the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Double O zero, Licensed to Speak

Posted by Jeff Id on July 10, 2009

Dr. James Hansen, hysteriologist and climatemongerer wrote an article slamming the Obama Cap and Steal ponzi scheme. Calling it exactly what it is:

For all its “green” aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like “cap-and-trade” scheme. Here are a few of the bill’s egregious flaws:

  • It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
  • It sets meager targets — 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year’s level — and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious “offsets,” by which other nations are paid to preserve forests – while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.
  • Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, “has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives.”
  • It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, “businesses and households won’t be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense,” thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.

Hansen Arrested

Hansen Arrested for Science

The biggest scam about this bill may be the free pass for insider trading. Unfortunately Hansen failed to mention the obvious ability for manipulation by cooperation with powerful politicians. What happens to carbon credit prices when the repeatedly self labled ‘Most Powerful Woman in the World’ Nancy Pelosi makes a strong statement about tighter regulation or if she surprises everyone with a conciliatory NO intent to increase caps or a potential reduction. Just a few words and her campaign contributors have a big payday. This is Chicago/Moscow/Venezuela politics, brought to you by the Obaminator. Don’t be fooled by your friendly government people, taxation with representation ain’t much better.

Of course Hansen needs global warming to maintain his manly demeanor, expensive travel budget and powerful presence on the world stage. Apparently licensed by Michael Mann’s Real Climate ‘scientists who are allowed to speak’ program, Hansen’s article pontificates about the glorious advantages of economic stimulus by wealth redistribution.  Stalin would be proud.

There is an alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source (mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the “fee-and-dividend” version of this approach in which all revenues are returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with below-average carbon footprints come out ahead.

A carbon fee-and-dividend would be an economic stimulus and boon for the public. By the time the fee reached the equivalent of $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton of CO2) the rebate in the United States would be $2000-3000 per adult or $6000-9000 for a family with two children.

There it is folks, take the money from the wealthy and give it to the poor helpless masses and it’s a BOON! for the public. That’s right, manna from heaven. Of course what Hansen in his economic brilliance fails to recognize is those carbon producing miners in an evil plan to make a PROFIT might just CHARGE YOU MONEY TO COVER THEIR COSTS!!! Costs of energy will of course penetrate every product on the market– plus profit of course. Don’t worry though folks, if you drive a shitbox rice burner- like already socialist 1/2 car per household Europe is forced to, you can use less gas. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A BOON!??

I don’t think we can let go of this other particularly naive comment made by double Oh Zero (a LEADING scientist and agent for change) that the government will RETURN all the MONEY to the PEOPLE. It’s the LOCKBOX in a new wrapper all over again. I’ve never given money to a government and seen it ALL come back, have you??? Doesn’t it cost money to keep track of the money??  Not in Hansen’s superconduction money return system. The money flows straight through, instantaneously available for your own expenditure.

Well the article was carried on the Huffington Post to the adulations of several public comments. I’ll put a few of our communist friends statements here just to make sure we can see the quality of our public education system in action.


What is the downside to fee and dividend?

Even if this guy is wrong about everything we still will burn less oil and the money will come right back to the people.

It is an idea with no downside that conserves energy.


Here’s a wrinkle on the fee/dividend (which isn’t really much different than a cap and dividend as proposed by Congressman Chris Van Hollen). How about returning the money to everybody who earns below $200K, but putting the money from those who make more into a “green bank” that uses credit enhancements to underwrite clean energy investments. Properly structured it could generate hundreds of billions in private capital each year for clean energy.


Dr. Jansen convincingly demonstrates why this bill that so many have praised falls short of the climate progress that we so desperately need. It just goes to show that the public needs to fully understand all implications of legislation, and that the government should greater facilitate such understanding through increased communication.


How about getting rid of short-lived gases such as methane since livestock production is the #1 cause of climate change, not coal.


It’s scary how effective the astroturf propaganda from Big Oil and Big Coal is. They prey on the ignorant, who then turn around and post ridiculous things like in this thread.

At least cap and trade has a hope of passing. I fear that a carbon tax would never pass, and even if it did, with our government’s history of “regulation” it would be completely toothless. Cap and trade gives powerful corporations an incentive to keep the regulators honest–money talks.

Forest offsets, on the other hand, should definitely be removed from the bill.

Clearly, the government funded US teachers unions are doing a good job.

4 Responses to “Double O zero, Licensed to Speak”

  1. page48 said

    “Doesn’t it cost money to keep track of the money??”

