In an earlier post I objected to the idea that James Hansen could in any way be considered an authority on "where humanity should aim with its GHG reduction efforts" since he had no relevant expertise and has repeatedly demonstrated a propensity for playing loose with truth to advance his agenda. He's a slimebag in other words. He's not the only one.

As my colleague Andy Revkin reported, the influential NASA climate scientist James Hansen is now pushing for a new approach to cutting greenhouse emissions. Instead of the cap-and-trade approach pushed by some politicians and environmentalists — and rejected in the Senate last week — he’s urging a “tax-and-dividend”: a carbon tax whose revenues would all be directly returned to citizens. The money would be divided equally, so that people who use less energy than average — like lower-income people — would get back more than they spend.

Do lower income people use less energy?

New York Times has a nice visualization of how the share of people’s income spent on gas varies across the USA. Their map shows that while gas prices vary across the USA, the amount of people’s income spent of gas varies more. A small part of people’s income is spent in rich urban areas, while gas costs are over 10% in poor rural areas.

This only considers energy for transportation, but it shows that energy use is far more complicated than just rich vs. poor. Location, for example, is a big issue. Those who don't live in dense urban areas will use more energy for transport. Those who live in cold places may use more for heating. Some do both. These aren't the only variables.

Some commentators scoff at the idea of revenue neutral taxes - politicians will always find ways to exploit any revenues collected. One of those ways is that the proposed energy tax will have wildly different effects on different segments of society, so there will be interest groups seeking relief or advantage. This gives politicians a tool to exploit society, dispensing favors in return for support, and advancing ideological agendas to pander to activist constituencies.

This harm will be done to society for no benefit. The effects on emissions will be trivial on a global scale. It's merely a symbolic gesture so far as climate is concerned, but will greatly harm some members of society. This is not good governance.