Rep. Hank “Guam May Capsize” Johnson (D-GA): “Our climate is not for sale”

Guest ridicule by David Middleton

Our climate is not for sale


As President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency drops “climate change”, and its impact on children, from its latest rule on hydrofluorocarbons, it is time to talk honestly about science.


Climate change is impacting every part of our society, from our security to our economy to our health. We know what’s causing it. And we know how to stop it.


Members of Congress have heard enough about the science. And, as a society, we all know from our experience with the tobacco industry and other corporate entities how the powerful seek to stop progress.

But until Congress is willing to have an honest dialogue, our economy and our security continue to be imperiled.

It is time to talk honestly. Our climate is not for sale.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), a member of the Judiciary and Transportation & Infrastructure Committees, is part of the House Safe Climate Caucus and received 100 percent clean-energy and environmental voting record in 2017-18 from Environment Georgia.

Michael Shank is the communications director for the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network.

The Hill

Substitute “read” for “heard” and “listened”…

Of course, it’s not as dumb as Hank Johnson’s classic…


Our climate is not for sale

While we know that “our climate is not for sale”… The global war on weather does have a price tag: $122 trillion funded by a $240/gal gasoline tax.

Since it’s clear that Hank Johnson is incoherent, this article must have been primarily written by Michael Shank, who has a Ph.D. in social justice warrior-ing…

Michael Shank, Ph.D., is the Communications Director for the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, a group of international cities committed to achieving aggressive long-term carbon reduction goals, and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, a peer-to-peer network of local government professionals from cities across the US and Canada dedicated to creating a healthier environment, economic prosperity, and increased social equity.

Michael’s professional career includes leading press and/or policy shops at the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Climate Nexus, Friends Committee on National Legislation, U.S. Congress (Mike Honda), Institute for Economics and Peace, Biodiversity Northwest, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance and more.

Michael’s academic career includes a Ph.D. from George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution and is focused on climate conflict. Michael is adjunct faculty at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs, where he teaches graduate courses on Sustainable Development, Power and Politics and Climate and Security. Shank is also adjunct faculty and a board member at George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, where he teaches graduate courses on Communicating Conflict.

Michael Shank Dot Com

Featured Image


46 thoughts on “Rep. Hank “Guam May Capsize” Johnson (D-GA): “Our climate is not for sale”

  1. “where he teaches graduate courses on Sustainable Development,”

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, Believing in sustainable development is like believing in the tooth fairy in that you think that by setting aside certain resources and not developing them, you expect that in the future a tooth fairy will come along and reward you.

  2. I find the Hon Gentleman from Georgia to be a climate hero. Any politician refusing contributions from climate change advocates is leading by example. After all our climate is not for sale.

    • It is truly painful listening to this dotard struggle to string more than two words together , but the punchline makes it worth the wait.

      His delivery is so straight and flawless as he suggests an island can tip over, you get the impression he really believes that is possible. He really should do stand-up.

    • IMO, apathy, emotionalism and PC peer pressures form the opinions of those lacking intelligence or too lazy to gain insight and think for themselves.
      Add in the best campaign manager you can buy who has an “in” with liberal press, plus skillfully play the minority agenda voters and bring home the bacon on election day.
      Another reason for term limits, I guess.

    • I ask myself that question whenever I see this dufus. If the one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind, then Johnson may be the brightest among his supporters – and that’s pretty scary.

    • Probably very good at handing out the patronage candy. And letting everybody in his district know about it.

    • yeah, I was stunned to see he is STILL in a govt position.
      wtf facepalm and make that a godzilla f/p at that!
      shows hes NOT any more stupid that the electorate
      thats scary!

  3. “Michael’s academic career includes a Ph.D. from George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution and is focused on climate conflict.”
    Huh? Dafudge is “climate conflict”?

    • Climate conflict is newspeak for what the Club of Rome called back in the 1970s “resource wars.” The alarmist threat is that population and environmental damage and scarce resources will cause disruptive migration and hot wars.

    • “climate conflict” is when a politician’s virtue signaling about the non-existent “climate catastrophy” meets the reailty of voters who can’t afford to pay the increase energy costs that the politician’s proposed “solutions” would saddle them with.

  4. “Climate change is impacting every part of our society, from our security to our economy to our health. We know what’s causing it. And we know how to stop it.”

    They’re insane. May as well stop the sun from rising and the oceans from being wet. Where do they come up with these falsities?

