Here, it is not Bến Tre city which must be destroyed in order to save it from the Viet Cong. Rather, it is our global industrial civilization which must be destroyed to save it from the "grave threat posed by continued high emissions."

Given the inertia of the climate and energy systems, and the grave threat posed by continued high emissions, the matter is urgent and calls for emergency cooperation among nations.

The amount of CO2 fossil fuel emissions taken up by the ocean, soil and biosphere has continued to increase, thus providing hope that it may be possible to sequester more than 100 GtC. Improved understanding of the carbon cycle and non-CO2 forcings are needed, but it is clear that the essential requirement is to begin to phase down fossil fuel CO2 emissions rapidly. It is also clear that continued high emissions are likely to lock-in continued global energy imbalance, ocean warming, ice sheet disintegration, and large sea level rise, which young people and future generations would not be able to avoid.

That is, CO 2 emissions must reduced 6 percent per year starting now and for the foreseeable future.

The rate at which CO2 emissions must be reduced is about 6 % yr−1 to reach 350 ppm atmospheric CO2 by about 2100, under the assumption that improved agricultural and forestry practices could sequester 100 GtC [gigatons of carbon].

The task of achieving a reduction of atmospheric CO2 is formidable, but not impossible. Rapid transition to abundant affordable carbon-free electricity is the core requirement, as that would also permit production of net-zero-carbon liquid fuels from electricity.

Now in 2015 it seems that the same "logic" has resurfaced, this time with respect to mitigating global warming. Here is the last paragraph of the latest paper from James Hansen and 16 colleagues (emphasis added, references excluded; see the original).

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it," a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong.

A famous quote from the Vietnam War was a statement attributed to an unnamed U.S. officer by AP correspondent Peter Arnett in his writing about Bến Tre city on 7 February 1968:

Back in 1968 during the Vietnam War, long before many of those reading here were born, an AP reporter quoted an army officer to terrible and absurd effect.

Reading this, and Hansen's latest attempt to "popularize" future climate-caused disaster at the Huffington Post, one would think that there is only a weak connection between primary fossil energy consumption and the very existence of our global industrial civilization. But that is nonsense. Even veteran environmental reporter Dave Roberts understands some of the very real limits of replacing fossil energy with renewable energy (here, only in the United States).

Remember when I discussed scenarios that showed humanity limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius? I made a point of saying that the scenarios demonstrated technical and economic feasibility, but represented enormous, heroic assumptions about social and political change. (Which is another way of saying that purely as a matter of laying odds, they were unlikely.) Well, the same goes here. No one can say any longer, at least not without argument, that moving the US quickly and entirely to renewables is [physically] impossible. Here is a way to do it, mapped out in some detail. But it is extremely ambitious. Let's take a look at some of what's required...

The word "fantasy" does not occur in Roberts' story, but then again we wouldn't expect it to. And that's the problem.

Now, I am not going to retrace ground I have covered extensively before. See the second Flatland essay.

Suffice it to say that if global emissions were actually cut 6% per year, those cuts would require global cuts in primary fossil energy consumption of something like 4.8% per year (80% of 6%, a reasonable ballpark number). Maybe our global civilization would make it through the first year without falling apart, but maybe not. And maybe we humans would make it through the second year, but maybe not. But I guarantee you global civilization would not make it through the third year without going belly up. You can take that to the bank (so to speak).

The rate at which renewables could replace that fossil energy is utterly inadequate and near-term efficiency can only get you so far.

Let's cut to the chase. If I have to choose between rapid sea level rise and superstorms 50 years from now (when I will be dead) and living in a Mel Gibson road warrior movie sometime before 2020, that is a very easy choice to make

And that's not just because I will be dead 50 years from now. Just about every human on Earth would make exactly the same choice. (I am using the word "choice" loosely here; free will is almost certainly not involved.)

That is, everybody would make the same choice except the 350.org people led by Hansen and the usual suspects. Indeed, the 350 ppmv premise assumed by activists like Bill McKibben is entirely based on Hansen and Sato's work (as in this latest paper).

Like it or not, the world can now be conveniently divided into two political factions: a huge "business as usual" (BAU) faction, which is just about everybody on Earth, and a very tiny (and very noisy) "save the world" faction led by the 350 people.

There is a false "middle" represented by the IPCC and realclimate.org, among many others. These are the "reasonable" people, but we will get nothing disruptive from them. BAU is still the path humanity is on. Something close to BAU is the path humanity will stay on.

Think of the IPCC and the UN's Conference of the Parties as the Hillary Clinton of climate policy

Does James Hansen understand that he is advocating destroying the village in order to save it?

I seriously doubt it. Hansen is worried about his grandchildren.

Hansen's solutions describe the hopeful fantasy world he lives in. After all, just about every human has one.