scientist-deniers, renewables-can-do-all scientists act like talking-head lawyers hired to defend a predetermined position.”
“I used to think that [greens] would change their tune as a little more empirical data on energy use accumulated. Instead, like climate-deniers, they cherry-pick data, concluding that we are on the verge of renewables providing all of our energy.”
“The Koch brothers could not purchase such powerful support for their enterprise. The renewables-can-do-all greens are combining with the fossil industry to lock-in widespread expansion of fracking.”
“Courageous actions to block mountaintop removal, tar sands pipelines, destructive long-wall mining and all such things will be in vain without adequate energy alternatives. Obama is not supporting fossil fuels because he loves them. He does not have adequate alternatives.”
“Greens fanatically support an anti-nuclear-power agenda, asserting that even low level radiation is harmful to human health, an assertion that is not supported unequivocally by scientific evidence.”
What will come during Thursday’s testimony? Will Hansen tell fellow panelist Michael Brune that he is net positive CO2 for the Sierra Club’s anti-nuclear, pro-renewables energy policy? Will Brune tell Hansen he is breaking the looking glass of a ‘green’ energy future? Today, we may find out.