U N Climate Chief comes correct

[TheBlueVue 177]

publicly stating in Brussels that the climate change agenda is not about saving the planet but about ending capitalism. Boy, this should be good! Oh, I know..she's not a scientist, she's not a scientist but she is the head mule of climate change at the UN. LOL

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

from Investor’s Business Daily

Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming "the economic development model" because she's really never seen it work. "If you look at Ms. Figueres' Wikipedia page," notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.

 

 

[AURaptor 1,128]

 Funny. Same thing Hugo Chavez said. 

[icanthearyou 4,464]

Them green people is really red.  

[AUDub 11,204]

Old article, but what your article think she said isn't what she said.

She was talking about unfettered industrialization; totally free of environmental and labor regulation that, if left unchecked, has been proven time and again to have devastating effects on the people it is meant to serve.

The industrial revolution gave us great gifts. It gave us cheap food, clothing, transportation, and housing. It created great private fortunes for many. It raised the standard of living and life expectancy for millions more. It also turned Birmingham, England and Pittsburgh, PA into toxic wastelands. It left London choking in deadly fog and Los Angeles blanketed in smog and throttled by traffic jams. Environmental regulations changed that. London fogs are now largely a thing of the past and smog in Los Angeles has declined by more than 70%. And last time I checked, capitalism seems to be doing pretty well for itself in both of those places.

Nobody is talking about doing away with democracy, with free enterprise, with individual liberty or with comfortable cars and homes.

[AURaptor 1,128]

9 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

She was talking about unfettered industrialization; totally free of environmental and labor regulation; that, if left unchecked, has been proven time and again to have devastating effects on the people it is meant to serve

The closest place where such things may exist is China. No one would confuse China as being capitalistic. But even there, it's not what you think it is she's saying. 

[icanthearyou 4,464]

1 hour ago, AURaptor said:

The closest place where such things may exist is China. No one would confuse China as being capitalistic. But even there, it's not what you think it is she's saying. 

BS.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist

http://www.economist.com/news/business-books-quarterly/21627564-private-companies-have-been-hugely-underestimated-china-unstated-capitalism

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/10/chinas-government-may-be-communist-but-its-people-embrace-capitalism/

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/19/148918977/does-china-do-capitalism-better-than-america

Real world complexities rarely fit so neatly within the disingenuous, deceptive, and simplistic narrative you attempt to further.

[AURaptor 1,128]

Yeah... npr . Funny.  Stop lying. 

The crux of the issue - 

unfettered industrialization; totally free of environmental and labor regulation

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,464]

8 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Yeah... npr . Funny.  Stop lying. 

The crux of the issue - 

unfettered industrialization; totally free of environmental and labor regulation

 

 

You stop lying, lyin weasel.  There are three other sources besides an NPR article.  Would you like more?

Do you still believe your own "black and white", simplistic narrative, your lie?

[AURaptor 1,128]

I'm right. You're wrong. 

 

No lie

[TheBlueVue 177]

Funny watching the believers jump into action. Anything to defend their beloved "science" Its clear what she said and saving the planet is not the primary objective, it is shutting down capitalism and replacing it with a system dominated by redistribution of wealth. The only caveat is there wont be much wealth to redistribute once they accomplish their primary objective.

[icanthearyou 4,464]

22 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Funny watching the believers jump into action. Anything to defend their beloved "science" Its clear what she said and saving the planet is not the primary objective, it is shutting down capitalism and replacing it with a system dominated by redistribution of wealth. The only caveat is there wont be much wealth to redistribute once they accomplish their primary objective.

No.  It is not clear.  That is why there is disagreement in the discussion.

The argument isn't really about "wealth redistribution".  It has more to do with the real and long run costs of carbon energy, how those costs are distributed.

Only caveat is there won't be much wealth to redistribute?  How about an inhabitable planet?  Without that, does wealth mean anything?

[AUDub 11,204]

5 hours ago, AURaptor said:

The closest place where such things may exist is China. No one would confuse China as being capitalistic. But even there, it's not what you think it is she's saying. 

