Note: this letter from Dr. Jim Hansen of NASA GISS is reprinted below unedited, exactly in email as it was received by me, including the title below. You can reference a PDF version on his Columbia U page here I’ll have to agree with Dr. Hansen though, Cap and Trade is about the closest thing to the “Temple of Doom” our economy would face. No word yet from Harrison Ford if he’ll play Jim in the movie. What is most interesting is who he didn’t mention in the last paragraph.- Anthony
Worshipping the Temple of Doom
My response to the letter from Dr. Martin Parkinson, Secretary of the Australian Department of Climate Change, is available, along with this note, on my web site.
Thanks to the many people who provided comments on my draft response, including Steve Hatfield-Dodds, a senior official within the Australian Department of Climate Change. I appreciate the willingness of the Australian government to engage in this discussion. I believe that you will find the final letter to be significantly improved over the draft version.
Several people admonished me for informal language, which detracts from credibility, and attempts at humor with an insulting tone (e.g., alligator shoes). They are right, of course – these should not be in the letter. So I reserve opinions with an edge to my covering e-mail note.
My frustration arises from the huge gap between words of governments, worldwide, and their actions or planned actions. It is easy to speak of a planet in peril. It is quite another to level with the public about what is needed, even if the actions are in everybody’s long-term interest.
Instead governments are retreating to feckless “cap-and-trade”, a minor tweak to business-as-usual. Oil companies are so relieved to realize that they do not need to learn to be energy companies that they are decreasing their already trivial investments in renewable energy. They are using the money to buy greenwash advertisements. Perhaps if politicians and businesses paint each other green, it will not seem so bad when our forests burn.
Cap-and-trade is the temple of doom. It would lock in disasters for our children and grandchildren. Why do people continue to worship a disastrous approach? Its fecklessness was proven by the Kyoto Protocol. It took a decade to implement the treaty, as countries extracted concessions that weakened even mild goals. Most countries that claim to have met their obligations actually increased their emissions. Others found that even modest reductions of emissions were inconvenient, and thus they simply ignored their goals.
Why is this cap-and-trade temple of doom worshipped? The 648 page cap-and-trade monstrosity that is being foisted on the U.S. Congress provides the answer. Not a single Congressperson has read it. They don’t need to – they just need to add more paragraphs to support their own special interests. By the way, the Congress people do not write most of those paragraphs – they are “suggested” by people in alligator shoes.
The only defense of this monstrous absurdity that I have heard is “well, you are right, it’s no good, but the train has left the station”. If the train has left, it had better be derailed soon or the planet, and all of us, will be in deep do-do. People with the gumption to parse the 648-pages come out with estimates of a price impact on petrol between 12 and 20 cents per gallon. It has to be kept small and ineffectual, because they want to claim that it does not affect energy prices!
It seems they would not dream of being honest and admitting that an increased price for fossil fuels is essential to drive us to the world beyond fossil fuels. Of course, there are a huge number of industries and people who do not want us to move to the world beyond fossil fuels – these are the biggest fans of cap-and-trade. Next are those who want the process mystified, so they can make millions trading, speculating, and gaming the system at public expense.
The science has become clear: burning all fossil fuels would put Earth on a disastrous course, leaving our children and grandchildren with a deteriorating situation out of their control. The geophysical implication is that most of the remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels (tar shale, etc.) must be left in the ground or the emissions captured and put back in the ground. A corollary is that it makes no sense to go after every last drop of oil in the most remote and pristine places – we would have to fight to get the CO2 back out of the air or somehow “geoengineer” our way out of its effects.
A more sensible approach is to begin a rapid transition to a clean energy future, beyond fossil fuels – for the sake of our children and grandchildren, already likely to be saddled with our economic debts, and to preserve the other species on the planet. Such a path would also eliminate mercury emissions, most air pollution, acid rain and ozone alerts, likely reversing trends toward increasing asthma and birth defects. Such an energy future would also halt the drain on our treasure and lives resulting from dependence on foreign energy sources.
