Climate Craziness of the Week: James Hansen calls for new political party to combat climate change

From his Columbia University web site comes the latest manifesto from ex NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, who calls for a “centrist” third political party. I’ve republished the manifesto below. h/t to Charles the moderator.

The American Party

James Hansen 29 May 2013

My remarks when receiving the Ridenhour Courage Award were written in Union Station on my way to the event. But my concluding comment — that we are near a point when the American people should contemplate a centrist third party — was not an idle spur-of-the-moment reflection.

I was in government 40 years, long enough to understand how aging organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream cones, organizations whose main purpose becomes self-perpetuation rather than accomplishment of their supposed objectives. The public can see this tendency in our politicians, our Congress, and our major political parties.

Our government has failed to address climate, energy, and economic challenges. These challenges, addressed together, actually can be a great opportunity. Our democracy and economic system still have great potential for innovation and rapid adoption of improved technologies, if the government provides the right conditions and gets out of the way.

The Solution is Not Rocket Science

Conservatives and liberals alike can recognize the merit of honest pricing of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels today receive subsidies and do not pay their costs to society. Human health costs of pollution from fossil fuel burning and fossil fuel mining are borne by the public. Climate disruption costs are borne by the victims and all taxpayers.

This market distortion makes our economy less efficient and less competitive. Fixing this problem is not rocket science. The solution can be simple and transparent.

I have described a fossil fuel “fee-and-dividend” approach, summarized on Charts 1 and 2. 100% of a continually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port-of-entry, is distributed uniformly to all legal residents (electronically to bank account or debit card). 60% of people receive more in the dividend than they pay in increased prices, but to get or stay on the positive side of the ledger they must pay attention to their fossil fuel use. Millions of jobs are created as we move toward clean energy. Economic modeling shows that our fossil fuel use would decrease 30% after 10 years. A rising carbon fee provides a viable international approach to reduce global emissions, the basic requirement being a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and China. A border duty on products from nations without an equivalent carbon fee or tax would provide a strong incentive for other nations to join.

Reactions to this proposal are revealing. When I spoke to a group of international labor leaders, one of them declared “that’s libertarian!”. Yet I have found that most people understand that millions of jobs would be created by a system that moves us in a clear way to an honest price on all energies, far more jobs than provided by continued public subsidies of fossil fuels and specific favored “green” energies.

A self-licking ice cream cone is a self-perpetuating system with no purpose other than to sustain itself. The phrase was used first in 1992 in On Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones, a paper by Pete Worden about NASA’s bureaucracy.[1]

clip_image004.jpg

Fee and Dividend: Charts 1 and 2.

After I spoke to a group of conservative politicians, one of them said “that’s income redistribution!” Well, yes, overall fee-and-dividend is progressive, and some ambitious low income people who pay special attention to their carbon footprint will be able to save money for other purposes. Wealthy people who own multiple houses or fly around the world a lot, will pay more in added costs than they receive in the dividend. However, the added cost to them is small compared with change of income tax rates — and lower income tax rates would be much more likely when the economy improves as the system moves toward honest pricing of fossil fuels.

One other experience may be worth relating. I was invited by one Jim DiPeso, policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, to give a keynote talk at their meeting. DiPeso had written an article praising my fossil fuel fee-and-dividend proposal as embodying conservative principles. Soon I was disinvited. Rumor has it that DiPeso was last seen being escorted to a boat on the shores of Lake Michigan and being fitted with large concrete shoes.

What Choices Do People Have?

The extreme reactions (libertarian! income redistribution!) do not represent the feelings of most Americans I have spoken with. Most people readily appreciate fee-and-dividend and honest pricing of fossil fuels, once it is explained. They understand that it would help modernize our infrastructure, improve our economic competitiveness, and raise living standards. DiPeso noted that it could be made clear in an elevator talk. The public needs to know, but unfortunately, we do not have a President giving fireside chats on such fundamental matters, despite their importance for the economy, energy independence, national security, and climate stabilization.

