Former Goddard Space Sciences Director Jim Hansen, who believes he was the inspiration for the “Dr. Indiana Jones” character has been outed for the socialist he is at heart with a letter recently called to our attention. He sent it to President Elect Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. The letter was published on the Columbia University website and in the English paper The Guardian, but it was totally ignored by our major media, we believe because they knew it would expose the socialist underpinnings of the Hansen hypotheses about “man-caused global warming” and the entire movement.
29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America
Dear Michelle and Barack,
We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.
Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.
We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times. […]
(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”.
A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.
A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.
The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.
The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.
A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. 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, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.
The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.
“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security. […]
James and Anniek Hansen
Pennsylvania, United States of America
Let us analyze this letter and speculate why Mr. Obama ignored it.
For openers, the “Dear Michelle and Barack” opening is far too familiar for addressing the President of the United States on a serious matter of public policy. The first paragraph, “…as fellow parents…” is so fawning we want to vomit and the next paragraph is just the cherry on the dog-do sundae.
Apologizing for the length of the letter is patently disingenuous as you can either make it shorter or show your confidence the issue is that important. At this point it would be headed for the trash in the offices of every serious executive we have ever known. In a business letter the second paragraph has the meat.
“(2)?” Where is “(1)?” and it is “raising” not rising.
The next paragraph is nonsensical: “underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work.” is gibberish, but then this is the man who invented the “radiative forcing” and “feedback loops” myths of “global warming.” Here he is at it again! He cannot help himself. All Ph.D.s are not quick.
The next paragraph is a disaster topped by, “The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.” in classic Hansen lily-gilding that should be edited and the message better given by cutting out the above underlined phrases. The efficiency does not rise with price; it falls when prices are raised with taxes. Do the math. Read the history and economics of these things.
In the next paragraph “decarbonizing the economy” is stupid two ways: The proposed alternatives of wind and solar cost 20 times that of oil and gas energy. Agronometric analysis tells us the atmosphere is severally short of CO2 as the recent raised level has increased the corn and orange harvests a documented 30% and we are sure that has been the case throughout the field as these two were the only ones studied metrically to determine the effect as both acreages are well documented for price supports. This is not the case for many crops. Dr. Hansen’s contention is today proven wrong.
The remaining five paragraphs are a socialist plan of a kind that could only please Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, Staling and Mao Tse Tung. It is probably unconstitutional and would surely be in litigation as this designed disaster got under way.
As a planning document from “the Father of Global Warming” this single letter is concise evidence of a kind that should kill the move to make science a tool for the advancement of socialism. It is deeply flawed in every way. It is flawed in its’ purpose and malevolent in its’ intent.