What is it that does not compute here? Why does the public choose to subsidize fossil fuels, rather than taxing fossil fuels to make them cover their costs to society? I don’t think that the public actually voted on that one. It probably has something to do with all the alligator shoes in Washington. Those 2400 energy lobbyists in Washington are not well paid for nothing. You have three guesses as to who eventually pays the salary of these lobbyists, and the first two guesses don’t count.
I get a lot of e-mails telling me to stick to climate, that I don’t know anything about economics. I know this: the fundamental requirement for transition to the post fossil fuel era is a substantial and rising price on carbon emissions. And businesses and consumers must understand that it will continue to rise in the future.
Of course, a rising carbon price alone is not sufficient for a successful rapid transition to the post fossil fuel era. There also must be efficiency standards on buildings, vehicles, appliances, electronics and lighting. Barriers to efficiency, such as utilities making more money when we use more energy, must be removed.
But the essential underlying requirement is a substantial rising carbon price. Building standards, especially operations, for example, are practically unenforceable without a strong cost driver. The carbon price must be sufficient to affect lifestyle choices.
648 pages are not needed to define a carbon fee. It is a single number that would be ratcheted upward over time. It would cover all three fossil fuels at their source: the mine or port of entry. Consumers do not directly pay any tax, but the fee’s effect permeates everything from the price of fuel to the price of food (especially if it is imported from halfway around the world).
As a point of reference a fee equivalent to $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton CO2) would yield $670B in the United States (based on energy use data for 2007). That would provide a dividend of $3000/year to legal adult residents in the United States ($9000/year to a family with two or more children).
A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average would gain economically, if the fee is returned 100 percent to the public on a per capita basis. With the present distributions of income and energy use, it is estimated that about 60 percent of the people would get a dividend exceeding their tax. So why would they not just spend their dividend on expensive fuel? Nobody wants to pay more taxes. They prefer to have the money for other things. As the price of fossil fuels continues to increase, people would conserve energy, choose more energy efficient vehicles, and choose non-fossil (untaxed) energies and products.
Hey, does anybody know a great communicator, who might level with the public, explain what is needed to break our addiction to fossil fuels, to gain energy independence, to assure a future for young people? Who would explain what is really needed, rather than hide behind future “goals” and a gimmick “cap”? Naw. Roosevelt and Churchill are dead. So is Kennedy.
Jim
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Plenty of climate science on here if you want to look for it sukiho.”
“sukiho, here is your opportunity to enlighten us.”
its a great site and I will keep coming back, the battle between the alarmists and denialists is almost as engrossing as the last american election, I will be watching it till the end, keep up the fight
John Galt (13:59:06) :
Mike Lorrey said: Cap and Trade is conversely a means by which companies can trade emission rights in a free market basis.
“Free market basis”? What’s free market about the government creating a new currency (carbon credits) and controlling who gets credits and who get exemptions?
Originally the idea was that every business got the credits automatically by investing in reducing their own emissions. The system Obama, congress, and the lobbyists are producing is NOT a free market model, it is a Strategic Resouce Rationing model like the limits imposed on metals, concrete, and plywood during WWII and the Korean War.
So what Obama is proposing really isn’t cap-and-trade, it is bribe-ration-and-trade.
“President Obama wants to use cap-and-trade to pay for increased social programs. Given how little effect cap-and-trade would have on the climate, I think the real goal of cap-and-trade is to empower government.”
Obama’s idea of cap and trade is that each years pollution caps are sold to companies based on their past emissions and how they are able to reduce their current-year emissions. If you dont pay the government for the emissions permit, you cant trade them. This is thus not a tax on carbon emissions but a tax on the right to sell pollution permits to others.
