July 16, 2009. If you want to set back environmentalism, just enlist California's Air Board. They gave us those millions of Zero Emission Vehicles back in the 1990's. This time we're getting way-cheaper-than-free climate control. They say "It's amazing." Here's ... more >>

August 6, 2009. The four lines on this graph are wind, nuclear, conservation and biofuels—not in that order. The graph shows how the Waxman-Markey bill increases their role through 2030. Find out which is which.  more >>

July 27, 2009. A zFacts Op-Ed in the Christian Science Monitor explains that the cap-and-trade part of the Waxman-Markey bill will pay $13B/year, and rising, to developing countries for "offsets." India and China are pleased. But they would lose some or most of it if they agreed to a cap. Here's why.

July 19, 2009.  In this AP report, “India stands firm against emissions limits,” Clinton is quoted as saying she’s “in favor of every country doing its part.” The problem here is Clinton, not India. India has never objected ... more >>

July 7, 2009. One side says green subsidies will create jobs, and the other side says the cost of those subsidies will destroy jobs. Both sides see half the picture—the half they want to see. If the government taxes us and subsidizes corn ethanol ... more >>

June 29, 2009  No, no, no said the Environmental Defense Fund. We can't have a re-funded carbon tax. Any tax would sink like the 1993 BTU (gas) tax, which passed the House 219 to 213. So they pushed through a cap, which passed the House 219 to 212.

Why didn't Time just call up the Energy Dept. and ask what they meant? DOE's forecast is more than double what it was in 2007, the year before we hit $147. And DOE is not talking about peaks. It's like the weatherman ... more >>

May 24, 2009  China cares about global warming, but it knows how to bargain. Gore just cares: "If the United States leads, China will follow," AP foreign. Why should China follow? Just to be nice? Like in Tibet? Meanwhile Waxman's cap-n-trade bill is offering China a $5 billion bribe not to follow. Here's how that "works." Cap-n-trade ...  more >>

March 28, 2009, by Steven Stoft. ... compared to conservation. More wind turbines or more insulation—which is best? I've always loved cool new technology. But that's no excuse for more wind subsidies.

Consider three factors: carbon saved, jobs created, ... more >>

Obama's Budget, proposes a carbon cap and trade system with "a 100% auction"—no free permits (but $ handouts). Revenues from the auction have been estimated at anywhere from $50B to $300B per year.  more >>

Van Hollen, a close associate of Nancy Pelosi, will soon introduce a "cap and dividend" proposal. This will challenge the main House cap-trade bill coming out of Waxman's Committee. As Carbonomics explains, this is the best type of cap, and will likely lead to the untax proposal of Senator Corker and James Hansen, Al Gore's   more >>

March 16, 2009.  I know. We gotta stop global warming, and cap-and-trade has been our band-wagon for 15 years, and ... well that's my point. It's been nothing but trouble and that's not changing. Keep repeating what doesn't work—that's crazy. All our best economists economists say this econo-scheme is bad. And Al Gore's climate adviser says it "will practically guarantee disastrous climate change." Cap and Trade: The Dark Side

February 26, 2009  Obama's Budget, proposes a carbon cap and trade system with "a 100% auction"—no free permits (but $ handouts). Revenues from the auction have been estimated at anywhere from $50B to $300B per year.  more >>

February 6, 2009.  Speaker Pelosi is promising to pass a cap-and-trade, climate bill this year. But James Hansen, the top climate-change scientist for 20 years, is saying that such a bill "will practically guarantee disastrous climate change." Read more on the controversy here: Cap-and-Trade Secrets

February 1, 2009.  How did they do that? We helped; China helped; and OPEC helped. The US and China (and a lot of small fry) keep using more oil. OPEC holds down its supply. What a team. Exxon did nothing special this year. It just makes a killing whenever the world price of oil sky rockets Same as all big oil companies.

Then we pass a windfall profits tax (well, we did once), but by then their profits are down, because the prices of oil's down again.

This is just plain stupid. Even if we got a little profit back, most of the huge profits we've paid for at the pump go to foreign oil. There's only ever been one way to fix this. Cut our addiction. And that's only half the solution. What about China.

The full solution is a consumers' cartel like Henry Kissinger put together. But like Kyoto, his cartel didn't take a strong position. To make this work we have to join forces—Gobal Oil is Big. We need the Greens, and the oil-independence folks, and we need China, and so on. But these all want the same thing—less oil addiction and less climate change. As Carbonomics explains, these two ideas are almost the same, and we could work together if we weren't blinded by oil.

In the last two years, "climate" has dropped from 38% saying it's a top issue to 30%, while "energy" has gone from 57% to 60%, according to Pew Research. (And the economy went from 68% to 85%.) So why is it that environmentalists and academics ignore energy security? Do they think we don't need to work together? Both camps, climate and energy security, need the other. Without cooperation, Big Oil and OPEC win again.

There's exactly one book on the market that takes both climate and security seriously and shows which policies work for both: Carbonomics: How to Fix the Climate and Send the Bill to OPEC. That's my book. Download it free, or buy it at a discount. But read it so you'll know how to fight OPEC and climate change together.

OK, I can't read your mind. But most people think climate change will definitely bring disaster, or definitely be a nothingburger. As the Washington Post explains, there's even more uncertainty than the UN shows in their graphs—and that's a lot.

Here's the worry I explain in Carbonomics. A lot of global-warming activists say, "Just look, you can see it happening." So they're smarter than a 1000 scientists who still have doubts? Nature plays its tricks—and pretty soon it will play a cooling trick and all those activists who said "just look" will have to eat their words. Better to make the real point. We're all unsure! But if there's a 10% chance of a world catastrophe, it's good to take precautions. Don't be an idiot who says you know we're safe. You don't.

"You cap and you trade [to] pay for investments in energy independence." No, actually, that's the reason for "tax and spend." We need some of that, but a capping is the most regressive tax.

Cap and trade's a way to hide a carbon tax. Instead they should listen to James Hansen, and refund the revenues equally per person. That works almost for free. It's too tricky to explain right here, but it's in my book: Carbonomics: How to Fix the Climate and Charge It to OPEC. $15 on Amazon, or click that link and get the PDF for free.

January 21, 2009.  Green Collar Economy, by Van Jones, claims green jobs are all we need. Just cap carbon and sell $350 billion of permits each year. Use the proceeds to do every green/organic program ever heard of, and ... more >>

January 3, 2009.  I've just published Carbonomics, which explains the climate-energy how policies like cap and trade work, why they're needed and how they may fail. Includes Hansen's 100%-refunded carbon tax and much more. —Steven Stoft

Dot Earth Blog on NY Times.com writes: Chinese authorities say "energy security clearly still trumps climate stability." Why? 'Cause their addicted to oil and coal. Sound familiar?

Hang on. This is good news. China and the US hate paying OPEC's high prices. We used to know what to do. Henry Kissinger organized an anti-OPEC cartel of 17 nations. What's that? An international organization to cut oil demand and drive down the price of oil. What's Kyoto? An international organization to cut demand for fossil fuels (like oil) and drive down the price ... Hold it. Here's where environmentalists jump ship.

They can't stand admitting that Kyoto is an anti-OPEC cartel. But it is, and that's good. A climate cartel does both: fights OPEC and fights climate change. Wake up and stop fighting each other. Environmentalist, energy-security folks, China, the US — we're all in this together—against Big Oil, OPEC and Big Coal. Read the book.

Venture capitalist John Doerr, who helped launch Google and Amazon, warns Congress that only 6 of the top 20 solar/wind/battery firms are US. His two biggest investments are in Europe.

The price of oil fell from $48 to $42 on the news of a surprise increase in US crude inventory. Which way oil prices go this year will depend on whether the recession cuts demand more or OPEC cuts supply more. But if OPEC gains self discipline, as seems to be happening, we're in for a real price shock at the end of the recession.

Tired of low gas prices? You're in luck. They've gone up 5 cents in 5 days and it's a trend. Oil's gone from $32 to $48/barrel in the same time. Thank you OPEC.

Now the bad news. In the last few days, Iran and Kuwait have been verified making actual production cuts. Usually they cheat, and Saudi Arabia does all the dirty work. That's what has the oil markets spooked. For the first time ever it looks like OPEC is really acting like a cartel. Once it was US policy to stand up to OPEC. You can read about it in the only energy book with OPEC's picture on the cover: Carbonomics: How to Fix the Climate and Charge It to OPEC.

Al Gore's science advisor—the famous NASA climate scientist James Hansen—just told Obama to forget cap and trade. Cap and trade is the basis of Kyoto and the favorite of Energy Czar-to-be Browner. So what does Hansen want?

Instead, Hansen wants a carbon tax—with a 100% dividend. That's a twist. He wants the government to take ALL the tax revenues and mail them back to us. Would that work? Absolutely. In fact most economists prefer a carbon tax, and all economists know that Hansen's dividend works just fine (but the press gets confused). If you're curious how it works, you can read about it in the new book Carbonomics.