He opposes XL -- I get that. But, he opposes natural gas. He opposes nuclear.

I would like to see a breakthrough moment in which James Hansen comes out in support of something.

Hansen is a hero of mine. His work on global warming was world changing.

But this? Tar sands will make global warming unsolvable?

This happens so often -- scientists retire to go on the lecture circuit for the unhinged.

... especially when it does so to the scale of tar sand extraction & consumption.

He "comes out in support of" reduced consumption, increased efficiency and
anything that will penalise the fossil fuel industry that is still growing at a frightening
rate - out of control & out of reach of mere laws - as he recognises that the impact
to the global environment is far more important than some dipshit's annual bonus
for meeting their increased sales goals.

What's so hard to understand with that? (unless you are in favour of fossil fuels)

Does he actively support wind, solar, biofuels? I cannot tell, and I've looked.

It's very hard to find things to say that most people will get behind, so of course you come off sounding like you oppose everything.

Hansen supports leaving a planet that is livable for our grandchildren. It's just that he recognizes we're not going to get there from here in time to prevent a global crisis by doing the same insignificant, piecemeal things we've done for the past 20 years.

They will require energy. It's really that simple.

I have no doubt that, 50-100 years from now, people will DESIRE much more energy than they have access to. That won't make it appear from nowhere, though. If we have destroyed our most concentrated resource bases to provide energy, people will have to make due with less. It's really that simple as well.

If we hit 4C of warming by 2100 as now projected, much of civilization as we know it will be toast. Much of the "busy" work going on will be the work of people simply trying to survive from day to day.

I wouldn't try because I've never disagreed with that, except the "simply trying to survive from day to day." That's extreme, but it's your opinion.

.
.
.

the scientist is referring to use of the waste.

There was an article on DU about this before.

I found this though by googling:

____________________________________________________________________________

http://grist.org/news/huge-tar-sands-waste-pile-grows-alongside-detroit-river/


In the few short months since it began handling the Canadian oil, the refinery has already spewed out a three-story mountain of black waste covering an area the size a city block. That mountain is still growing, and it is not covered with anything to prevent tiny carbon particles from blowing over the city.

The waste can’t be legally used as fuel in the U.S. So the Koch brothers have bought up the pile and plan to sell it to be burned in poorer countries that enjoy freedom from all of America’s bothersome environmental regulations.
_____________________________________________________________________________

So Canada is allowing pollution to spread to other countries by supplying them with burnable materials that would not be allowed in Canada or the USA.

I think there is something wrong with that.

CC