The public is rational about such matters, in my opinion. But what present choices do they have? Some Republicans are so well-oiled and coal-fired that they assert that human-made climatechange is a “hoax” perpetrated by scientists seeking research funding (allowing them to work 80 hours a week for a modest wage, after investing 7-10 years in obtaining their higher education). Realistic Republicans, seeing the power of extremists, hesitate to speak.

Well-oiled coal-fired Democrats exist too, but their main problem is addiction to spending our money. Even when they advocate fee-and-dividend, they propose to use much of the fee to “pay down the national debt” (read: “make the government bigger”) and to fund their pet energy technologies.

Energy Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D)

Government has a proper role in energy technology — it should support RD&D (research, development and demonstration). This topic is crucial to climate stabilization and closely related to the present topic — our currently dysfunctional two-party system — so I briefly digress.

Climate stabilization requires phasing out fossil fuel CO2 emissions, which in return requires a large source of carbon-free electricity. Hydropower is limited in amount. That leaves nuclear power and “renewables” (wind, sun, geothermal, etc.) as principal alternatives to fossil fuels, at least with current technologies.

Unfortunately, proponents of nuclear power or renewables, in promoting their preference, usually attack the other. This helps the fossil fuel industry, but is detrimental to our children’s future. Given the urgency of phasing out CO2 emissions, we need both nuclear and renewables. In the long run, one may win out over the other, but this is no time for mutual destruction.

Solar power and wind power have moved smartly through RD&D in recent years and are beginning to provide significant amounts of electricity, the biggest success story being Germany. In the decade 2001-2011 Germany increased the non-hydroelectric renewable energy portion of its electricity from 4% to 19%, with fossil fuels decreasing from 63% to 61% (hydroelectric decreased from 4% to 3% and nuclear power decreased from 29% to 18%). Germany’s renewable energy is continuing to increase (but the fact that Germany is building new lignite power plants is disconcerting as regards their expectations for fossil fuel phase-out).

Nuclear power has demonstrated a capacity for rapid expansion, e.g., in the decade 1977-1987, France increased nuclear power production 15-fold, the nuclear portion of electricity increasing from 8% to 70%. That was 2nd-generation technology, light-water reactors that use only about 1% of the energy in the nuclear fuel, leaving nuclear waste with a lifetime of millennia. Reactors planned today (mostly 3rd generation, light-water technology) include improvements (such as convective cooling that can operate without external power, thus avoiding the basic problem faced by the Fukushima reactorsb), but they still leave most of the fuel as long-lived “waste”.

Expansion of nuclear power thus depends on introduction of 4th generation technologyc, “fast” reactors, which allow neutrons to move fast enough to utilize more than 99% of the nuclear fuel. These reactors also can “burn” nuclear waste as well as excess nuclear weapons material2. Argonne National Laboratory extensively tested a prototype, the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), designed with a fuel cycle that minimized the possibility of plutonium acquisition by terrorists or a rogue stated. Using this technology there is sufficient fuel in nuclear waste and excess weapons material to provide our electrical energy needs for centuries without uranium mining.

See discussion of nuclear power, including Fukushima, on page 7 of Baby Lauren and the Kool-Aid.
c Nuclear plants constructed in the next several years will be mainly 3rd generation light-water reactors; nuclear “waste” from these reactors can be used as fuel for the future 4th generation power plants.

Given the awareness of climate change that existed in the 1990s, it was a shock when President William Clinton, in 1993 in his first State of the Union address declared: “We are eliminating programs that are no longer needed, such as nuclear power research and development.” Although this pleased a vocal anti-nuclear minority, it deprived the nation of the ability to examine and compare all potential alternatives to fossil fuel electricity and reduced our potential to provide international leadership in peaceful uses of nuclear power.