  5. Billiard balls made of ivory and whale oil lamps are “renewable” and as such sustainable.
    Tell that to your green friends.

  6. I need help.
    I do.

    I really do want to see the video of an entire island flipping over. I do. I want that.
    I’ve got tears in my eyes from laughing at just the thought – my wizened, cynical & skeptical brane is awash with Dopamine right now.
    Even better would be a split-screen shot of Hank’s head exploding as said island goes over to slip slide away, ever so gracefully into the briny deep.
    In Slo-Mo with a big orchestral sound track of the Paul Simon song – then re-mixed by Tiesto or Weatherall into a 124bpm 4/4 with a false colour stop/start/repeat video edit.
    And lasers. None of yer downwelling IR mush. Big red & green lasers. Spread the love.

    The World needs more people like Hank Johnson.
    Really. It does.

    • Yo *do* understand why doncha.

      Hank has got what *every* girl in the world searches for at some point in her life.
      An agile and inventive mind, leading to a ‘GSOH’
      (Think of The Children, that’s what ‘makes’ them and brings them up AND fends off the divorce lawyer)

      • At the end of the video we would need to have a distinguished guy in an officers uniform saying, deadpan,

        “Uhhh, I did not anticipate that …”

        (is that Hank Johnson video edited in any way? was there not any reaction at all to the tip over comment?)

        • At one point, with the utmost military self-discipline, the Navy brass taking the question put a finger to his eye, to hold back a tear of laughter.

    • At the end of the video, we would need the distinguished guy in the officers uniform saying, deadpan,

      “Uhhh, I did not anticipate that…..”

    • Reminds me of a qoute from a congressman “it is not a prerequisite to be literate for entry into Congress”.

  7. Dear all!
    As far as I have understood the background of Hank Johnsons statement of Guam is that it came after a treatment of a dangereous illness he had been treated for. We should not take it in this discussion as a statement on climate state.

    Larry Hulden
    retired from Finnish Museum of Natural History

    • What illness would that be?

      Global Warming fever?
      Psychotic personality?
      Rejection at never being groped?
      Confusion at not being able to understand a Monty Python skit?
      Rejection at no one takes him seriously?
      Failure to become a famous rapper?
      Just a plain nutcase?

    • Larry,

      Stupidity is not an illness (although it can indeed be dangerous).

      Stupidity can be treated, but only with limited improvement to the patient. With respect to Hank Johnson (and his position of power), the benefit of a true “Stupidity Reduction” regimen would not be likely yield the needed improvement.

      Larry, as you should know, individuals that ignore (or rationalize) history are not necessarily doomed … but they sure aren’t helping.

  8. Does anyone seriously think that you can buy or sell the climate? Like from ebay or something? What’s with politicians and their meaningless catchphrases?

  9. It amazes me – not just the flat ignorant stupidity of guys like Johnson, but the fact that he has enough of a following of bobble-heads to get elected and actually stay in office.

    I mean, not only is Johnson apparently considered a learned opinion, but the moral high-ground – and arguing against it is close to futile… except we can’t simply accept futility and throw up our hands – I wish we could – I’d love to never get into this argument again, but there’s no choice – it has to be pushed back.

    I think every election for the foreseeable future is going to be the most important we’ve ever had. We have to win every time – but at this point, they only have to win once.

  10. “Climate change is impacting every part of our society, from our security to our economy to our health. We know what’s causing it. And we know how to stop it.”

    “Climate change”, properly defined, has ALWAYS impacted every part of our society. We have a pretty good idea what’s causing much of it. And to think that we could stop it is like thinking that we could stop gravity.

    The phrase, “climate change”, does NOT automatically mean “change to climate attributed solely to humans” — that’s a very narrow, ill conceived definition that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change originally used to try to hijack the correct definition and substitute its hijacked definition in popular usage.

    By relying on this hijacked definition, many speakers are falsely assuming that everyone is talking the same language, when, in fact, those people using the phrase in this hijacked manner are talking one language, while those using the correct definition are talking in another language. This false assumption, thus, attempts to force dubious ideas down people’s throats, without their knowing that two different definitions are being confused and abused.

  11. We are flooding the world with PhDs with no useable knowledge or skills. I used to say that before their fantasy professions played out they would have to fallback on being a bank teller, but even this real job is being phased out. Climate science became so ridiculous that it was open season for fantasy, spawning such disciplines as Feminine Glaciology, AntiAnthroCC Psychology and a whole spitload of ministries, think tanks, etc on climate catastrophes that are showing less and less chance of even happening.

