I highly recommend Jeff Goodell's interview of James Hansen, linked above. Jeff introduces James Hansen this way: 

... James Hansen became the first scientist to offer unassailable evidence that burning fossil fuels is heating up the planet. In the decades since, as the world has warmed, the ice has melted and the wildfires have spread, he has published papers on everything from the risks of rapid sea-level rise to the role of soot in global temperature changes ...

It is clear from the interview that James is a no-nonsense guy. Here are some key passages:

1. I would also tell [the President] to think of what the energy sources of the future are going to be and to consider nuclear power. China and India, most of their energy is coming from coal-burning. And you're not going to replace that with solar panels. As you can see from the panels on my barn, I'm all for solar power. Here on the farm, we generate more energy than we use. Because we have a lot of solar panels. It cost me $75,000. That's good, but it's not enough. The world needs energy. We've got to develop a new generation of nuclear-power plants, which use thorium-fueled molten salt reactors [an alternative nuclear technology] that fundamentally cannot have a meltdown. These types of reactors also reduce nuclear waste to a very small fraction of what it is now. If we don't think about nuclear power, then we will leave a more dangerous world for young people.

2. ... the fossil-fuel industry has made a huge investment in fracking over the past 20 years or so, and they now have created enough of a bubble in gas that it really makes no economic sense to reopen coal-fired power plants when gas is so much cheaper. So I don't think Trump can easily reverse the trend away from coal on the time scale of four years.

3. I think that our government has become sufficiently cumbersome in its support of R&D that I'd place more hope in the private sector. But in order to spur the private sector, you've got to provide the incentive. And that's why I'm a big supporter of a carbon fee. ...

[Jeff:] Let's talk more about policy. You're a big believer in a revenue-neutral carbon fee. Explain how that would work, and why you're such a big supporter of it.
[James:] It's very simple. You collect it at the small number of sources, the domestic mines and the ports of entry, from fossil-fuel companies. And you can distribute it back to people. The simplest way to distribute it and encourage the actions that are needed to move us to clean energy is to just give an equal amount to all legal residents. So the person who does better than average in limiting his carbon footprint will make money. And it doesn't really require you to calculate carbon footprint – for instance, the price of food will change as sources that use more fossil fuel, like food imported from New Zealand, become more expensive. And so you are encouraged to buy something from the nearby farm. ...
... our politics ... tend to favor special interests. And even the environmentalists will decide what they want to favor and say, "Oh, we should subsidize this." I don't think we should subsidize anything. We should let the market decide. ...

[Jeff:] I agree that a carbon fee could be an effective tool to cut emissions, but how do you get the politics right to get it done? I mean, it's one thing to...
[James:] Well, you have to make it simple. You can't do this 3,000-page crap, like they did with cap-and-trade in 2009. You gotta simplify it down to the absolute basics, and you do it in a way that the public will not let you change it. If the public is getting this dividend, they won't let you change it.

4. When I was working at NASA, I always felt I was working for the taxpayer. I was not working for the administration. ... When we have knowledge about something, we should not be prohibited from saying it as clearly as we can.