James Hansen's Policies Are Shafting The Poor

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I was reading an interview with Adrian Bejan (worth taking a look at), and I got to musing about his comments regarding the relationship between energy use and per capita income. So I pulled up GapMinder, the world’s best online visualization software. Here’s a first cut at the relationship between energy and income.

energy use vs incomeFigure 1. Energy use per person (tons of oil equivalent, TOE) versus average income, by country. Colors show geographical regions. Size of the circle indicates population. The US is the large yellow circle at the top right. Canada is the overlapping yellow circle. China is the large red circle, India the large light blue circle. Here’s a link to the live Gapminder graph so you can experiment with it yourself.

Clearly, other than a few outliers, the relationship between energy use and income is quite straightforward. You can’t have one without the other. Well, that’s not quite true, you can have energy without income. You can have (relatively) high energy use without having the corresponding income, plenty of Africa is in that boat. But the reverse is not true—you can’t have high income without high energy use. You need the energy to make the income.

Now, James Hansen is the NASA guy who is leading the charge to stop all forms of cheap energy. Coal is bad, terrible stuff in his world. He calls trains of coal “death trains”. He wants to deny cheap energy to all of those folks in the bottom half of the graph above. Well, actually, he wants to deny access to cheap energy to everyone, but where it hurts is the bottom half of the graph. For example, the World Bank and other international funding agencies, at the urging of folks like Hansen, have been turning down loans for coal plants in developing countries.

But as you can see, if you deny energy to those folks, that is the same as denying them development. Because when there’s less energy, there’s less income. The two go hand in hand. So what James Hansen is advising is that we should take money from the poor … actually he wants to deny them cheap energy, but that means denying them income and the development that accompanies it.

A look at the history of some of the countries is instructive in that regard, to see how the income and the energy use have changed over time. Figure 2 shows the history of some selected countries.

energy use vs income historyFigure 2. A history of selected countries. Colors now show crude birth rate (births per thousand)

Now, this is showing something very interesting. It may reveal why Hansen thinks he’s doing good. Notice that for countries where people make below say $20,000 of annual income, the only way up is up and to the right … which means that the only way to increase income is to increase energy use. Look at India and China and Brazil and Spain and the Netherlands as examples. (Note also that crude birth rate is tied to increasing income, and that the crude birth rate in the US has dropped by about half since 1960.)

Above that annual income level of ~ $20,000, however something different happens. The countries start to substitute increased energy efficiency for increased energy use. This is reflected in the vertical movement of say the US, where the 2011 per capita energy use is exactly the same as the 1968 per capita energy use. And Canada is using the same energy per person as in 1977 … so let’s take a closer look at the upper right section of the chart. Figure 3 shows an enlargement of just the top right of the chart, displaying more countries.

energy use vs income history closeupFigure 3. A closeup of Figure 2, showing more countries. Start date is 1968 for clarity.

Now, this is interesting. Many, perhaps most of these countries show vertical or near vertical movement during the last twenty years or so. And the recent economic crash has caused people to be more conservative about energy use, squeezing more dollars out per ton of oil equivalent.

But that only happens up at the high end of the income spectrum, where people are making above about twenty or even twenty-five thousand dollars per year. You need to have really good technology to make that one work, to produce more income without using more energy. You need to be in what is called a “developed” nation.

When people think “development”, they often think “bulldozers”. But they should think “energy efficiency”, because that is the hallmark of each technological advance—it squeezes more stuff out of less energy. But you have to be in an industrialized, modern society to take advantage of that opportunity.

So this may be the reason for Hansen’s attitude toward energy use. He may not know that most of the world is not in the situation of the US. This may be the reason the he claims that we should curtail energy use by all means possible. He may not see that while the US and industrialized countries can get away with that, in part because we waste a lot of energy and have a lot of both money and technology, the poor and even the less well off of the world have little energy or money to waste.

For those poorer countries and individuals, which make up the overwhelming bulk of the world’s population, a reduction in energy use means a reduction in the standard of living. And the part Hansen and his adherents don’t seem to get is that for most of the world, the standard of living is “barely” … as in barely making ends meet.

As is usual in this world, the situation of the rich and the poor is different, and in this case the break line is high. Twenty grand of income per year is the line dividing those who can take advantage of technology to get more income with the same energy, and the rest, which is most of the world. Most of the world are still among those who must use more energy to increase their income. They don’t have the option the US and the developed nations have. They must increase energy use to increase income.

And when you start jacking up energy prices and discouraging the use of cheap energy sources around the planet, as Hansen and his adherents are doing, the poorest of the poor get shafted. James Hansen is making lots and lots of money. He’s comfortably in the top 1% of the world’s population by income, and he obviously doesn’t give much thought to the rest. We know this because if he thought about the poor he’d realize that while he is mouthing platitudes about how he’s doing his agitation and advocacy for his grandchildren’s world in fifty years, what he’s doing is shafting the poor today in the name of his grandchildren. Of course Hansen is not the first rich white guy to do that, so I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised, but still …

Increased energy prices, often in the form of taxes and “cap-and-trade” and “renewable standards”, are THE WORLDS MOST REGRESSIVE TAX. Hansen proposes taxing the living daylights out of the poor, but he won’t feel the pain. He can stand a doubling of the gas prices, no problem. But when electricity and gas prices double around the planet, POOR PEOPLE DIE … and Hansen just keeps rolling, he has quarter-million-dollar awards from his friends and a fat government salary and a princely retirement pension you and I paid for, he could care less about increased energy prices. He’s one of the 1%, why should he pay attention to the poor?

Forgive the shouting, but the damn hypocrisy is infuriating, and I’m sick of being nice about it. James Hansen and Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt and Phil Jones and Peter Gleick and the rest of the un-indicted co-conspirators are a bunch of rich arrogant 1%er jerkwagons who don’t care in the slightest about the poor. Not only that, but they’ve given the finger to the rest of the climate scientists and to the scientific establishment, most of whom have said nothing in protest, and far too many of whom have approved of their malfeasance.

Their patented combination of insolent arrogance and shabby science would be bad enough if that was all they were doing … but they are hurting poor people right now. Their policies are causing harder times for the poor today, as we speak … and they mouth platitudes about how they are saving the poor from some danger they won’t see for fifty years?

If you ask the poor whether they’d rather get shafted for sure today, or possibly get shafted in fifty years, I know what they’d tell you. To me, hurting the poor today under the rubric of saving them in half a century from an unsubstantiated and fanciful danger is moral dishonesty of the first order.

So let me say to all of you folks who claim the world is using too much energy, you have the stick by the wrong end. The world needs to use MORE energy, not less, because there is no other way to get the poor out of poverty. It can’t be done without cheap energy. We need to use more energy to lift people out of bone-crushing poverty, not use less and condemn them to brutal lives. And to do that, energy needs to be cheaper, not more expensive.

Let me be crystal clear, and speak directly to Hansen and other global warming alarmists. Any one of you who pushes for more expensive energy is hurting and impoverishing and killing the poor today. Whether through taxes or cap-and-trade or renewable subsidies or blocking drilling or any other way, increasing energy costs represent a highly regressive tax of the worst kind. And there is no escape at the bottom end, quite the opposite. The poorer you are, the harder it bites.

So please, don’t give us the holier-than-thou high moral ground stance. Spare us the “we’re noble because we are saving the world” BS. When a poor single mother of three living outside Las Vegas has her gas costs double, she has little choice other than to cut out some other essential item, food or doctor visits or whatever … because her budget doesn’t have any of the non-essential items that James Hansen’s budget contains, and she needs the gas to get to work, that’s not optional.

For her, all her money goes to essentials— so if gas costs go up, her kids get less of what they need. You’re not saving the world, far from it. You’re taking food out of kids’ mouths.

You are causing pain and suffering to the poor and acting like your excrement has no odor … but at least there is some good news. People are no longer buying your story. People are realizing that if someone argues for expensive energy, they are anti-human, anti-development, and most of all, without compassion for the poor. They are willing to put the most damaging, regressive, destructive tax imaginable on the poorest people of the planet.

Now those of you advocating for higher energy prices, after reading this, you might still fool the media about what you are doing to the poor. And it’s possible for you to not mention to your co-workers about the real results of your actions. And you could still deceive your friends about the question of the poor, or even your wife or husband.

But by god, you can no longer fool yourself about it. As of now, you know that agitating for more expensive energy for any reason hurts the poor. What you do with that information is up to you … but you can’t ignore it, it will haunt you at 3 AM, and hopefully, it will make you think about the less fortunate folk of our planet and seriously reconsider your actions. Because here’s the deal. Even if CO2 will damage the poor in 50 years, hurting the poor now only makes it worse. If you think there is a problem, then look for a no-regrets solution.

Because if you truly care about the poor, and you are afraid CO2 will increase the bad weather and harm the poor fifty years from now, you owe it to them to find a different response to your fears of CO2, a response that doesn’t hurt the poor today.

w.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
geologyjim

Well said, Willis.
This message is crucial to changing the conversation about energy. Abundant, reliable energy at market prices is the surest way to improve the human condition – everywhere.
Add on the Matt Ridley video about the positive effects of fossil-fuel energy use:

and you’ve got a family conversation-starter that might grow into a neighborhood conversation-starter, etc. From there, we might begin to restore sanity and logic to the public square.

At least Hansen favors nuclear and derides Avory Lovins’s renewable solutions.

Willis,
When I did a quick look at this back Earth Day – 2008, my conclusions were very similar. Here the pull quotes from my blog post.
“I obtained the 2006 GNI Per Capita for the top 16 and bottom 26 countries of the world (as estimated by the World Bank) and plotted that against the 2003 Energy Use Per Capita (as estimated by EarthTrends Environmental Information)…
Basically, the top 10 countries in standard of living use at least 15 times (in cases almost 60) the amount of energy per capita as the bottom 10. Why in the world is this important? It is because access to energy (electricity, oil, etc.) at a reasonable price correlates well with standard of living. It is also important because those countries at the bottom don’t want to stay where they are. They want to move up the list to where Luxembourg, Kuwait, and the U.S. are.
For those of you intent on saving the world by recycling, changing your light bulbs, and adjusting your thermostat up and down depending on the season, remember that you are nibbling at the edges of the energy equation. There is an entire (third) world out there wanting the kind of standard of living that we have, and the only way to satisfy that demand is to find and produce more energy.
So, instead of spinning our wheels, let’s look at actually solving the energy equation by investing in energy sources that we know will work (coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear)…”

NikFromNYC

Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it’s okay
So let’s get dressed and dance away the night
While they:
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight
– The Dead Kennedys, lyrics from “Kill The Poor,” 1980

Frank K.

All you need to know about Hansen income-wise can be found here…
http://www.app.com/section/DATA
His federal salary in 2011 was $158,832/yr, base pay. According to recent news reports, his current salary (presumably for FY 2012) is in the range of $180,000/yr. I’ll let everyone do the math as to the percent increase. You can research other years for yourself, especially those during the recent recession of 2009.
And this, of course, is just a portion of his considerable income…
Yes, it IS very easy being green…

Clive

Excellent essay. You are an inspiration … and I needed one.
Thank you.
CAS
On the frozen great plains of Canada where spring is but a distant dream

Wamron

I think its time to be frank and make the sort of declaration that is customarily shunned in public debate. Im not going to set fire to myself in protest like Vietnamese monks or Tunisian cigarette sellers (it happenned again this week). My method will be private and hopefully painless. But I am genuinely considering ending my life,purely because I cannot any longer see how I am going to afford to eat and, possibly, keep a roof over my head.
My business has vanishged because my market has shrivelled to zero. This is largely about energy inflation which is the result of Green taxes and price burdens..
On the other side of the equation my living costs are skyrocketing. This is also a direct result of Green taxes.and price burdens.
In this appalling fell year for me I really find it hard to see a way of surviving another nine months.
So, you do not need to adduce complex statistics or the rest of the world to substantiate the linkage between Green policies and the suffering of people not so privileged as the typical Environmentalist Fascist B$%^&*.

