IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

daveman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2010
76,336
29,353
2,250
On the way to the Dark Tower.
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

Interview: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of "dangerous emissions reduction." What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

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.

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.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

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.

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.

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.

--

Ottmar Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. The deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change” with Ramón Pichs Madruga from Cuba and Youba Sokona from Mali.
 
Last edited:
Straight from the IPCC, confirmation of what I and others have been saying:

The goal of AGW is world socialism.

The only question that remains is how many cultists will refuse to acknowledge it.
 
watermelon.jpg
 
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

I've known this and have been saying so for a long time.

It's not any less dumb now, and it will still be just as dumb next time you say it.

You and the other warmers ignoring the words of the IPCC's own officials certainly makes someone look dumb, but it's not me.

:rock:
 
I've known this and have been saying so for a long time.

It's not any less dumb now, and it will still be just as dumb next time you say it.

Was it dumb when the IPCC co-chair said it? Or are you going to blame Taz for what the socialist said?

:sigh:

Gimme a minute to research this claim. My guess is that this person stipulated that it has a redistributive effect, which common sense would tell you that it does. But I doubt he agrees with DTMB that the entirety of global warming science is a conspiracy, made up for the purpose of achieving that end.

Edit: My suspicion is confirmed. Throughout the interview, the cause and effect of climate change, both ecological and economic, are discussed. It is pointed out that the global north has economies that depend utterly on CO2 emission, while thus far it's mostly the global south that has paid the consequences.

And yes, it's also pointed out that climate policy has a redistributive effect; However, he wanders nowhere near all this global conspiracy nonsense you guys are spouting.
 
Last edited:
It's not any less dumb now, and it will still be just as dumb next time you say it.

Was it dumb when the IPCC co-chair said it? Or are you going to blame Taz for what the socialist said?

:sigh:

Gimme a minute to research this claim. My guess is that this person stipulated that it has a redistributive effect, which common sense would tell you that it does. But I doubt he agrees with DTMB that the entirety of global warming science is a conspiracy, made up for the purpose of achieving that end.

Edit: My suspicion is confirmed. Throughout the interview, the cause and effect of climate change, both ecological and economic, are discussed. It is pointed out that the global north has economies that depend utterly on CO2 emission, while thus far it's mostly the global south that has paid the consequences.

And yes, it's also pointed out that climate policy has a redistributive effect; However, he wanders nowhere near all this global conspiracy nonsense you guys are spouting.

TRANSLATION:

"The liberal didn't say what he said."
 
Was it dumb when the IPCC co-chair said it? Or are you going to blame Taz for what the socialist said?

:sigh:

Gimme a minute to research this claim. My guess is that this person stipulated that it has a redistributive effect, which common sense would tell you that it does. But I doubt he agrees with DTMB that the entirety of global warming science is a conspiracy, made up for the purpose of achieving that end.

Edit: My suspicion is confirmed. Throughout the interview, the cause and effect of climate change, both ecological and economic, are discussed. It is pointed out that the global north has economies that depend utterly on CO2 emission, while thus far it's mostly the global south that has paid the consequences.

And yes, it's also pointed out that climate policy has a redistributive effect; However, he wanders nowhere near all this global conspiracy nonsense you guys are spouting.

TRANSLATION:

"The liberal didn't say what he said."

uhhh... No. Translation: Exactly what the fuck I said. Unless of course you can show me otherwise........
 
Thus proving that the environmental nut cases got dropped on their heads at birth...........people stuck in the dynamic of naive their WHOLE FCUKKING LIVES!!!!


Dickheads think this is all about the environment and saving the planet.:lol::lol::fu:



dickhead.jpg
 
Last edited:
:sigh:

Gimme a minute to research this claim. My guess is that this person stipulated that it has a redistributive effect, which common sense would tell you that it does. But I doubt he agrees with DTMB that the entirety of global warming science is a conspiracy, made up for the purpose of achieving that end.

Edit: My suspicion is confirmed. Throughout the interview, the cause and effect of climate change, both ecological and economic, are discussed. It is pointed out that the global north has economies that depend utterly on CO2 emission, while thus far it's mostly the global south that has paid the consequences.

And yes, it's also pointed out that climate policy has a redistributive effect; However, he wanders nowhere near all this global conspiracy nonsense you guys are spouting.

TRANSLATION:

"The liberal didn't say what he said."

uhhh... No. Translation: Exactly what the fuck I said. Unless of course you can show me otherwise........
I did. The OP, remember?
 
TRANSLATION:

"The liberal didn't say what he said."

uhhh... No. Translation: Exactly what the fuck I said. Unless of course you can show me otherwise........
I did. The OP, remember?

Hrmmm... Yeah but as I outlined, you just took the clips that supported your POV and took them out of context.

Is anything I've said incorrect? Can you show that this gentleman does not believe climate change is real?
 
Last edited:
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.
Confirms what we already knew. Thanks for posting this Daveman! :clap2:
 
uhhh... No. Translation: Exactly what the fuck I said. Unless of course you can show me otherwise........
I did. The OP, remember?

Hrmmm... Yeah but as I outlined, you just took the clips that supported your POV and took them out of context.
"Out of context". Code for "Oh, shit! He said too much! How do we spin this?!"

If you have a problem with the interview, take it up with the interviewer. I edited nothing.
Is anything I've said incorrect? Can you show that this gentleman does not believe climate change is real?
What does it matter what he believes? He can believe it's real, and it changes nothing. The goal is still world socialism.
 
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.
Confirms what we already knew. Thanks for posting this Daveman! :clap2:

*tips hat* :)
 
I did. The OP, remember?

Hrmmm... Yeah but as I outlined, you just took the clips that supported your POV and took them out of context.
"Out of context". Code for "Oh, shit! He said too much! How do we spin this?!"

If you have a problem with the interview, take it up with the interviewer. I edited nothing.
Is anything I've said incorrect? Can you show that this gentleman does not believe climate change is real?
What does it matter what he believes? He can believe it's real, and it changes nothing. The goal is still world socialism.

No, he in no way shape or form suggests the 'Goal' is socialism. He notes, correctly, that it's difficult to divorce environmental policy from fiscal policy, and the 'Effect' is what you classify as 'Socialism.'

I'm not sure what you believe you accomplish by pointing out these statements. It in no way impeaches AGW science, nor does it in any way constitute fraud or dishonesty on the part of IPCC.

Spin away like deniers always do, but again, I'm not sure what you think you've accomplished. :confused (other than, perhaps, giving Skook a raging boner)
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top