    • Gary,
      This has been going on for at least 30 years, though it appears to be worse now. I interviewed a PHD in environmental sciences 30 years ago who had no math, chemistry, physics, biology, statistics or real science of any kind for an environmental management position managing cleanup of heavy metal effluent from plating companies. She had done some significant tree planting and horseback riding though to get her PHD.

      • I’ve interviewed a graduate geologist (going into an MSc program) for a mining exploration job who advised me she hadnt taken rhe mineralogy option!

        • For my BS Earth Science 1980 I took the following ES courses:
          Physical Geology
          Historical Geology
          Geology of Energy Resources
          Marine Science I
          Stratigraphy & Sedimentation
          Field Geology
          Soil Science
          Engineering Geology
          Structural Geology
          Independent Study Earth Science

          And took:
          General Chemistry I
          General Chemistry II
          Introduction to Computing (FORTRAN)
          Physical Geography
          Calculus I
          Calculus II
          Calculus III
          Differential Equations
          Linear Algebra
          History of Mathematics
          College Physics
          Modern Physics

          And graduated with a 3.6 GPA (out of 4.0) and still managed to party like I was Brett Kavanaugh… 😉

  12. No, there is not a proposed tax of $240 per gallon on gasoline. Or if you think there is, provide a reference.

    What there is, according to the Daily Caller, which I have not verified from the document itself, is the following:

    To keep within a rise of 1.5C, we will need global taxes on carbon of between $135 and $5,500 a ton

    The higher of these, $5,500 may be what is leading to the idea of a tax of $240 a gallon.

    The idea that they could be giving information useful enough to publish to the world by telling us that we need taxes of between $135 a ton and $5,500 a ton is of course completely mad.

    But it is not telling us that we need taxes of $240 a gallon of gas, and its wrong to claim that it is. Its dangerous actually, it brings this site into disrepute by alleging things which are obviously not true.

    Or, provide a reference in the report itself.

    I wish they were providing not just a huge range, but a definite number or a narrow range. It would give some content to the claim and make it possible to discuss intelligently.

    At the moment, if the Caller is correct, its like saying that to reduce the accident rate we have to set a speed limit. it should be somewhere between 5mph and 150mph. Hope that helps.


      11:50 AM 10/08/2018
      Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

      • A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
      • The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
      • If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.

      A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

      For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

      If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.


      Daily Caller


      From SR15

      In summary, new analyses are consistent with the AR5 and show that the price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued (high confidence). Values vary substantially across models, scenarios and socio-economic, technology and policy assumptions. While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required.


      104 = 10,000

       Carbon tax per ton of CO2
       Recent price $25.00 $30.00 $27,000
      Gasoline per gallon (retail) $2.50 $0.22 $0.27 $240
      Natural gas per mcf (residential) $10.91 $1.33 $1.59 $1,434
      Propane per gallon (residential) $2.50 $0.14 $0.17 $152
      Heating oil per gallon (residenial) $3.07 $0.25 $0.30 $270
      Kerosene per gallon (retail) $3.29 $0.24 $0.29 $260
      Coal per short ton (Powder River Basin) $12.10 $52.52 $63.02 $56,720

      Effects of carbon tax on specific fuels

    • Also from SR15…

      Based on data available for this special report, the price of carbon varies substantially across models and scenarios, and their value increase with mitigation efforts (see Figure 2.26) (high confidence). For instance, undiscounted values under a Higher-2˚C pathway range from 10–200 USD2010 tCO2-eq–1 in 2030, 45–960 USD2010 tCO2-eq–1 in 2050, 120–1000 USD2010 tCO2-eq–1 in 2070 and 160–2125 USD2010 tCO2-eq–1 in 2100. On the contrary, estimates for a Below-1.5˚C pathway range from 135–5500 USD2010 tCO2-eq–1 in 2030, 245– 13000 USD2010 tCO2-eq–1 in 2050, 420–17500 USD2010 tCO2-eq–1 in 2070 and 690–27000 USD2010 tCO2-eq–1 in 2100.

      $27,000/ton CO2 ~ $240/gal of gasoline.

      • Quite. The article says that the high number, the $240/gal, is what they are proposing or endorsing or claiming to be required. But it is not. The references don’t show what you are saying they show.

        What they are saying is completely mad, its that what’s required is somewhere between $1.50 and $240 (I don’t know about the $1.50, but anyway its a very low bottom number).