This 1993 decision, to at least some extent, has caused a 20-year delay in development and refinement of advanced nuclear power technology in the United States. Just as with solar technology, there is great potential for technology development that reduces costs of nuclear power, especially via standardized modular construction. Bill Gates, who points out that nuclear power is already safer than all other major energy sources, is using a part of his personal wealth to develop a specific 4th generation reactorb, but for the sake of optimizing results and minimizing future electricity costs it is desirable to have more broad-based RD&D.e

Past failure to carry out this RD&D has created a situation in which gas is the likely energy source for continued and expanded electricity generation. In turn, this means that political leaders in many countries will be practically forced to approve hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for gas on a large scale, unless sufficient effective alternatives are available.

Gas will truly be a transition fuel between coal and clean energies only if better, inexpensive, clean alternatives for electricity generation are developed. Otherwise such fuel-switching could backfire, because usable gas resources are enormous It would be helpful if advocates for nuclear power and renewables would be mutually supportive. Let competition and the public decide what energy sources they prefer on the long run. That decision can be made best as experience allows the full potential of all alternatives to tested. A rising fee on carbon can then be successful, leading to phase-out of fossil fuel emissions.

The American Party

The public recognizes and is fed up with the failure of both political parties to work for the common good. So is it time to abandon them for a third party? Perhaps not quite.

Some conservative thought leaders recognize the merits of a carbon fee, a non-tax, 100% of collected funds distributed to the public on per capita basis. I have mentioned a Wall Street Journal article endorsing this approach by George Shultz and Gary Becker, Shultz having been Secretary of State under Reagan and Becker being a Nobel prize winning economist. It seems worthwhile to work hard to gain support for this approach, with expectation that conservative support would be conditional on liberals not using any of the funds to expand government.

d All uranium-fueled nuclear power plants produce plutonium and there is no expectation that nuclear power will be eliminated by all nations on Earth, so it is important for the United States to stay on top of nuclear technology to help make it as safe and proliferation resistant as possible. The IFR replaces the usual PUREX (Plutonium and Uranium Recovery by Extraction) with a safer “pyroprocessing” approach2.
e Although I am suggesting the merits of further RD&D on advanced generation nuclear power, General Electric says that it is ready to build 4th generation PRISM reactors, a refined version of technology that Argonne National Laboratory developed two decades ago, i.e., they suggest that the technology is ready for demonstration.

However, it may turn out that no matter how we try, such a rational approach cannot gain sufficient support within any reasonable period. The rumor about DiPeso’s concrete shoes is only half facetious. Among potential supporters there seems to be a palpable fear of ostracism if they were to endorse a moderate conservative approach such as fee-and-dividend.

And yet moderation is just what most Americans seem to want.

In such case, the fastest way to progress may be a 3rd party, a centrist party. It is very possible that the United States is ready for a centrist American Party. In 1992 Ross Perot garnered almost 20% of the votes for President. At times he had led in the polls, but he damaged his credibility in several ways, including his assertion that he had once seen Martians on his front yard.

Compared with 1992, a much larger fraction of the people is fed up with the failures of both major parties. If, following the mid-term elections of 2014, there is not a strong indication of bi- partisan progress, it may be time to consider the possibility of launching a major centrist 3rd party effort, not only for the Presidency but for Congress as well.

Citizens Climate Lobby

Implausible dreaming, you scoff. Not so fast. For example, consider Citizens Climate Lobby. If you don’t know about them read today’s article in the New York Times. These are honest, hard- working people trying to educate politicians and the public about the need for a revenue-neutral carbon fee via op-eds, letters-to-the-editor, meetings with editorial boards, meetings with congressional staffers, and meetings with congress people.

Citizens Climate Lobby is made up largely of volunteers, with continual training of new recruits. They have doubled in size each year for the past several years and are active in most states. They are positive, dedicated and respectful, creating a good impression with congress people.

What is the chance that they can compete against the well-heeled fossil fuel lobby? Hard to say. But if they fail to move our present government by 2015, and by then have doubled in size a few more times, they just may be a democratic force to be reckoned with. They seek to persuade and are unfailingly respectful and polite, but determined. So, if in a few years the two major parties remain uncompromising and unsupportive of a carbon fee, it would not surprise me if Citizens Climate Lobby became a major force for a centrist third party.