You are right to still call this a tax, though its more of a use fee tied to positive performance in reducing emissions. This was not, btw the original idea of cap and trade. Originally the idea was that you didn’t pay the government for the right to resell your reduced emissions, you just got them automatically as a result of investing in reducing emissions (like the EPA’s Greenlights Program), and the free market’s trading mechanisms enabled industry to allocate a 1990 level of emissions across the economy most efficiently by price signal mechanisms, as free markets are supposed to work.
Obama tacking on this fee-to-trade is a bastardization of the concept and adds barriers to entry that will cause serious market inefficiencies and will likely cause more pollution due to the inefficiencies imposed by the government fees.
“BTW: Eco-communism is a great term. How is it that communist nations have such horrible environmental records? Anybody want to live in North Korea? Ever seen the clouds hanging over China?”
Quite. Marxism failed because its PR was based on a divide and conquer class warfare model of motivating the proles by wealth jealousy and resentment. Eco-communism wins because its PR is based on doing what is best for “all of us”, especially “the children” and “nature” and pretty furry creatures, which if you are against them you are simply much more evil than if you are just a money grubbing capitalist.
What you fail to realize is that Hansen is now and has always been an anti coal activist. AGW seemed to him to be the ends to his means. However, as recent Cap and Trade programs in other countries have shown, Cap and trade does nothing… absolutely nothing to get rid of the evil coal plants. It does NOT reduce emissions one little bit. It does NOT get rid of coal powered plants or the strip mines in the US or the World. Hansen finds himself in a situation that is not working as planned. It must be very frustrating.
I think quite a few enviornmental activists are finding that they backed the wrong pony in this fight. Their hot topics have been lost and minimized in the AGW platform and with horror they are starting to see what they had in mind is not what they are going to get. I suspect you will see more discention as these organizations realize that their big push only managed to put in place another level of gov taxes without doing a thing to improve the enviornment. Furthermore when all of this falls about their ears, any good issues will be scrapped and discredited along with the climate change/AGW platform.
Jason (07:56:17) :
What Hansen doesn’t understand, but folks on capital hill do, is that the American public is unwilling to make the significant sacrifices required to implement his vision of a low emission world.
Significant sacrifices. Why? Perhaps instead of spending a zillion dollars flattening x acres of land and diverting farm water to cool vast solar farms or polluting our hillsides with ugly wind machines we should look to those new reactors that reuse their fuel effeciently. Land use would be about the same as the current power plants and the technology is sound, not unknown… If you look at the EIA Analysis of energy production you will see “other renewables” accounts for a very slight portion of our overall energy production.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html
Why should it take sacrifices to adopt an energy producer that could in fact not only reuse some of our current stored nuke waste but also release us from use of a majority of our fossil fuels right here and now.. not based on a hope that someone will come up with the solution sometime in the future. Please tell me how it is better to destroy whole ecosystems in favor of saving the planet? And most importantly please tell me when you have ever seen a tax used for the purpose it was intended. Anyone who wants to know how cap and trade will go, only needs to look at how the benifits from state lotterys worked out for everyone.
Alan the Brit (10:53:07)
The expedition, which was going to communicate to local schools directly to keep them informed about all the ice melting & dead polar bears because of burning fossil fuels, was overpowered by violant Altlantic storms & high winds resulting in capsizing thrice, was rescued by a, err, err………………an oil tanker!
That is just tooooo tooo funny.
great Post ..i find one such a one good blog on internet, keep it up.thank you so much for share a one good post with us …from Rajesh (india)
Free advice to the Mafia:
Join the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). They have stolen your business plan. You deserve free membership in their gang. They owe you a little pizzo. Tell them Big Green GE sent you.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/05/mafia_wind_biz/
Mafia-busting Italian magistrates have launched a major investigation into crooked windfarm projects in Sicily, according to reports. It is suggested that large sums in government support have been collected for wind power stations which in many cases produce no electricity.
Meanwhile, with large sums of money at stake, no need in some cases to build a genuinely functional plant to qualify for the cash – and every project heavily dependent on local-government permits and votes – wind power is seen as a perfect Mafia opportunity.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=325899798635675&kw=al,gore
“On Earth Day 2007, the various NBC networks gave 75 hours of free air time to Gore to hype climate change. NBC is owned by General Electric, perhaps the largest maker of wind turbines and other green technology in the world. It, too, stands to benefit financially from cap and trade, as Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly has noted, connecting dots others won’t.”
“Gore’s altruism is phony. According to a March 6 Bloomberg report, Gore invested $35 million of his own money not in green nonprofits, but with the very profitable Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, Calif., firm that directs clients to green investments and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.”
It seems they would not dream of being honest and admitting that an increased price for fossil fuels is essential to drive us to the world beyond fossil fuels. Of course, there are a huge number of industries and people who do not want us to move to the world beyond fossil fuels these are the biggest fans of cap-and-trade. Next are those who want the process mystified, so they can make millions trading, speculating, and gaming the system at public expense.
I wonder who he is referring to here ?
The Implosion Begins
Is it me or is JAMES HANSEN calling out (by purposely NOT calling out) BARACK OBAMA in the last paragraph!?!?!?
Could it be that the two pillars of disinformation and misguided policy are at odds with each other? This could get very entertaining, as I’m sure that Obama the coward won’t respond to this calling out, and Hansen the koo-koo will up the ante with more rabid call-outs. Oh how I hope this escalates into the broader public . Wouldn’t it be great to see these guys on national TV shooting holes in each other’s doomsday scenarios about Global Warming and how to stop it. Never stopping until they have stripped every last shred of credibility out of the issue (like there ever was any). What an embarrassing and fitting end that would be to the Greatest Hoax Ever. We can only hope. Then we’d be left with…well…pretty much what we have right now: A nation full of people who DON’T believe in Global Warming and aren’t willing to pay for it.
I find this second guessing of global warming policy amusing. My home town of Boulder, CO decided a couple years ago to implement the nation’s first carbon tax and use it for a Climate Action Plan (CAP) program to spread the word about energy efficiency, and help homeowners and businesses become more efficient. It’s redundant because our local energy company already does outreach on energy efficiency and encourages homeowners and businesses to sign on to wind power, but that didn’t stop the City of Boulder. Now some environmentalists are having misgivings about how the money is being spent for CAP. One said he was deeply disappointed that 1/3rd of the tax revenue is going to administrative expenses. He said, “This is not what I signed on for,” when he supported the carbon tax.
Somehow I have the feeling that the politicians implementing these plans KNOW that GW caused by CO2 is BS, and are just using it to expand government, to create busy work to justify more tax revenues. In the case of cap and trade there are other interests involved, particularly those companies that would benefit from public subsidies of wind turbine construction, solar generation facilities, and carbon sequestration facilities. It’s the government saying “Let’s break some windows so we can repair them.”
Regarding Hansen being right on cap and trade. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
Smokey (11:58:40) : “No, bill…You could allege that at noon tomorrow monkeys will fly out your butt unless I give you a thousand dollars today. You can allege anything. But without solid evidence, it’s just baseless speculation…”
Golly, I don’t know Smokey. I think you underestimate Bill. That wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Hansen’s paper is eminently illogical. If you harvest $650B and give it to people, their first acts – and most subsequent ones – to spend the new money, would be to use more electricity and gas.
Has anyone bothered to make a list showing how the USA can spend $650B without production of more GHG? Has anyone bothered to show if it is economic to even attempt? Has John Citizen even said he wants it?
It is very hard to spend any money at all without producing GHG. The closest and least costly large way is nuclear. The cost to keep a ton of CO2 out of the air is about #20 for nuclear. For wind power the cost to keep a ton of CO2 out of the air is about $1000.
This whole cap and trade business is a giant money churn that leaves us nothing except huge transaction costs, and a few people with greed, who will make a mint while contributing nothing of use.
Interesting that such a large number o people has taken the time to read the very interesting and accurate Hansen’s letter.