        But, mad as that is, it is not the madness of seriously proposing the world adopt a tax of $240/gal by 2030 in order to keep to 1.5 degrees. Its just as mad, but its different.

        As I say, I really wish they would come up with one clear recommendation. I would be more than happy if that were $240/gal. Or if it were $120. Or even $40.

        Whatever, just some concrete proposal so we could flesh out the consequences and evaluate it. Saying somewhere up to $240 is totally useless.

        But, really, saying up to $240 is not the same as saying we are proposing $240, and its wrong to present it as such.

        • When it comes to the cost of government programs and regulations, the high-end estimate is generally lower than what it will actually cost. When the government proposes anything, it’s a demand on the private sector

          The Below-1.5˚C pathway demands a carbon tax ranging from from $135 to $5,500/ton of CO2 in 2010… EIGHT fracking years ago.

          $135 to $5,500/ton of CO2 equals $1.20 to $48.90/gal of gasoline. The average retail price for gasoline in Houston, including all current taxes, is around $2.50/gal. The low-end case required now (actually 8 years ago) is a non-starter.

          • I agree with a lot of this. A proposal to even double the price of gas, globally (because just doing it in the US or in the West would have little effect on emissions) is a non-starter. It would be political suicide in the West, and its out of the question for the Chinese or Indian governments.

            And gasoline is just one aspect of a carbon tax. The consequences are easy to related to because most people buy gas every week and are well aware of the price. But a carbon tax would have the same effects on heating, electricity prices, and it would cascade through into the prices of all products. Including food, of course, which has to be transported, refrigerated, harvested….

            Actually I doubt that doubling the price of gas (and makiing similar increases in other energy uses) would achieve the 45% reduction they want to see by 2030. In the US it would produce a political storm and a recession, but its doubtful it would be enough to deliver the kind of fundamental restructuring of how people live and work that would be needed to drop emissions by half or more.

            So the low estimate will not do the job, and even their lowest case estimates are not going to happen. And as for the higher ones, well they might be effective, but are even more impossible.

            Add to this the total madness of offering policy prescriptions with a range this wide, and what is exposed is maybe total incompetence, or maybe its a realization that if they are right about the scale of the problem, there is no solution to it.

            They are persuaded there is a civilization threatening problem due to CO2 emissions, and essentially when they offer solutions, they are totally at sea. They are essentially proposing total de-industrialization, globally, and as soon as you think about what this means, you realize they are going nowhere.

            The tax (of whatever magnitude) is supposed to roughly cut emissions in half by 2030. This means going from 37 billion tons a year to under 20 billion. This is absolutely not going to happen. Any regime that tries it will fall. The Chinese, for instance, are currently doing 10 billion and rising. By 2030 they alone will probably be up to something like 15 billion. If they tried to drop instead to under 5 billion by 2030, they would have large scale civil unrest sufficient to end the regime.

            At some point, the alarmists are going to have to face the fact that if they are right, the problem cannot be solved by reductions of emissions, that reductions are simply not going to happen, and they will have to come up with some way to live with it. Its interesting that Nuccitelli in the Guardian seems to be inching in that direction – he is at least noticing the argument exists. The next stage of acceptance will be to concede that its valid, that the warming he fears is inevitable and unavoidable, and start asking, what then?

  13. Not unexpectedly, the IPCC and the UN cannot even do simple arithmetic.
    “The United Nations’ call for governments and companies to shift trillions of dollars into “low-carbon energy” systems”.

    The only low-carbon energy source that can even come close to providing energy for a world industrial economy would be some for of nuclear reactor. The best choice would be a modular reactor designed to limit the possibility of diverting radioactives to war-making or terroristic activities.

    • War making plutonium from a light water power reactor? Is that even a thing?

      What about those hypothetical terrorists? Can you describe what they would do with a reactor?

  14. A carbon tax of 135$ – 5.500$ a ton, is the same as saying “We dont know what it takes”… and they are right.

  15. As the UN-IPCC has failed to show causative observational evidence of CO2 ‘warming up the planet’, and certainly their linkage to anthropological fossil fuel usage is merely circumstantial at best and mythological at worst, then attempting to put a price on CO2 (as a carbon tax) premature and irrational.

  16. So Trump’s EPA no longer does “Climate Change”, but what about all of the “Scientists”or others who were working so hard on it.

    Are they still working there because if so they will still be trying to push that particular agenda, just under another name.


Comments are closed.