Everybody is welcome to join Citizens Climate Lobby — a link to an introductory call is at http://www.tfaforms.com/275537. Their summer conference in Washington this year is 23-25 June; registration is at http://citizensclimatelobby.org/2013-international-conference

1 Hansen, J., Storms of My Grandchildren, Bloomsbury, 319 pages, 2009.
2 Yoon and Till, C. and Yoon, C., Plentiful Energy, Amazon, 395 pages, 2011.
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mike Bromley the Kurd near the Green Line

“if the government provides the right conditions and gets out of the way.”
If there was a poorly-considered statement in this ramble, this is it. James, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

MattN

I swear I thought there was already a Green Party…

john robertson

Name That Party.
The possibilities are endless.
With Hansen at the head, it would be Fables of our Grandchildren?
Or Phantom Weather ?
Cataclysmic Caterwauling Clowns?
But a party dedicated to wetting their pants over weather, resources and the future, while spewing hatred for mankind already exists.
Its called the Green Party here in Canada.
Green as in wet behind the ears, delusional of life,….certainty of youth.

Edohiguma

Reminds me of that one green, anti-nuclear party that emerged prior to last year’s elections in Japan. They rode the “nuclear power is bad!” train and had nothing else going.
They were brutally murdered by the voters, because the people had different problems on their minds.

MangoChutney

I was in government 40 years, long enough to understand how aging organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream conesa, organizations whose main purpose becomes self-perpetuation rather than accomplishment of their supposed objectives.
UN
Government
WWF
Greenpeace
Friends of the Earth
+ many, many more
(got bored reading the rest of Hansens rubbish)

Gary

Hansen says the energy economy is distorted so his solution is to distort it more. That’s “self-licking” logic.

MangoChutney

oops, first paragraph was meant to quote Hansen

Edohiguma

Hansen’s Flying Circus

Geckko

Ww, that is one self delusional rant. Two howlers that stood out to me:
“I spend 40 years in Government”. Gee, an i thought he worked as a research scientist at NASA. It turns out he was governing the country.
“carbon tax will create millions of jobs”. That is the holy grail of economics. A tax that creates employment. Simply amazing and from a man with no formal training in economics.

Mark Bofill

…Millions of jobs are created as we move toward clean energy…
…A rising carbon fee provides a viable international approach to reduce global emissions, the basic requirement being a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and China…

If we’re going with fairy tales, why not go with a more direct one; we’ll all pray to Gaea and she will distribute power bubbles to the faithful via elves riding winged unicorns?
I think it’d be cool to see a winged unicorn.

Joey

Good. He should be encouraged to do so. It will cut into the vote for the Democrats where the weirdos currently reside.

Ken Hall

Excellent, another loony left fringe party to laugh at. Go for it Hansen, please take as many left wing Democrat votes away from the Democrats as possible.

Go ahead, laugh it up all you WUWT posters.
You’ll be singing a different tune when the oceans are boiling.
🙂

That is what makes America great. Jimmy, if you want a new party, start it. No one is stopping you.

I still don’t get how he works out that fossil fuels are enormously subsidised. Their price is worked out (largely) by the market (when they aren’t ganging up together to fix them). Certainly in the UK fossil fuels aren’t subsidised. 69% of gasolene/petrol is tax. We have VAT on home heating, plus ‘green’ taxes to boot. Maybe he wants to add in the imaginary economic costs of his imaginary AGW impacts, which are bo11ox anyway.

Toby Nixon

Anyone who would declare “that’s libertarian” when hearing about “a fossil fuel ‘fee-and-dividend’ approach… a continually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port-of-entry, … distributed uniformly to all legal residents” simply doesn’t have a clue what “libertarian” means.

[snip – not interested in the political labeling you’ve done there, which is a site policy issue…take your nuttery elsewhere – Anthony]

David Chamness

If one’s goal is purely to cripple the fossil fuel industry, then this proposal makes a lot of sense. The stated goal to use this “carrot and stick” approach to reduce fossil fuel use by making fossil fuels really expensive, and then giving the cash collected to people who don’t use the fuels will enrich the poor (who don’t use as much fuel) in the beginning.
Unfortunately, the rich will quickly find that the fuel has become more expensive than other forms of power, such as solar energy, and they will move to source their energy by personally building their own power collection sites. They won’t worry about higher gasoline charges so much, because they can afford the luxury.
Business, on the other hand, will be hurt badly. Lets say we succeed in doubling the cost of diesel fuel. Nearly everything that is bought and sold in the US is delivered via truck. Those trucks run on diesel fuel. So, we double the cost of delivery, increasing the cost of all goods in the US. Sure, we give the poor some extra money, then take it back by making the food and clothing more expensive. Brilliant.
There is simply not enough biodiesel produced to run the trucks, so they have no real choice in whether or not they burn fossil fuels. We may see more solar panels and wind farms, reducing the production of electricity from coal and oil, but that’s about it.
In the end, we increase the basic cost of living for everyone, because we’re replacing cheap energy with expensive energy. Want to see the effects of expensive energy? Go to an island nation and check out the rate of electricity, water, food, etc. Why is water, for example, more expensive? Because water is moved by electric pumps. When electricity is more expesnive to deliver, it affects the cost of everything that depends on electricity. When trucking is more expensive to operate, that affects everything that is delivered by a truck. When fuel for trains is more expensive, it affects anything that his shipped by rail.
Will the free money given via the top 5% (the rich) to the bottom 95% be enough to cover the extra costs? Somehow I doubt it.

AnonyMoose

Leftist statement proposes socialist solution, calls it middle-of-the-road. Also thinks there is a powerful fossil fuel lobby.

cotwome

The American Party has existed many times, and currently it already exists!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Party_%281969%29

Tom G(ologist)

Hmmm.. Now that the Space Shuttle is scuttled and there are companies which are nearly at the point where private space travel is on our doorstep, isn’t NASA a ‘self-licking ice crean cone’?
And I think we should STOP enabling this cretin by calling him “Ex-NASA Scientist.” It bestows some sort of credibility on him. An EX scientist is NOT a scientist any longer if he is no longer conducting primary research. Calling him a scientist, EX or otherwise, inflates this mountebank’s standing.

Barbee

LOVE IT! We should encourage this.
It can only be a good thing for this country.

“carbon tax will create millions of jobs”.
No doubt true.
Millions of Manual Labor jobs at minimum wage.
That’s what happens when you cannot use energy to leverage your work.
Read the fine print.

RockyRoad

Hansen’s CCC party, eh? (CCC = Climate Change Combatants). Sounds like something right out of Orwell’s 1984. It’s not like we don’t have enough strange contortions going on in our political establishments already!

RockyRoad

Barbee says:
May 30, 2013 at 8:47 am

LOVE IT! We should encourage this.
It can only be a good thing for this country.

Can you list a few ideas how it would be a good thing for this country?

George A

Fragmenting the left is always a good idea.

Bugs Man

If a time machine existed to send Hansen back to the 1950’s I rather suspect that a certain Sen McCarthy would get his teeth into that manifesto – and rightly so!

“Millions of jobs are created as we move toward clean energy”
&
“carbon tax will create millions of jobs”
That’s about as far as I got reading this dribble. Couldn’t read the rest of it.
Weren’t 2.5 real jobs in Spain lost for every “clean energy job” gained there?
And how exactly does a carbon tax create jobs?

Ironically, this coincides with the publication this week of a paper which demolishes Hansen’s entire thesis that global warming has been forestalled for 16 years due to man-made emissions of sulfur dioxide.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/hansen-falsified-again-new-paper-finds.html

D. J. Hawkins

Philip Aggrey says:
May 30, 2013 at 8:38 am
I still don’t get how he works out that fossil fuels are enormously subsidised. Their price is worked out (largely) by the market (when they aren’t ganging up together to fix them). Certainly in the UK fossil fuels aren’t subsidised. 69% of gasolene/petrol is tax. We have VAT on home heating, plus ‘green’ taxes to boot. Maybe he wants to add in the imaginary economic costs of his imaginary AGW impacts, which are bo11ox anyway.