How can it be possible that more than 90% of the comments are on denial, generally based on sheer stupidity and ignorance. Is there a software generating these spams?
Hansen is right and we have to spread the word, quickly and convincingly, to head our developped countries toward the huge CO2 cuts we have to perform to protect the climate
JeandeBegles (11:01:58) :
Let me get this straight: You are calling other people stupid and ignorant??
I suggest you get up to speed on the subject by reading the WUWT archives. A search of “Hansen” should get you started on the path to enlightenment.
JeandeBegles (11:01:58) :
“…more than 90% of the comments are on denial, generally based on sheer stupidity and ignorance.”
Are you suggesting that all the rallies and mobs protesting coal fired stations in UK and US and all the contributions to the pro AGW blogs are all climate scientists, physicists and chemists? Let us not forget, an earlier generation of the same crowd stopped nuclear energy development and can take credit, therefore for all the carbon dioxide, smoke and mercury that is being ballyhooed about now. If so many vocal, well-meaning citizens could be so wrong then, why are they likely to be correct now. Are you a scientist yourself M, JeandeBegles or one of the cheering section?
Smokey,
Of course people saying that Hansen is wrong about climate are stupid or ignorant.
Your brand name Smokey is a helpfull reminder of the tobacco denialism of cancer caused by tobacco. They are the same guys denying that CO2 is a green house gas warming our atmosphere, for the dollars of the oil companies and the short term business.
Mr. Bojangles,
The people here are neither stupid nor ignorant.
Thank you,
Mike
JeandeBegles,
1. “Smokey” is either the name of a bear cub rescued from a forest fire, or the name of my wife’s big gray tomcat. Take your pick.
2. If Hansen is right about the climate, why does he “adjust” the charts he shows the public, to *always* show more warming? click And of course CO2 isn’t causing any noticeable global warming: click See? You’re worried about something that isn’t a problem.
3. You’re new here. Maybe you don’t know that this site values polite comments. That’s twice now that you’ve labeled anyone who disagrees with Hansen as stupid or ignorant, and as denialists. Stop it.
Labeling people deniers is unacceptable here. If you have facts, provide them — rather than using your posting privilege to label others as ignorant or stupid. We’re not. Thanks.
Smokey (14:12:47) :
JeandeBegles,
Very well said. As a general rule, in an argument, the first person who argues the arguer, instead of the argument, has lost the argument. When individuals can no longer rely upon their knowledge and intelligence to win an argument, in weakness, some resort to verbal, or written, attack.
“”” JeandeBegles (11:01:58) :
Interesting that such a large number o people has taken the time to read the very interesting and accurate Hansen’s letter.
How can it be possible that more than 90% of the comments are on denial, generally based on sheer stupidity and ignorance. Is there a software generating these spams?
Hansen is right and we have to spread the word, quickly and convincingly, to head our developped countries toward the huge CO2 cuts we have to perform to protect the climate “””
You go first John ! and if we like what happens to you, maybe we’ll jump in too; and then; maybe not.
“”” Kum Dollison (20:45:09) :
Okay, let’s say we use, in the U.S., 80 TWhrs/day (total energy – transportation, electricity, etc.) 80 Billion Kwhrs/day. The U.S. (non-Alaska) is about 8 million sq. km. What’s that, 8 trillion sq meters?
Can you get 4 kwhrs/day per sq meter of solar cells? Let’s say you can. Now, you need 20 billion sq m. 2.5% of land mass. Average county is about 1,000 sq mi. So, an area 5 mi X 5 mi per county would do it. There’s not many counties that couldn’t give up an are 5 mi squared to supply ALL of their energy needs.
Need a lot of storage, of course. Are we going to do that. Of course not. Could we? I guess.
Cost: First Solar says they have achieved $1.00 Watt. Add a buck for profit, shipping, installation, etc. About 3 years GDP.
Seems entirely reasonable for “Peak” electricity in the southern states, though. “””
Not even close Kum.
