Climate Change is global socialism, admits the UN
-
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”[^] So, all you believers, prepared to accept the truth?
I would like to see those quotes in context. The point being that in order to achieve a sustainable environmental policy then the current capitalist model that has run the global economy will have to change - somehow - because it is the power driving the current unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly policies being practiced today. You are the one who has thrown the word "socialism" in - I don't see it in the quotes you link to.
-
I would like to see those quotes in context. The point being that in order to achieve a sustainable environmental policy then the current capitalist model that has run the global economy will have to change - somehow - because it is the power driving the current unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly policies being practiced today. You are the one who has thrown the word "socialism" in - I don't see it in the quotes you link to.
A_Griffin wrote:
because it is the power driving the current unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly policies being practiced today.
Unsustainable? True, the supply of fossil fuels on this planet is finite. So they are an 'unsustainable' provider of energy, but coal and gas are likely to be used until the around the middle of the century. (Given that the power stations currently under construction could well be serviceable for 40 - 50 years). (IMHO, Nuclear is the best bet for sustainable energy). Environmentally unfriendly? Well, 'scrubbers' and other emission controls on older power stations have drastically reduced their environmental impact. The new fossil fuel fired power stations currently being built in Asia and Africa are more efficient with lower emissions and great for providing developing nations with a low-cost, stable, energy supply. The energy necessary to improve the health, as well as the wealth, of their people. When calculating the 'environmental friendly' factor, the entire manufacturing process should be audited. My bête noire is the contamination of rare earth extraction for Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, Backup Batteries, etc. (which all takes place overseas) to provide our 'environmentally friendly' alternative energy supply. Wouldn't it be nice to have an objective, Economics and Sciences literate, audit team?
-
A_Griffin wrote:
because it is the power driving the current unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly policies being practiced today.
Unsustainable? True, the supply of fossil fuels on this planet is finite. So they are an 'unsustainable' provider of energy, but coal and gas are likely to be used until the around the middle of the century. (Given that the power stations currently under construction could well be serviceable for 40 - 50 years). (IMHO, Nuclear is the best bet for sustainable energy). Environmentally unfriendly? Well, 'scrubbers' and other emission controls on older power stations have drastically reduced their environmental impact. The new fossil fuel fired power stations currently being built in Asia and Africa are more efficient with lower emissions and great for providing developing nations with a low-cost, stable, energy supply. The energy necessary to improve the health, as well as the wealth, of their people. When calculating the 'environmental friendly' factor, the entire manufacturing process should be audited. My bête noire is the contamination of rare earth extraction for Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, Backup Batteries, etc. (which all takes place overseas) to provide our 'environmentally friendly' alternative energy supply. Wouldn't it be nice to have an objective, Economics and Sciences literate, audit team?
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice to have an objective, Economics and Sciences literate, audit team?
I wouldn't hold my breath. :sigh:
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
-
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”[^] So, all you believers, prepared to accept the truth?
Of course one must first start from the fact that CFact is a denier site funded by businesses whose interests are specifically impacted by laws about the climate. So I did a basic minimal search to attempt to validate the first quote "Ottmar Edenhofer" from some site that wasn't a denier site. I couldn't find one. I didn't bother looking for the second. If someone can find such a reference I would like to read it. I would like to see the actual context even providing such a quote exists.
-
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”[^] So, all you believers, prepared to accept the truth?
-
Of course one must first start from the fact that CFact is a denier site funded by businesses whose interests are specifically impacted by laws about the climate. So I did a basic minimal search to attempt to validate the first quote "Ottmar Edenhofer" from some site that wasn't a denier site. I couldn't find one. I didn't bother looking for the second. If someone can find such a reference I would like to read it. I would like to see the actual context even providing such a quote exists.
Seek and ye shall find:- NZZ on Sunday - 14:11:2010 Climate policy re-distributes world wealth[^] ... NZZ: All this no longer sounds like the climate policy we know. Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate politics separately from the major topics of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conventions since the Second World War. Why? Because we still have 11,000 gigatonnes of carbon in our coal reserves - and we can only deposit 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree goal. 11,000 to 400 - there is no way around that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil. NZZ: De facto, this is an expropriation of the countries with the mineral resources. This leads to a completely different development from that which has hitherto been launched with development policy. First of all, we have expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: We are de facto distributing global wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about it, is obvious. One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems like forest extinction or ozone hole. ...
-
I would like to see those quotes in context. The point being that in order to achieve a sustainable environmental policy then the current capitalist model that has run the global economy will have to change - somehow - because it is the power driving the current unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly policies being practiced today. You are the one who has thrown the word "socialism" in - I don't see it in the quotes you link to.
And yet, during this period of evil, foul, grasping and careless capitalism we have had over the last century we have: 1) Salmon swimming in the Thames again 2) Otters swimming in rivers again all over Britain 3) Environmental controls on pollution 4) Saved many species from going extinct, and trying to save many more 5) Banned lead in petrol 6) Banned CFCs 7) Got rid of a lot of aerosol pollution 8) and on and on and on And why? Because capitalism has given us the wealth to be able to do this. So lets ban single use plastics, lets really tidy up. Unless of course your interest isn't really in then environment, and you are just using it to further your political views?
