Dr James Hansen the outspoken and radical climate scientist from NASA has taken it upon himself to expand his field of expertise to economics, the same Hansen that believes only climate scientists can speak about climate change, has simply ignored his own opinions and threw his hat into the economic arena. Dr Hansen is circulating his "Tax and Dividend" solution to tackling greenhouse gas emissions. While I say he can do so if he wishes it exposes the double standards that are running rampant through the climate debate. I find it amusing that the self-proclaimed and perpetually persecuted saviour of the planet seems to have such an elevated opinion of himself that no subject seems taboo to him, so much for being silenced by evil governmental administration officials.
Dr Hansen sent out this Memo describing his plan...
The “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend” chart warrants discussion. Tax and dividend is the policy complement that must accompany recognition of fossil carbon reservoir sizes for strategic solution of global warming (the physics: reservoir sizes imply the need to phase out coal emissions promptly and quash unconventional fossil fuels).
Tax and 100% dividend can drive innovation and economic growth with a snowballing effect. Carbon emissions will plummet far faster than in top-down or Manhattan projects. A clean environment that supports all life on the planet can be restored.
“Carbon tax and 100% dividend” is spurred by the recent “carbon cap” discussion of Peter Barnes and others. Principles must be crystal clear and adhered to rigorously. A tax on coal, oil and gas is simple. It can be collected at the first point of sale within the country or at the last (e.g., at the gas pump), but it can be collected easily and reliably. You cannot hide coal in your purse; it travels in railroad cars that are easy to spot. “Cap,” in addition, is a euphemism that may do as much harm as good. The public is not stupid.
The entire carbon tax should be returned to the public, with a monthly deposit to their bank accounts, an equal share to each person (if no bank account provided, an annual check — social security number must be provided). No bureaucracy is needed to figure this out. If the initial carbon tax averages $1,200 per person per year, $100 is deposited in each account each month. (Detail: perhaps limit to four shares per family, with child shares being half-size, i.e., no marriage penalty but do not encourage population growth.)
A carbon tax will raise energy prices, but lower and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. Product demand will spur economic activity and innovation. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa — it is likely, e.g., that the U.K. will stop importing and exporting 15,000 tons of waffles each year. There will be a growing price incentive for life style changes needed for sustainable living.
The present political approach is to set carbon emission reduction goals for 2025 or 2050. The politicians do not expect the goals to be reached, and they define escape hatches that guarantee they will not. They expect to be retired or become lobbyists before the day of reckoning. The goals are mainly for bragging rights: “Mine is bigger than yours!”
The worst thing about the present inadequate political approach is that it will generate public backlash. Taxes will increase, with no apparent benefit. The reaction would likely delay effective emission reductions, so as to practically guarantee that climate would pass tipping points with devastating consequences for nature and humanity.
Carbon tax and 100% dividend, on the contrary, will be a breath of fresh air, a boon and boom for the economy. The tax is progressive, the poorest benefiting most, with profligate energy users forced to pay for their excesses. Incidentally, it will yield strong incentive for aliens to become legal; otherwise they receive no dividend while paying the same carbon tax rate as everyone.
Special interests and their lobbyists in alligator shoes will fight carbon tax and 100% dividend tooth and nail. They want to determine who gets your tax money in the usual Washington way, Congress allocating money program by program, substituting their judgment for that of the market place. The lobbyists can afford the shoes. Helping Washington figure out how to spend your money is a very lucrative business.
But we can save the planet and alligators by making sure that not one thin dime of the carbon tax is siphoned off by lobbyists for their clients — 100% must be returned to citizens as dividend. Make this your motto: “100% or fight! No alligator shoes!”
Check the position of your congresspersons. If they spout things like “global warming is the greatest hoax in the history of the universe,” check the shoes of the people who visit them or have dinner with them. Changes in Congress are needed if we want our children and grandchildren to win this one.
Because of great benefits to the nation, humanity and nature, this approach soon would be adopted by other nations, providing an obvious path toward international agreements.
Jim Hansen
So I now claim that anyone can speak out and about anything, as I have always believed, and feel that we can now silence the AGW proponent argument regarding the resume of anyone in the debate. Their own camp is full of such people stomping about in areas where they have no formal education to engage in, with many people in environmental organizations producing a myriad of studies, policy papers and the like far beyond their scope of expertise, so that argument is no longer with merit.
In that light I can now talk about Hansen's plan.
In my opinion I bolded the only true statement in the above memo, " The Public is not stupid". I find that statement quite amazing coming from someone who I believe has been misleading the public for many years. His claims of government interference, his totally unbelievable temperature record he maintains at NASA, the several revisions to his cornerstone papers as he get gets caught time and time again producing poor science point directly at someone being less than truthful with the public.
This plan is almost exactly the same as the BC Carbon Tax based on revenue neutrality and the insane assumption that low income classes can reduce their energy consumption and come out ahead of the curve, how will they do this? They will buy products that are more energy efficient, in other words they will spend themselves out of the rising energy prices. This seems to be the perception shared by most "climateconomists " these days. Not only illogical and ill-conceived is it is plain wrong. When you are struggling financially not only against the rising costs for personal energy but the rising costs of staple goods and food, where does all the money for innovative new green technology come from? When the choice comes down to electricity or food all the green options in the world are not going to help you. That is the rebate portion, you say. Not withstanding the completely unrealistic tax burden he uses as an example, there is one simple flaw with his plan the administration cost would be almost unimaginable, think about the cost and time to process this dividend, the climate dividend rebate in British Columbia cost 20 Million to process 450 Million in rebates to just over 2 Million tax payers. Then there is some facts people on the Government payroll seems to forget; what about the people already receiving social assistance for energy, reducing program tax income as reductions occur but energy prices rise due to demand for alternatives to replace fossil fuel based heating and processing systems, energy usage imbalances between rural and urban populations, regional usage based on climate( something he should understand) etc, etc.
My favourite part is his claim to help with illegal immigration, stay on topic and try not to spin your ideas would be my advice. Also some research into the term "socialism" would help him out here as well. Seems strange that he would complain about lobbyists and special interest groups when he is part of the largest and most powerful special interest group in America, that being the "Environmental Lobby".
In my opinion Hansen has made common mistakes that most green proponents do when looking at the issue of taxing carbon. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the social demographics and social administration issues, politics, governmental policy procedures and most importantly the economy in general. Perhaps he could look to the GAO ( General Accounting Office) for a little guidance on his grand scheme.
I say how about I get to keep my money and your Robin Hood Economics can head on back to Sherwood Forest.