The claim is made that fossil fuels are not properly priced to cover their social costs, mostly with regard to pollution. You can roam through the Internet and get an idea of how various rent-seekers attempt to calculate this cost. It seems extraordinarily fungible and can be stretched to fit whatever hobby horse the whacko happens to be riding. Which is to say, pure nonsense. Heaven forfend they should adopt your more sensible view.

RockyRoad

JohnWho says:
May 30, 2013 at 8:36 am

Go ahead, laugh it up all you WUWT posters.
You’ll be singing a different tune when the oceans are boiling.
🙂

You know, if you had some concrete, solid, scientifically-verifiable information indicating the oceans are boiling, I’d appreciate you sharing that with all of us. Then we could all get into gear and prevent the oceans from boiling. Because I’m the last person in the world that wants to see our seafood supply end up like that.
But if you think CO2 is going to “fuel the fires”, so to speak, to boil the oceans, I hate to disappoint–in the past, levels of that gas have been 10, maybe 15 or even 20 times what they are now, and we see no evidence of “boiling oceans”.
So what is it you’ve got?

“… that we are near a point when the American people should contemplate a centrist third party …”
and then he describes a center of the far-left party.
LOL

markx

There ya go, not so dumb after all, eh?!
Step 1 … Save the World.
Step 2 … Become President of the USA.

RockyRoad says:
May 30, 2013 at 9:01 am
JohnWho says:
May 30, 2013 at 8:36 am
Go ahead, laugh it up all you WUWT posters.
You’ll be singing a different tune when the oceans are boiling.
🙂
You know, if you had some concrete, solid, scientifically-verifiable information indicating the oceans are boiling, I’d appreciate you sharing that with all of us. Then we could all get into gear and prevent the oceans from boiling. Because I’m the last person in the world that wants to see our seafood supply end up like that.
But if you think CO2 is going to “fuel the fires”, so to speak, to boil the oceans, I hate to disappoint–in the past, levels of that gas have been 10, maybe 15 or even 20 times what they are now, and we see no evidence of “boiling oceans”.
So what is it you’ve got?

But, but, Hansen said!
LOL
Sorry RockyRoad, I guess my ” 🙂 ” wasn’t enough and I should have used a “sarc” tag.
Although, the idea that one could go out and catch already boiled lobster does sound rather tasty.

So the purpose of the redistribution is to stop the thing that is allowing for the redistribution? Did I read what he wrote correctly?

Mark Bofill

JohnWho says:
May 30, 2013 at 8:36 am
Go ahead, laugh it up all you WUWT posters.
You’ll be singing a different tune when the oceans are boiling.
🙂
————————————
(WAG) I bow in the presence of a master.

markx says:
May 30, 2013 at 9:04 am
There ya go, not so dumb after all, eh?!
Step 1 … Save the World.
Step 2 … Become President of the USA.

Hey, you don’t even have to actually save the world, just promise that you will.
It worked for Obama, didn’t it?

chris y

MangoChutney-
Good points.
You forgot the most obvious self-licking ice cream cone of all- NASA GISS!
Hansen was the cone-head.
Hansen was already dead-certain that NASA GISS had achieved its goal in 1988, just before NASA GISS funding was exponentially increased by furious licking activity.
Also, Hansen wrote a 2008 rantathon letter, where he defined congressional lobbyists as those who wear alligator shoes, and then banned them from climate policy discussions.
No Alligator Shoes!- Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend
Hansen was emphatic about a motto-
“Make this your motto: “100% or fight! No alligator shoes!”
Apparently he is comfortable with alligator-shod eco-slicksters roaming the halls of Congress now…
As far as a name for Hansen’s new ‘third’ party (I thought there were ten’s of political parties around the country?), I propose the PC party, which could stand for:
Pearl Clutchers
Precautionary Catastrophists
Progress Clampers
Piltdown Champions
Punish Carbon!
Pubescent Chiders
Its motto could be “Monetizing Carbon Carbonizes Money”
(originally quipped by WUWT commenter Lew Skannen on 1/11/2013)

Ian

My irony meter pegged, caught fire and then exploded.
Sounds like some dis-owning projection there Jimmy with that whole self-licking ice-cream cone business. Josh could have a field day with that imagery.

