Jim: You have to recognize that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they’re going to be used. To change that situation, you have to place a gradually rising price on carbon emissions.

We have to have a very simple system—put a fee on fossil fuels at their origin at the mine or the port of entry. No exceptions.

If the carbon price rises to $115 per ton of carbon dioxide, considering the amount of oil, gas, and coal used last year in the United States, that would generate $670 billion dollars. That’s between $7,500 and $9,000 dollars per family.

That money needs to be given 100 percent to the public so that they have the resources to adjust their lifestyles—such as to buy more efficient vehicles or insulate their homes. As the carbon price rises, it’s going to become less and less sensible, for instance, to import food from halfway around the world. The economics would favor a nearby farm, as opposed to agriculture at a great distance.

You cannot have these boondoggles in which we invest billions and billions of dollars in so-called clean coal and give money to polluters. James Hansen

Unless one is somehow committed to the success of the current system (and I mean in ways more telling than needing a job to get by) it is hard to find a reason why one should care. Even if the “worst” was to happen and the gov’t went “bankrupt,” how is that going to affect me or any other average person?

Sure, they’re would be some “economic dislocation” – but maybe that’s what we really need to bring this consumption fest to a close, lead us back to supporting one another rather than propping up this false mythos about individual responsibility.