-
It wont be a better world. How can limiting CO2, which is essential for the planet, and has already, since the 1980s, made the world 20% greener, be in anyway good for the planet, or us?
-
And yet, during this period of evil, foul, grasping and careless capitalism we have had over the last century we have: 1) Salmon swimming in the Thames again 2) Otters swimming in rivers again all over Britain 3) Environmental controls on pollution 4) Saved many species from going extinct, and trying to save many more 5) Banned lead in petrol 6) Banned CFCs 7) Got rid of a lot of aerosol pollution 8) and on and on and on And why? Because capitalism has given us the wealth to be able to do this. So lets ban single use plastics, lets really tidy up. Unless of course your interest isn't really in then environment, and you are just using it to further your political views?
We have saved but a handful of species, and most of those we have saved we have only done so by preserving a pitiful few in zoos. Meanwhile, thousands more have become extinct. Never heard of the Sixth Mass Extinction[^]? (Of course you have - no doubt you have your conspiracy theory that it's all politically driven to fall back on.) I could go "and on and on and on" too - I'd say the backward steps outpace the forward ones by some distance, esp as the forward ones were mistakes in the first place.
Quote:
Unless of course your interest isn't really in then environment, and you are just using it to further your political views?
Now there's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. If anyone has a political agenda here, it's you and your ilk.
-
We have saved but a handful of species, and most of those we have saved we have only done so by preserving a pitiful few in zoos. Meanwhile, thousands more have become extinct. Never heard of the Sixth Mass Extinction[^]? (Of course you have - no doubt you have your conspiracy theory that it's all politically driven to fall back on.) I could go "and on and on and on" too - I'd say the backward steps outpace the forward ones by some distance, esp as the forward ones were mistakes in the first place.
Quote:
Unless of course your interest isn't really in then environment, and you are just using it to further your political views?
Now there's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. If anyone has a political agenda here, it's you and your ilk.
A_Griffin wrote:
thousands more have become extinct
Name 2,000 then.
A_Griffin wrote:
If anyone has a political agenda here, it's you and your ilk.
And now we see the polarisation and judgemental nature of CAGWists. My concern is for the truth, and abuse of science. Yet you ASSUME I am some kind of right wing type. Racist, homophobic, wants women to stay at home. According to you that is me isnt it? It is a pitiful debate really when people have to act like this.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
thousands more have become extinct
Name 2,000 then.
A_Griffin wrote:
If anyone has a political agenda here, it's you and your ilk.
And now we see the polarisation and judgemental nature of CAGWists. My concern is for the truth, and abuse of science. Yet you ASSUME I am some kind of right wing type. Racist, homophobic, wants women to stay at home. According to you that is me isnt it? It is a pitiful debate really when people have to act like this.
Excuse me? You're the one that brought up the issue of political motivations, and listed a defence of capitalism based on all the wonderful things it has achieved. And then you have the nerve to call me out for responding? Screw you. And you accuse me of being presumptive about you while you seem to be assuming I'm out to destroy capitalism because I highlight it's failings.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
thousands more have become extinct
Name 2,000 then.
A_Griffin wrote:
If anyone has a political agenda here, it's you and your ilk.
And now we see the polarisation and judgemental nature of CAGWists. My concern is for the truth, and abuse of science. Yet you ASSUME I am some kind of right wing type. Racist, homophobic, wants women to stay at home. According to you that is me isnt it? It is a pitiful debate really when people have to act like this.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Yet you ASSUME I am some kind of right wing type. Racist, homophobic, wants women to stay at home.
You missed Islamophobic. Oh, wait ... :laugh:
-
Of course one must first start from the fact that CFact is a denier site funded by businesses whose interests are specifically impacted by laws about the climate. So I did a basic minimal search to attempt to validate the first quote "Ottmar Edenhofer" from some site that wasn't a denier site. I couldn't find one. I didn't bother looking for the second. If someone can find such a reference I would like to read it. I would like to see the actual context even providing such a quote exists.
jschell wrote:
Of course one must first start from the fact that CFact is a denier site
Following given link (I wore gloves, no worry), I ended up on an article explaining that the solution to species extinction is to privatize them... Given example was privatizing elephants so that hunting economy would sustain their preservation costs. I now use to act with lobbyists just as with trolls: I don't feed them ;)
selfish adj. Defines someone who does not think of me.
-
Excuse me? You're the one that brought up the issue of political motivations, and listed a defence of capitalism based on all the wonderful things it has achieved. And then you have the nerve to call me out for responding? Screw you. And you accuse me of being presumptive about you while you seem to be assuming I'm out to destroy capitalism because I highlight it's failings.
I asked you if you were politically motivated, you said 'me and my ilk' are following an agenda. Can you spot the difference. Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century? And if you dont think capitalism has given us immense wealth, then to what do you attribute the fact that we, today, live like kings of centuries ago?