As the objective of a carbon tax (supposedly) is to eliminate CO2 emissions (rather than redistribution), what happens when this is achieved?
There will be no carbon tax to redistribute, and everybody, rich and poor, will end up with more expensive and unreliable green energy.
Hansen is not so stupid as to not realise this, which suggests two things:-
1) His main objective is redistribution.
And/or
2) He knows his policies will cause economic damage, but refuses to admit this fact in public.

pokerguy

Tosser.
Love how he just slipped in his “Courage” award. All about ego folks. Guess who the real self licking ice cream cone is?
Nauseating.

Let’s see the logic of the claim of a “centrist party.” That should mean views halfway between the Dems and the GOP.

Let’s see:
the center between sparse and vast would be “half-vast”.
C’mon, who wouldn’t join Hansen’s Half-Vast Party?
more 🙂

So leftist off the charts is “center”? “Libertarian?” Maybe in the context of North Korea.
Why doesn’t Hansen just shut up? Isn’t he embarrassed at himself? Of course he isn’t, but that’s standard for ignorant, delusional, mean-spirited fanatics like him.

rabbit

Single issue parties don’t generally go anywhere. This is particularly so here given that concerns over AGW seems to be waning with the public.

William Astley

Hansen says ‘The Solution is Not Rocket Science’
William, What is the darn problem?
Hansen, the problem is getting and keeping a job. The problem is saving enough money to purchase a house. The is problem earning enough money to pay for education. The problem is earning enough money to pay off debts and to save enough money to retire.
The problem is the government is spending more money than they receive in revenue. The problem is massive government departments that serve no purpose but to increase the cost of business in the US. The problem is employee benefits for government employees which cannot be afforded.
The US is following the EU into economic ruin. Idiotic ‘green’ scams and carbon taxes is a significant part of the reason why the EU is failing. If the solution to economic nirvana was what you prescribe the EU would not have the highest unemployment in the history of the EU with four countries on the verge of bankruptcy.
You have lived in a bubble, isolated from reality. You had a high paying government job and are now getting a generous defined benefit pension. You speak unchallenged from a bully pulpit. You have no understanding what happens when a city, a state, or a country reaches the end of the borrowing road. Go visit Detroit, travel through that city to get a first hand view. Talk to some of the people that cannot get a job, talk to people who must work two jobs to pay for rent and feed their children. Walk through a neighborhood where there is high employment and nightly violence.
The resultant of a massive tax on energy and more subsides for the green scams will be higher energy prices in the US (which is a tax on US citizens) and a loss of jobs in the US. See EU above.
China is placing two coal fired power plants into service per week; India one coal fired power plant per week. The developing world is developing.
Destroying the US economy will not reduce world carbon dioxide emissions which is not a problem anyway.
Hansen you are an idiot.

GlynnMhor

(sigh) I cannot seem to get the dreadful image out of my head of Hansen bent over licking himself…

Jim

Ian:
“My irony meter pegged, caught fire and then exploded.
Sounds like some dis-owning projection there Jimmy with that whole self-licking ice-cream cone business. Josh could have a field day with that imagery.”
Ian,
I wholeheartedly agree. The contradictions compound exponentially. Hansen must be on the verge of lockjaw from talking out of both sides of his mouth….
JCL

JJ

Hansen’s real problem is not that the political system has failed to address ‘the problem of global warming’.
His real problem is that that the lies he has told about ‘global warming’ have failed to advance his political objectives. To Hansen and others of his ilk, ‘addressing global warming’ is a means, not an end.

Growlzler

Dementia?