Either we have restraint with all fossil fuels, or with none.

And they completely miss deforestation, just blandly assuming that we could have some grand world forestation campaign.

I think you are misunderstanding Hansen's intent. I believe (I have no direct connect to the man to test my hypothesis) the paper's intent is to show that restraining CO2 is possible. I don't think it is intended to show THE way, or THE best way to do so. They are outlining how the world's climate **can** be stabilized. Assigning to them comments such as "blandly assuming" shows lack of insight into the man and his work. He is well aware he is talking about massive shifts in economy, behavior, politics, etc.

Cheers

Anyone can paint such a scenario. That's no challenge. The challenge is to present one which is plausible.

It's not plausible that we'll burn as much oil as we possibly can, yet have restraint with the coal, and regrow the forests. It's like imagining that a burglar will take your DVD player but not the cash sitting next to it. Either he refrains from theft, or he gets right into it.

Had H&K described a scenario in which all fossil fuel use was restrained, my response would be, "that's nice - how?" But they didn't do that, they presented a confused and implausible scenario.

The senarios in that paper are a little dated now. You might be interested in the action plan outlined in this talk given in February in Bloomington, IL. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/illwesleyan_20080219.pdf
In the same directory you can find the draft paper I was responding to with the coral post at the Real Energy Blog.

Chris