A_Griffin wrote:
Screw you
Sad when a debate has to go this way.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Yet you ASSUME I am some kind of right wing type. Racist, homophobic, wants women to stay at home.
You missed Islamophobic. Oh, wait ... :laugh:
Indeed, I am, because muslims ARE homophobic and want women to stay at home. :)
-
I asked you if you were politically motivated, you said 'me and my ilk' are following an agenda. Can you spot the difference. Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century? And if you dont think capitalism has given us immense wealth, then to what do you attribute the fact that we, today, live like kings of centuries ago?
A_Griffin wrote:
Screw you
Sad when a debate has to go this way.
Quote:
Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century?
SO I was being hyperbolic – so sue me. Nevertheless, if you read the paper the figures are pretty scary about what’s going on.
Quote:
And if you dont think capitalism has given us immense wealth, then to what do you attribute the fact that we, today, live like kings of centuries ago?
I never said capitalism hasn’t given us great wealth. (For someone that’s so keen on seeing others justify what they say, you can be awfully lax about your own statements at times.) On the contrary – but that is also the root of its problems: that it has given us this wealth at the expense of any concern for anything else. Wealth creation has been its sole aim and raison d’etre. Companies’ sole aims have been to maximise their bottom line profits in order, in the case of public ones, to maximise the return to shareholders. This needs to change. I am not anti-capitalism per se but it needs to engage in more than simple wealth creation for its own sake. It has bought our current wealth against our children’s future, and they will not be thanking us for it in the decades to come.
Quote:
Sad when a debate has to go this way.
Maybe, but as Prof Gerardo Ceballos, at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, who led the work on the paper I linked to, said:
Quote:
The situation has become so bad it would not be ethical not to use strong language.
-
Indeed, I am, because muslims ARE homophobic and want women to stay at home. :)
All muslims or are you just generalising?
This space for rent
-
All muslims or are you just generalising?
This space for rent
Put it this way, as Churchil said, the passive majority will never control a fervent minority. The muslim council of Britain asked Blair if they could implement Sharia law in the UK. So the answer is 'all of them', since those who don't are not in control.
-
Quote:
Now, where are those 2,000 species extinct in the last century?
SO I was being hyperbolic – so sue me. Nevertheless, if you read the paper the figures are pretty scary about what’s going on.
Quote:
And if you dont think capitalism has given us immense wealth, then to what do you attribute the fact that we, today, live like kings of centuries ago?
I never said capitalism hasn’t given us great wealth. (For someone that’s so keen on seeing others justify what they say, you can be awfully lax about your own statements at times.) On the contrary – but that is also the root of its problems: that it has given us this wealth at the expense of any concern for anything else. Wealth creation has been its sole aim and raison d’etre. Companies’ sole aims have been to maximise their bottom line profits in order, in the case of public ones, to maximise the return to shareholders. This needs to change. I am not anti-capitalism per se but it needs to engage in more than simple wealth creation for its own sake. It has bought our current wealth against our children’s future, and they will not be thanking us for it in the decades to come.
Quote:
Sad when a debate has to go this way.
Maybe, but as Prof Gerardo Ceballos, at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, who led the work on the paper I linked to, said:
Quote:
The situation has become so bad it would not be ethical not to use strong language.
A_Griffin wrote:
I was being hyperbolic
A bit y = x^2 eh? :)
A_Griffin wrote:
the figures are pretty scary about what’s going on
No they aren't. We have lost 90% of all species known. We will lose more. Mankind, in the nasty advanced capitalistic west, is actually trying to preserve endangered species.
A_Griffin wrote:
it has given us this wealth at the expense of any concern for anything else.
We certainly WERE like that. Today we aren't. because we have environmental laws. We need more. For plastics particularly. Capitalism can of course lead to abuse. Any system can. That is why we have law, and democracy to create it, so we can control that abuse. Shame to throw the baby out with the bath water eh? Capitalism has done us much good. Let us deal with the bad it has also given us and not destroy it entirely. Dont you agree?
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I was being hyperbolic
A bit y = x^2 eh? :)
A_Griffin wrote:
the figures are pretty scary about what’s going on
No they aren't. We have lost 90% of all species known. We will lose more. Mankind, in the nasty advanced capitalistic west, is actually trying to preserve endangered species.
A_Griffin wrote:
it has given us this wealth at the expense of any concern for anything else.
We certainly WERE like that. Today we aren't. because we have environmental laws. We need more. For plastics particularly. Capitalism can of course lead to abuse. Any system can. That is why we have law, and democracy to create it, so we can control that abuse. Shame to throw the baby out with the bath water eh? Capitalism has done us much good. Let us deal with the bad it has also given us and not destroy it entirely. Dont you agree?
Quote:
Dont you agree?
I already told you: I am not anti-capitalist per se. But I disagree that we're (it's) dong anything like enough to deal with the problems facing the world. Capitalism, and the political structures built upon it, need to adapt far more to take into account the needs of the environment, and to have a more humane face generally. If it doesn't, it will be torn down completely, and baby, mummy, daddy and the rubber duck too will go down the drain along with the bath water.