    Of course not. The Carbon Fairy will circumvent the bureaucracy and deliver mountains of money directly to the people.

  2. Matt Y. said

    If hanson was politically savvy at all he would support this as an insufficient but necessary first step. The draconian measures he wants could never pass right now. At least cap-and-trade would get the masses used to the idea of government regulating CO2 (and no, I am not in favor of that.) The public is just not clamoring for a green revolution right now — a fact that seems to repeatedly befuddle the good doctor. Hence his desires to silence all opposition and thwart the democratic process.

  3. John F. Pittman said

    Why do big electricity and others want cap and trade, or even the tax at the pump (Hansen)?

    I remember reading an article by Hansen where he admitted he wasn’t an economist but had recieved economic advice from some very smart economists.

    None of the good advice part is true.

    Repeatedly, persons forget that the idea of a free market is just an ideal state. One which does not exist even in the USA. They forget that in the “grey” free market which most electricity generation and even “Big Oil” exist, they are regulated to recieve about 10% profit above their costs.

    So, if you double the cost of electricity or even better “carbon” fuels, these big businesses double their absolute profit, simply by agreeing to do the piddly little paperwork. But just imagine if the paperwork is large, well they get to pass that directly to the consumer with a 10% profit for doing so. Even Better!

    Apparently Jim Hansen and his, oh so smart, economists do not actually know what happens in the real energy market.

    Oh and by the way, the only people who really pay for this is the consumer since businesses to stay in business must be able to pass the costs to the consumer.

    However, Hansen does not explain the real path of energy. The carbon schemes become a value added tax. Such that depending on the number of links between the source and the consumer, the multiplier of the tax can be anywhere from 1 to 7. The last time I read about it, it was an average of 2 to 4. That means, worst case, if they tax carbon at 10%, you can expect the cost by the consumer to be about 40%. What the consumer will see is 10% on their gas/gasoline/electric bill, but their buying power will erode by about 33%. This is an effect that cannot be ignored since about 85% of families in the US could not stand this erosion and not go bankrupt.

    We did this one time. It was during Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the public revolted at the voting polls. However, during Carter’s time it was 15% in most areas, and 20% at worst, for very short time periods. The 33% is much more than apparent. The ability to absorb costs by the American family is not a linear relationship, but an asymtotic one.

    Though, I do think the tax at the source is the proper way to go.

    Why? Because it is difficult for insider trading and politicians to rig. Yes, the best can cause large numbers of families to go bankrupt at as little as 10% increase. Just how bad would it be if we had the %increase like what Hansen wants, but the cap and trade that he does not want, if we did the real thing?!!? The obvious reason the bill is nothing more than a tax on the stupid (stupid for voting for these Bozo’s) is that a real effective bill would almost totally destroy the present trade relations and American families’ assets and savings.

    One of the factors ignored is just how much manufacturing and cheap prices therefore, are because of the economically poor but accelerating economies (read carbon emitters) of the Pacific and Indian oceans. If they put the tariff on these goods, that 40% becomes more like 60%. Considering that the average tax is about 40%, that 60% would mean that all but the really rich would be bankrupt. Of course, many of those have assets that depend on having an economy, and it would not be long before many of the rich would join the average American family in bankruptcy.

    All above is worst case. Just like Al Gore does. You need to ask yourself why do they embrace Al Gore’s measage, but absolutely refuse to address the supposed problem. The early estimates of the Climate Change bill are 70% to 85% are exempt or will be given “free” credits. AND it has not even gotten though the Senate yet. Already, the “horsetrading” is going on in the Senate. Will the final bill even cover 10%? Even at the best 25%, it will do nothing TANGIBLE as is admitted by all parties even the Democrats.

    Note the Dems say “US sets the moral precedent”, “it is just the start”, etc. etc. One of the other items that Hansen is correct about is that Congress will NOT, will NOT come back to this for many, many years. Why, just look at how much it cost in terms of “horsetrading” just to get through the House. And consider, it is the most expansive tax on Americans since the inception of the personal income tax in US history; and it is only 15% to 25% of what is really needed.

    Just what are we getting for our tax dollars here. One thing is sure, Gore and ilk will try to maake billions on something that out of the box does not work, is admitted not to work, and a promise we will make it work in the future.

    Don’t you think we should wait until this doable future arrives, rather than line the pockets of lawyers, energy providers, and ex-politicians with our hard earned money?

    Perhaps your senator should know what you think?

  4. oakgeo said

    Nice essay, Mr. Pittman.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: