Wait, what? The UK Guardian has run an article in which hyper-Warmists James Hansen and Bill McKibben are criticizing Hillary Clinton’s so-called “climate change” plan as being not aggressive enough. Then we get this
Clinton’s outline would put the US on track to supply 33% of the country’s electricity needs through renewables by 2027. That’s a mere 8% improvement over Obama’s plan.
It’s not enough, according to Hansen. Renewables are a part of how the US will wean itself off fossil fuels, but the market has to be allowed to determine which combination of renewable fuels – not just solar – makes the most sense in each region. “You can’t just legislate that,†said Hansen. Clinton’s plan “is going to make energy more expensive. You need to let energy efficiency and renewables and nuclear power and anything else that comes up compete.â€
Hansen emphasized that whatever domestic policy we adopt towards climate change has to have a global reach, a key point absent in the solar proposal. “In places like China and India, they have to move off of coal for electricity pretty rapidly or the world is screwed.â€
Hansen said a credible candidate on climate change would be talking about policy that would allow the price of fossil fuels to rise gradually. “You have to recognize that as long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest energy, we’ll just keep burning them,†he said.
Interesting. On one hand, Hansen is saying that all old type energy sources, primarily coal and fossil fuels (which have a long track record of efficiency, reliability, and low cost) must be eliminated, and then he yammers on about letting the “free market” pick which Cult of Climastrology Approved energy sources will work.
So far, the free market has determined that these renewables are mostly a no-go, at least not without massive subsidies from Government. The one that truly works, hydro-electric, is off-limits to the hardcore envirowackos, who often want existing dams to be torn down.