Downdraft

Willis has presented some interesting graphics that point out the unequivocal connection between energy and prosperity. This isn’t anything new, of course. Hansen and the others must know this to be the case but choose to ignore it. More disconcerting is that Obama, the Democrats in Congress, and the EPA are all pushing for a conversion to more expensive fuels under camouflage of climate change. I would question what their real goals are, because everything they are doing appears to be aimed at destroying the wealth of the least wealthy among us. Average net worth is down 40% from 2007 ($126,000) to 2010 ($77,000), not including the money we all owe for the national debt, which is now $53,000 per person. They are doing a very good job of spreading the poverty, and an energy tax will certainly accelerate the trend.

edcaryl

Great article, Willis. You are better at the charts than I am. I made this same point last year.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/03/boosting-per-capita-prosperity-and-energy-consumption-is-the-only-way-to-care-for-our-planet/

agfosterjr

It’s also the well off who are able to adapt to short term, natural climate change. It takes energy to be adaptable–to control temperature, to move, to move food, and so on. And all the late talk of no inflation is likewise a lot of heartless nonsense. Real estate keeps the numbers down while food and gas continue to skyrocket. Renters are currently suffering from double digit inflation; while the rent hasn’t gone up much, everything else has.
The more energy the poor have available, the better they’ll be able to respond to any sort of climate change. –AGF

perlcat

Hansen, et al are scum first order — It’s not about the poor, it’s not about the planet, and it’s NOT about the climate. It’s about attention, power, and control. A person with no scruples such as Hansen will by definition have no low they will not stoop to. I’m sorry, Willis, but your excellent point will be missed entirely by such as he. Expect standard response #12 out of the warmist’s playbook — when good questions are raised, ridicule the question, ridicule the questioner, and NEVER EVER answer the question.
The warmist’s reaction to your calling them on their fog of BS is to lay up another wall of BS. That’s the problem with trying to reason with them — since there was no logic or science in their arguments in the first place, they have no problem with spouting more BS in response. The sooner you realize that you are in a PR battle with an unprincipled non-scientist, the sooner you will realize that there are no rules to their game other than that their opponents lose.
Once you “get” that, you can see the need for taking the gloves off to deal with them. Expose the emperor for being all naked and stuff.

Mark Bofill

Thanks Willis. This is a big part of why I maintain that even if we don’t have certainty regarding AGW or CAGW one way or the other, we still have utter certainty about the stupidity and malevolence of policies that attempt to address atmospheric CO2 by driving up fossil fuel costs. Advocates for destroying the fossil fuel industry like to pretend that the use of these fuels has something to do with greed. It’s got a whole lot more to do with survival for an awful lot of poor people and their children in underdeveloped countries around the world.

cedarhill

Energy is life. Cheap energy is prosperity.
It really is that simple.

pat

I really don’t think anyone in our government cares. The poor in America are as mesmerized by the current loons in charge as a mouse is a cobra.

manicbeancounter

Well said Willis. The problem about the alarmists is that they can see nothing outside of their narrow sphere. They look at the worst case scenarios for global warming. They then massively overstate the effectiveness of policies in constraining CO2 levels and massively underplay the harm that policies cause. The way that poor countries become rich is through long term, irreversible economic growth. If you reduce the rate of economic growth by just 0.2%, over 100 years the growth foregone is far greater the project costs of global warming that Lord Stern thought up. Yet Stern ignored any consequences of policies on growth.

perlcat99

@wamron — if you’re considering ending your life, don’t. You have a cause being waved in front of you here, and rather than wave the white flag, why not take up the cause? In the inevitable economic collapse, I’m sure that opportunities will abound.