NOAA says the total solar energy arriving at the earth’s surface is 168 W/m^2. Maybe you can average 15% efficiency to the power grid so tha’s a whole 25 W/m^2 times 24 hours per day is 600 Watt hours per day; so nowhere near your 4 KWh.
Good luck on getting one square metre of 15% or better solar cells for $25 or even $50.
But why not mortgage your house and invest the money in PEV solar energy; you’ll make a killing; most of the people who have it now aren’t nearly as effective at it as you are; so they need the taxpayers to pay for it for them. You’ll be ablke to retire rich; like AlGore.
I vote for this wonderful summary of Hansen’s “plans” from Leon Brozyna (Leon Brozyna (16:53:16)) for Quote of the Week:
“Where will these clean energy sources come from? Somewhere.
Who will develop these clean energy sources? Somebody.
How will we make the change work? Somehow.
Just make everything so expensive that somebody somewhere will figure out something that works to make this fantasy real. And if nobody does so willingly, then what? Put them into camps and order them to think? Come up with solutions to problems of his own making on command?”
-Jonathan
Anthony, I notice that my previous comment no longer appears here. I was making a serious point about tax policy and inviting those who agreed with Hansen’s ideas to provide support for their arguments. Would you mind telling me why the comment was removed?
Sorry, never mind. The search function on my browser let me down- previous comment was intact. Enily Litella lives on.
JeandeBegles (11:01:58) :
“…more than 90% of the comments are on denial, generally based on sheer stupidity and ignorance.”
This is the same ‘ole, same ‘ole retort I see from people who believe that CO2 from industry is causing global warming. I’ve seen it a hundred times (“ignorant and stupid”). Sorry, it’s not convincing. You’re going to have to do better, like actually use a little valid evidence to make a counter-argument. Then we can have a rational discussion.
If you don’t believe us, take a listen to Dr. Jack Schmitt (he’s a former Apollo astronaut, and geologist). He’s looked at the evidence and says that the global warming alarmists haven’t made a convincing case. If not him, why not listen to James Hansen’s former boss at GISS, Dr. John Theon. He also says that Hansen’s theory doesn’t hold water. In fact, Hansen was caught red handed falsifying temperature data for 2008 to make it look like his theory still worked. I believe Dr. Theon has said that Hansen’s been fudging the numbers for the past 9 years. Secondly, he’s said that Hansen has violated the Hatch Act multiple times.
We need to face facts. Dr. James Hansen has degrees in physics, mathematics, and astronomy. He doesn’t have a degree in climatology or meteorology for that matter. He wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the greenhouse effect on the planet Venus, and apparently thinks that makes him an expert on Earth’s atmosphere. Venus’s atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. On Earth the CO2 concentration is 0.038%. The main greenhouse gas on Earth is H2O (water vapor) and has a concentration of about 5%. There is no comparison between Earth’s condition and Venus’s condition. They are opposites of each other. The vast majority of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from the oceans, volcanos, and decaying plant matter. The industrial contribution is a mere blip in comparison (a blip of 0.038%).
Global temperatures have fallen slightly for the past 10 years, yet CO2 concentration increased slightly over that period. In addition, CO2 concentration increased from 1945 into the 1970s, yet global temperatures fell over that time period as well, leading some to believe that an ice age was coming (they were wrong, too).
If you like, you can look back into the geological record hundreds and thousands of years and see that CO2 is not a driver of climate change on Earth. There is a correlation, as Al Gore pointed out, but what he did not tell his audience is that CO2 *follows* temperature. It’s a lagging indicator of what temperature *used to be*. It does not lead it on Earth!
The preponderance of the evidence shows that there is no “there” there.
As to what actually influences climate on Earth, legitimate science is still exploring that question. There’s a promising theory that the Sun is the main driver of climate change. Legitimate research also seems to suggest that we are altering the climate a bit by our land use decisions (not because of CO2 emissions).