Tag: James Hansen

nuclear power, science, BlondCounty
Collamer

Mapping the Pro-Nuclear Brain

Scientists ask the Pro-Nukers: “Do the positive possibilities that nuclear energy poses outweigh the negative? How would building more nuclear power plants in the US affect animals, plant life, people, and the economy? Should the US dedicate more time, money, and energy into creating more power plants or should the US try and shut down what power plants it already has?” Then they map the answers on the brain…

NAFTA on Steroids
Climate, Tar Sands

Fees on Carbon in the Era of Trans-Pacific Partnership – By Peter Jefferson Nichols

The revenue generated from a Carbon Tax, which should really be called a fee, would be returned to the citizenry, either through reductions in taxes or monthly dividends. That money would offset any increase in the cost of gas at the pump and would off-set already exorbitant financial stress caused by carbon release (i.e. medical bills and (un)natural disaster relief).

Alberta Boreal Forest
Climate, Tar Sands

Peter Jefferson Nichols: A NY Times Columnist’s Misguided Crusade

Joe Nocera in the New York Times believes Dr. James Hansen, because he is head of NASA’s Goddard Institute, should just shut up instead of participating in the anti-Keystone XL movement. Peter Jefferson Nichols argues this should be the role of any government scientist who recognizes the danger of passing climate tipping points, producing irreversible climate impacts.

Tar Sands, Forward on Climate
Climate, Tar Sands

Peter Jefferson Nichols: The NYT Misleads on How to Fix Climate Change

The Keystone XL is a great line in the sand. It requires an executive approval from President Obama because it crosses an international boundary, a rare “Yeah” or “Nay” for a head of state. Should the President reject the project based on its adverse climatic effects, he would become the first world leader to recognize the mutually beneficial relationship between ecology and economy.