Reply With Quote
Already posted and beat to death. yawni yoni.
Don't ask me, I know it is. But, maybe you'll take the word of Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the leaders of the international global warming movement; the deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Ins ute for Climate Impact Research, the joint chair of the IPCC's Working Group 3, and co-chair of the Working Group "Mitigation of Climate Change" at the upcoming summit in Cancun.
On November 14, he was interviewed by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. His explanation of the current goals of the climate change movement was illuminating:
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”
Interesting...discuss.Q: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
OE: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
Q: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
OE: Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
Q: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
OE: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Already posted and beat to death. yawni yoni.
So you're admitting defeat?
I find it so amazing that you can focus on the part you highlighted while completely ignoring the context laid out IMMEDIATELY prior to the statement you highlighted just like Darrin did. What is it with you guys that you want to ignore what he says?
They can't make their case without lying.
Essentially, they MUST cherry pick comments like this, and ignore the wider context.
It is an effective form of lying in that this simplification distorts the original, more subtle meanings in a way that is easier for the uninformed and mildly apathetic to grasp.
Pablum for the converted, but obviously propaganda.
the question is, whoever collects the money, where does that money end up into? more ty study and research or into the coffers of these clowns
As I've said a bazillion times -- and will continue to say -- When people who tell me there is a climate crisis start acting like there's a climate crisis I will start paying attention.
BONO 7 jets and 55 trucks, what happend to saving planet?
How does anything else he said counter these two statements?
It's easy to ignore prior statements -- even in the previous paragraph -- when you make such bold statements as "WE REDISTRIBUTE THE WORLD'S WEALTH BY CLIMATE POLICY" and "THIS (And, by "this," I presume he means the entire debate over global climate change) HAS ALMOST NOTHING TO DO WITH ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ANYMORE,...""But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
"This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
Of course its easy for you. Its easy because you struggle viewing things in proper context. Its easy because you don't want to actually think about whats being said. Its easy because you see what you want to see and no one here expects anything else from you. We don't actually expect someone who can't be bothered to read what they use to back up their opinions to suddenly show critical reasoning capabilities.
So yes, we know its easy for you. Thats not the point.
So yes, he did say they were redistributing wealth with climate policy and that the climate debate had little to do with actual climate issues anymore. Thanks for clarifying.
He sure did say that. You just didn't understand the context of it. Par for the course.
So, contextualize for me, Manny.
Explain how the entirety of his statement, interview responses, or whatever counters the fact he clearly asserted climate policy is redistributing wealth and that the debate has little to do with the actual climate anymore.
Please.
You really suck at this.
You let others do most of your thinking for you, so you really don't have the critical thinking skills required to ferret out proper context.
Asking you to be either intellectually honest or apply critical thinking analysis to something is a bit like asking someone who has been sitting down in a chair for ten years to get up and run around the building on atrophied legs.
Since you need the crutch of having other people tell you what things mean, I will do that for you.
We presently redistrubute wealth from countries that don't emit CO2 through fossil fuels to those that do. This is called, in economics terms, a "negative externality", wherein a third party is harmed by the actions of a first and second party. Our current policy, the unrestricted burning of fossil fuels, is forcing costs on other countries, i.e. reditributing wealth."But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
Consider:
A factory makes something.
A byproduct of that manufacture is industrial waste dumped in the local river that poisons fish.
The factory sells the goods to consumers.
The involuntary wealth distribution is from the people that fish or drink out of the river (thrid parties) to the first (factory) and second (consumer) parties.
This is the logical basis for the assertion that the richer countries that benefit the most from the current policy and that this redistribution should be addressed.
This isn't "we are doing this for a naked wealth redistribution as a handout from the rich countries, buwahahahahaha". This is simply addressing an economic reality.
He was acknowledging the very real economic impacts that such things have, and that one cannot consider environmantal policy without considering the underlying economics."This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
Both statements are rather candid acknowledgments of some aspect involved in very complex issues, not some indication of a leftist/green plot, as you seem to assert here.
Climate policy is a wealth distribution and he clearly acknowledged that, as you pointed out. What you seem to miss now is that wealth redistribution is from poor countries to rich ones.
Do you think it is ethical for that factory to redistribute wealth to itself and its consumers from people that depend on the river without paying for it?
but yoni know's it's a fraud. isn't that good enough for you?
So taking bazillions of dollars from the developed world and shipping them to hole third world countries/dictators to steal stops global warming.
Right.
Well, it is simply a case of believing in conspiracy theories, not unlike the 9-11 truthers.
Since he is convinced the entire body of science is a fraud, whose sole purpose is to provide an excuse for the rest of the world to steal from the US via "climate policy", this simply becomes an "AHA!" moment for him.
"The rest of the world is just jealous and wants a handout."
When viewed through that prism, the conspiracy theory becomes more plausible. I call it looking at the world through stupid-colored glasses.
The entire basis for this conspiracy theory is little more than ad hominem arguments and pseudoscience. That pseudoscience gets gussied up to look like real science, and lets people like Yoni and Wild Cobra feel better about being paranoid of "tree huggers", but really does a disservice to the honest people involved in studying our climate, who have real data to support the AGW/ACC theory.
One way to simply stop the wealth redistrubution is to simply reduce CO2 emissions. That would not involve "shipping bazillions of dollars" to anyone to steal, would it?
"entire basis for this conspiracy theory is "
... VRWC stink tanks, US CoC, d scientists, all financed by the carbon industries.
That "Is global climate policy a fraud" even a question means the VRWC is winning.
Same false equivalence between ID/Creationism science as plausible alternative to hard science.
Same false equivalence that smash-mouth, shut-down govt, obstruct-everything partisanship is shared equally between Dems and Repugs.
Do you always argue about things you apparently know nothing about just to argue?
The problem is that some of you see wealth redistribution as something that is only accomplished by legislation or policy so you don't see the context being put forth where wealth redistribution happens everyday as a simple matter of economics and in this case its not going from the rich to the poor or the developed to the underdeveloped but the other way around.
As an example, wealth is taken from a fishing family who owns land at sea level and redistributed to factory owners who emit CO2 at high rates when that fishing family loses their land due to seal level rise caused by AGW.
What topic to I "apparently know nothing about" are you referring to?
The proposed carbon tax wealth transfers to third world countries are real dollars. Lots of them. Check it out.
And? This isn't a debate about a carbon tax but rather what was said and a lot of peoples inability to fully understand it. ALL economic policy is a matter of wealth redistribution.
Except you are neglecting or ignoring the fact that the sea level hasn't risen and the fisherman is still catching fish.
CC, if I owned land upwind from you and I decided to place a plant there that polluted the air and had serious affects on your land would you be OK with that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