MT Geoff

Howdy Willis
Of course you’re right and this may be a new of presenting these facts. But these facts have been known throughout the climate debate and I’ve been one of the voices crying out that, while Hansen and the Enablers are annoying to me, they are dreadful to the seriously poor.
Some of our local churches are having a “Walk for Water”. Clean water depends on energy even where water is abundant because nature puts a lot of stuff in the water. But the same folks who go to the “Crop Walk” and the “Walk for Water” will protest every form of cheap energy and demand every form of costly energy. Then they go vote that way too.

Michael C. Roberts

Willis – I get the impression you feel very strongly about this subject. I share your depth of feeling as well. An isidious plan has been infiltrating the upper echelons of our Western society for quite a while, and it appears there is no end to the plan in sight. Just recently, lesson plans for school children in the USA have been changed to start the indoctrination at an early stage – extolling the “sustainable” way of life (which includes the counter-science approach of teaching a “settled science” of CAGW or that man is the “problem” in regards to commodity consumption). Villification of the stuff of upward mobility – energy use – is part and parcel of the plan. Let me link this post to the basic push that our society is up against – Club of Rome, Agenda 21, and of course coming soon to a local government near you the I.C.L.E.I. A top down approach with “policy makers” (this phrase tends to make me a bit ill each time I see it used) buying in to the plan, because they know what is best for the rest of us. The first time I remember hearing about the whole thing was when Bush II was singing the praises of “The New World Order”. So, we need to remember this plan is not limited those wearing a particular political set of clothing – it spans the political spectrum. In this appears to lie the insidous nature of the plan. Slow, under-the-radar changes until your goose is thoroughly cooked and society as you remember it no longer exists. It is happening before our eyes. I tend to alert all I come into contact with about this (when the situation presents itself) – and run the constant risk of being viewed as being a bit on the fringe or overzealouos. And I don’t really care if that is the case. The more our fellow citizens understand about the plan that is being carried out around them and what the end state is that has been chosen for them – I see that as doing a noble service to them individually and our country and scoiety as a whole. Hopefully you will check back to this post, it appears I was was the only response – but this is the subject that I feel the most passion about. Must be that Climategate 3 thing, or something?
Respectfully,
Michael C. Roberrts

DayHay

Here is another presentation using this amazing style of the display of data:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html
Hans makes his views known on climate starting at 9:07, but actually makes the case for CO2 output and wealth very well. No energy use, no wealth.

David L. Hagen

Willis’ argument is support by Tad Patzek who documents how the US oil production grew 9%/year for 60 years from 1880 to 1940 as it grew from a 3rd world level economy to the world’s superpower. See fig 11 in:
“Exponential growth, energetic Hubbert cycles, and the advancement of technology”
Archives of Mining Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences, May 3, 2008

Wyguy

cedarhill says:
March 15, 2013 at 9:01 am
Energy is life. Cheap energy is prosperity.
It really is that simple.
Well said.

Global warming alarmism, and the campaign against carbon dioxide, is MASS MURDER.
It was the “overwhelming judgment of science” in 1930s Germany that the Jews must go. MASS MURDER
Now it is the “overwhelming judgment of science” that energy must go – with predictably the same results, another Holocaust. MASS MURDER.
People are freezing to death in Europe right now because that can’t afford to heat their homes, while the green regime (government) in Denmark boasts of its having caused energy costs to quadruple through carbon taxes and restrictions on fuel imports. MASS MURDER.

ralfellis

Well said, Willis.
When I were a lad (sic), the great promise for the future was that we would be living on Mars in my lifetime. But now the great Green crusade aims to take us back to the Dark Ages (literally). If we are ever to set up Mars Base One, we will need to increase our energy availability by an order of magnitude.

OssQss

Thanks Willis
Interesting stuff as usual!
You post provoked thought on a subject that I had not considered in some time.
I think some may find it related in several ways to your post.
Enjoy 🙂

Richard M

Let’s not forget that in the US the implementers of this strategy is Obama and the EPA. The are the ones driving the policies that will lead to more deaths.

D.J. Hawkins

Willis;
Maybe, “THE WORLD’S MOST REGRESSIVE” not REPRESSIVE??
[Thanks to you and others for noting this, fixed. -w.]

jorgekafkazar

When one fancies oneself a Messiah, out to save the world, one tends to ignore the petty details.

ed mister jones

Willis! When you build up another head of eloquent steam, beat them mercilessly about the head and shoulders that the most effective population growth rate reduction measure is A HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING. That’s one the Liars can’t ‘re-figure’. I think they need to have their noses rubbed in it.

mikerossander

Minor corrections: 1) The hyperlink to the Gapminder graph is being treated as a subpage rather than a direct link to bit.ly 2) In “THE WORLDS MOST REPRESSIVE TAX”, I think you meant “reGressive”, consistent with the usage several paragraphs lower.

P.S. to my last post: What color is mass murder today? GREEN!!

Well, the poor breed pretty fast & they’re smelly, so I guess what Hansen is doing to okay.

Jon

Hansen is on the grip of religious mania, and like all religious maniacs his only real concern is to assuage his guilt and self-loathing by finding someone to blame for it. The details are incidental.

Very well said sir.

Wamron

@Perlcat99.sorry, the pain isnt worth it. You’ve seen bag people. Ever faced the prospect of being one? The AGW issue isnt a cause. None of us can change anything. Its just one of many topics I find some distraction in. The only opportunities to come out of the colllapse which I agree is on its way will be for men of violence. The latter-day Arkans of Western Europe. Ive no iron in that fire.

One recent and interesting study on this topic–here’s the Mirror account, http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/features/green/9977-green-energy-solves-dual-crises-of-poverty-and-climate, and here’s the study itself, or at least the abstract. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1806.html

michael cap

thomas homer dixon has offered an economic perspective on the cause of the decline of previous civilizations and societies. his reasons for the “synchronous failure” of societies when facing multiple crises are: 1. tremendous increase in the relative price of energy; 2. an increasing (overall) tax burden; 3. an increasing proportion of society engaged in and/or devoted to non productive activities requiring their subsidy by the rest. is this the path onto which we are deliberately led? there is an “upside to this down” as THD views this situation as an opportunity for a creative renewal of our civilization. if only our policy makers will allow such creativity to flourish!

ed mister jones

Sorry, Bill M., Like Obamacare cost estimates, the deliberately inaccurate assumptions and unattainable targets foisted upon us by special interest think-tanks and NGO’s are nothing more than lies that can be pointed to, to give credence to the Con. They exhort one to deny rather obvious reality.
Your well documented substitution of emotional involvement for critical thought undermines whatever logic may in fact reside somewhere underneath.
Government Incompetence is directly proportional to the scale of its efforts. Competent Adults know this.

You anger was palpable Willis and it needs to be said again and again until it sinks into the bloviated heads of the self appointed climate martyrs.
I was veryuch reminded reminded of a certain Pulp Fiction quote froman old source;
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.
Not that I believe in vengence but Karma is welcome to bite the climate stasi on the posterior.
Hopefully some liberals will smell the stench of their creation but I won’t be holding my breath for their Malthusian bubble to pop. They may be trying to build a Green Jerusalem but they will be making it from the corpses of the poor (William Blake reference).
Green Genocide.

The link in “Here’s a link to the live Gapminder graph so you can experiment with it yourself”, causes a page not found error.
Jim
[Thanks, fixed. -w]

Vince Causey

Not much to add, other than the following historical note.
In the 1920s Stalin condemned millions of Russians to a slow and painful death by starvation, in the name of revolution. In the 1960s, Mao T’se Tung condemned millions of peasants to death by starvation, in the name of revolution. Today, it is the Liberal chatterati who will condemn millions of third world poor to death in the name of Gaia.
And they claim to be on a higher moral plane?

I started writing a reply, and as often happens it got too long and I put it on another site. Then I went swimming, had dinner, found that Climategate III was breaking on junk science … then remembered I was going to post a link to my reply … so here it is Enerconics.
And, I would quite like permission to use the graph of income and energy use. How do I get in touch with the author and how many kJoules do they want? (Joke … you’ll have to read my article to understand)

Willis Eschenbach

ed mister jones says:
March 15, 2013 at 10:32 am

Willis! When you build up another head of eloquent steam, beat them mercilessly about the head and shoulders that the most effective population growth rate reduction measure is A HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING. That’s one the Liars can’t ‘re-figure’. I think they need to have their noses rubbed in it.

Thanks, Ed. Why do you think I included the crude birth rate in the graph … everyone at the top is in blue, low birth rate.
All the best,
w.

Willis Eschenbach

Mike Haseler says:
March 15, 2013 at 12:51 pm

… And, I would quite like permission to use the graph of income and energy use. How do I get in touch with the author and how many kJoules do they want? (Joke … you’ll have to read my article to understand)

The graph is from Gapminder world, click on the link below it for the live version … you can graph whatever you want, showing four variables at once (via the variables for the two axes, for the color, and for the size).
w.

Harvey Harrison

The ladder of success is still there – but those that have already gone up it have sawed the bottom rungs off.
After all, the 1% wouldn’t be if anybody could just up and join them.

Don J. Easterbrook

Great post, Willis (as usual!). Can you tell us the source of the data shown in the graph? I don’t need to look it up, just need to be able to tell people where the data came from.
Thanks,
Don

Willis,
I continue to enjoy reading your work. I think the information discussed today ties in with another article I’ve read today. So much so that I am providing a link if that is permissible. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/karl_marx_and_the_american_dream.html
For me at least the above cited article nicely dovetails with your point about destroying the poor. Except that may just be collateral damage. I truly believe that our society has been blindsided. By reading the article above I think you will come to the same conclusion.
Thanks Willis, I’d offer to help with the rock and stone but well you know my back’s acting up again.

Robert A. Taylor

DON’T !
Been there, almost did that. Lost my business, lost my savings, lost everything monetary. In my case this was largely due to an undiagnosed thyroid failure. It is possible to keep going. Don’t be so proud that you refuse the available help. Whether CAGW succeeds or fails isn’t a reason; it is an unjustified excuse. I like your comments. Keep it up. The only access I now have to the Internet is though public access and friends.

Jimbo

Here are some shocking numbers showing access to electricity from some of the poorest countries in the world. (1 in 4 and less).
I defy anyone here to find 2 genuine Warmists from the West who don’t have access to electricity. All the non-genuine Warmists like Hansen, Gore, Pachauri, Mann, Schmidt all have access to abundant electricity. The same goes for all the champagne Warmists in Hollywood etc. These people make me sick to the back teeth with their hypocrisy and selfishness: electricity for me, but not for thee (because ‘we‘ must act now).

RockyRoad

Willis is right. This is exactly why I’ve turned the CAGW acronym (for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) used to describe the Alarmists into its real meaning: they are Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmistas.
Their actions have been Catastrophic to the poor.
The actions have a human origin, hence “anthropogenic”.
Their actions have been Genocidal on a world-wide scope.
Their actions have been promulgated as “Warmistas”–those who are completely brainwashed with this CAGW meme in order to get money, influence, popularity, and power.
If there were ever an example of pure evil, it is these CAGW people and their anti-human stance.
Site policy prevents me from describing them in more applicable terms.