A very good presentation, direct to Obama, the latest from climate action pioneer Dr. James Hansen. 

But he makes a rash statement.  That 4th generation, waste eating nuclear reactors can be ready for mass deployment in the 2015 to 2020 time window.

Hansen is picking technology, and doing something he says he is against, asking government to pick technology.  He uses the old false dilemna fallacy, in a soft way.  Stating that we, america and europe,  maybe able to rely on renewable/conservation energy technology to replace fossil fuel, but China and India won't.  Leaving the reader to conclude that nuclear and CCS will be necessary.

Before R&D can test 4th generation nuclear power and CCS, how can they be a necessary part of the climate change cure?  Analysis of data compiled by non-regulated industries like nuclear and CCS, used only in oil extraction so far, can't be trusted as a basis for mass production capital investment.

As Hansen points out, we are in a crisis situation, we can't waste time and money on untested techologies, to find they are fatally flawed only after mass production and adoption are underway.  That is the problem with present nuclear power, problems were glossed over with industry/lobbyist hype.

Since we are in a climate crisis approaching the GHG tipping point, Hansen and his group ought to place more of their emphasis and energy behind renewable/conservation technology that has already proven to be worthy of immediate mass production and mass adoption.

The self-contradictory bias against "picking technology" is the glaring error in this piece.  He askews it, begging instead for a carbon tax, then proceeds to pick 4th generation nuclear power and CCS.

I suspect the same old "free" marketeerian bias is at the heart of this mistake.

It is time for government to pick technology, just as it did during WW2 war production, then order millions of units of renewable/conservation energy devices, spurring mass production and stimulating a new green energy economy.

Hansen completely overlooks subsidy diversion as well, the idea of removing subsidies from fossil fuel industries and applying them as direct incentive for consumers to purchase these new energy economy devices.  Why?  It's the remaining bias against government intervention in "free" markets.

Wake up and smell the anti-regulation, anti-government "free" marketeerian caused financial meltdown! Please Dr. Hansen, pick renewable/conservation technology, just as we picked devices like the jeep and the P-51 during WW2.  We won't avert this climate and economic crisis without government leadership.