[JR: Bill Becker beat me to the punch with this great post. I assert the United States will never do a manned mission to Mars this century because by the time such a mission is possible, around 2030, the nation and the world will be desperately engaged in a life-and-death struggle that uses all its brainpower and resources to try to 1) stop catastrophic global warming and 2) minimize the misery for billions of people. I'd take a bet on that if I had any chance of living long enough to collect....]

One of the great ironies of our time is this: We have learned to walk on the Moon, but we haven’t yet learned to walk on the Earth. It is an irony that is fast devolving into a tragedy.

Since the first man landed on the Moon in 1969, we have continued dumping greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere and making our planet less habitable.

Meantime, under the direction of the Bush Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is working toward the goal of settling the Moon and Mars.

If we could do both — put human beings on other planets while practicing good stewardship of Earth — all would be well. But the next missions to the Moon and Mars are being prepared at the expense of life at home.

In a report Sunday, 60 Minutes gushed over the Administration’s Mission to Mars. Without question, NASA is proving it still has the right stuff. Four years ago, the space agency successfully deployed two “rovers” on Mars and they’ve been sending back photos and data ever since.

One scientist compared it to shooting a basketball from New York to Los Angeles, and sinking the shot without touching the rim. Now, the plan is to put American astronauts back on the Moon in preparation for a manned voyage to Mars. As 60 Minutes’ correspondent Bob Simon put it:

From the mountains of Utah to the factory floors of Cleveland, from the space center in Houston to the marshes of Virginia, spacesuits are being tested, rockets are being fired, and capsules are being designed. The United States is once again aiming to launch astronauts to the moon and yes, even, to Mars.

What Simon didn’t mention was the unconscionable trade-off the Administration is making between our planet and the exploration of others. In February 2006, you may recall, the Bush Administration edited NASA’s mission statement to delete the phrase “understand and protect our home planet” [which James Hansen wrote about here].

Read more

Newsweek’s cover story on the presidential candidates and global warming quotes UC Berkeley energy professor Dan Kammen, a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)’s presidential campaign:

It’s unusual to have a Republican candidate who openly disagrees with the Bush administration on the need for capping carbon emissions. There’s more disagreement with the current administration than with each other.

The idea that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is closer to the Democratic candidates running for president than he is to the president is popular with the political elite. Joe Klein similarly said “McCain’s distance from George W. Bush seems greater than from the Democrats” on foreign policy issues like global warming. What McCain says he wants to do about global warming certainly sounds better than what the Bush administration has accomplished.

A look at the facts paints a different picture.

• Like Bush, McCain’s global warming talk is good — both speaking in generalities about needing to be “good stewards” and get “serious” about climate change.
• Like Bush, Candidate McCain is drenched in ties to Big Oil — McCain’s campaign is run by lobbyists for Saudi Arabia and energy companies, and McCain has repeatedly blocked attempts to roll back subsidies for Big Oil.
• Like Bush, McCain uses China and India as an excuse for inaction — When asked about global warming policy, both Sen. McCain and Bush say that India and China have to participate in a global agreement — ignoring the fact that unlike the United States, both countries are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, the rest of the industrialized world is not making excuses — they’ve set to work.

McCain shares much with Bush. McCain’s one significant difference, played up by his supporters, is his call for a cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions. But McCain’s vision of how such a system would work — despite the words of Kammen and Klein — is starkly different from that of the Democratic candidates. There are three core guidelines by which global warming policy should be judged:

1. Does it meet scientific principles?
2. Does it make polluters pay?
3. Does it promote social equity?

Sen. Clinton has released a detailed global warming plan, as has Sen. Obama. Both follow the above guidelines, calling for 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, supporting 100% auction of pollution allowances, and prioritizing investment in green jobs and helping low-income households.

On the other hand, McCain has failed to release any clear global warming policy, and his economic and health care plans are designed for the benefit of millionaires and giant corporations at the expense of everyone else. However, McCain’s people have made it clear he does have one bedrock principle when it comes to global warming policy — “He wants to see the use of nukes.”

UPDATE: Dan Kammen responds: Read more

This is going to be technology week on Climate Progress. I will be describing the technologies that the nation and the world will use to avoid catastrophic warming, and discussing things like commercialization and deployment.

I will also present the “silver bullet” technology that will probably be the single biggest contributor to replacing coal by 2050 — when exactly I post will be contingent on when Salon runs my long piece on this technology.

I will lay out all of the “stabilization wedges” that I think the world will be employing. And I’ll even try to lay out a scenario for how I think the politics may play out to make this all happen.

Strangely, the more I have thought about this in the last week, the more optimistic I have become — which is the opposite of how thinking about most things climate related usually affect me. I think the world can stay below 450 ppm, if we want to, while sustaining development — and, of course, without any technology breakthroughs. Indeed, to echo Ken’s Apollo 13 metaphor, we are going to have to save ourselves with the technologies we have now (which includes what will be commercial by, say, 2020).

More to come!

[JR: Ken Levenson, who blogs at checklisttowardzerocarbon, wins. The excellent analogy to Apollo 13 makes this post a must-read. And while I don't agree with every word, the analysis is solid.]

Joe’s Question #3 — “I specifically challenge Pielke and B.I. to state what “atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations” are “acceptable.”"

[Pielke's] Answer: We define “acceptable levels” in our Nature paper as 500 ppm (the level focused on by IPCC WG III) and 450 ppm (the level focused on by the EU and implicitly in the FCCC).

My take on it:
Pielke never states that 500ppm is the acceptable goal or appropriate or any such thing — he takes no position. 500ppm is merely presented as pivot point for his attempt to discredit another aspect of the IPCC report. It’s a bizarre and audacious follow-up bait-and-switch, to try and get away with.

Joe’s Question #2 – “I also challenge Pielke and B.I. to indicate where the IPCC ever said “we already have all the technology we need to deal with climate change.”

[Pielke's] Answer: The IPCC SPM WG III writes, “The range of stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades.” Assessed stabilization ranges include 450 ppm CO2eq (or about 400 CO2).

My take on it:
The quote Pielke cites is, to be kind, a stretch. Seems Pielke’s more interested in a debating point than progress.

Read more