 

Today cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbai and Lagos are facing their own environmental catastrophes. Hundreds of days each year when the air is literally too dangerous to go outside. On a larger scale, we are facing climate change that threatens to inundate Miami and New Orleans and return the American West to a drought-riddled desert.

The difference is that now we live in a truly global economy. We are interconnected with people in every continent and living under every form of government imaginable. The pollution pumped out by factories in Shenzhen and Guangzhou eventually gets to west coast of the USA. Some analysts believe a spike in food prices, sparked by crippling droughts in Russia, Ukraine, Argentina and China, led to the uprisings of the Arab Spring, the consequences of which we are struggling with today.

There is no more local when it comes to pollution. The only way we, as a species, can deal with this is through international cooperation. Through treaties. Through binding international agreements. Through public discussion and discourse.

America and other wealthy countries can do so because they can afford to. Developing nations such as India and China have a hard time making the same choice. From a purely capitalist, free-enterprise standpoint there would be no incentive for power-station operators in Atlanta and Los Angeles (let alone Mumbai and Shenzhen) to switch over from coal to costlier renewables.

Which is what Figueres was talking about: Some combination of national and international governmental actors need to change the way the market for electric power (and other industries) operates from pure capitalism to some blended system that assigns an appropriate additional cost on activities that create harmful environmental externalities.

[homersapien 11,513]

1 hour ago, TheBlueVue said:

Funny watching the believers jump into action. Anything to defend their beloved "science" Its clear what she said and saving the planet is not the primary objective, it is shutting down capitalism and replacing it with a system dominated by redistribution of wealth. The only caveat is there wont be much wealth to redistribute once they accomplish their primary objective.

What happened to Chinese Hoax?  

[homersapien 11,513]

1 hour ago, TheBlueVue said:

Funny watching the believers jump into action. Anything to defend their beloved "science" Its clear what she said and saving the planet is not the primary objective, it is shutting down capitalism and replacing it with a system dominated by redistribution of wealth. The only caveat is there wont be much wealth to redistribute once they accomplish their primary objective.

"beloved" science?   

So, what's your way of trying to understand the physical universe?

 

[homersapien 11,513]

3 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Old article, but what your article thinks she said isn't what she said.

She was talking about unfettered industrialization; totally free of environmental and labor regulation; that, if left unchecked, has been proven time and again to have devastating effects on the people it is meant to serve.

The industrial revolution gave us great gifts. It gave us cheap food, clothing, transportation, and housing. It created great private fortunes for many. It raised the standard of living and life expectancy for millions more. It also turned Birmingham, England and Pittsburgh, PA into toxic wastelands. It left London choking in deadly fog; and Los Angeles blanketed in smog and throttled by traffic jams. Environmental regulations changed that: London fogs are now largely a thing of the past; and smog in Los Angeles has declined by more than 70%. And last time I checked, capitalism seems to be doing pretty well for itself in both of those places.

Nobody is talking about doing away with democracy, with free enterprise, with individual liberty or with comfortable cars and homes.

Thanks Ben for taking the effort.

I was thinking that Blue has a very short memory. But then, he has an awful lot of BS to keep in storage.

[AuburnNTexas 7,198]

Capitalism will play its part in going green. The coal Industry is dying not only because of government regulation but because of fracking and the amount of cheap gas we can produce. Coal plants are being replaced by gas plants, which while still polluting are much cleaner than coal.  Wind and Solar are also becoming competitive on a price point basis even though both have their own aesthetic and environmental issues (Bird Deaths). The price point on both solar and wind will continue to fall. The missing piece for wind and solar is reliable cheap energy storage or a national grid or a combination of both.

Capitalism is not against green. It is against inefficient green and crony capitalism where the government in its subjective wisdom (who donated to my reelection) tries and pick the winners.

With the amount of money and the number of different groups working on energy storage I predict within 10-15 years we will have viable batteries for electric cars that will allow the electric car to best the combustion engine in head to head competition on reliability, price, range, etc. We will also be able to store cheap solar or wind produced energy so we can phase out existing older less efficient plants. Capitalism is what will drive it.

As for unfettered capitalism thank heavens we have gotten rid of that many years ago. Every system needs some checks and balances, every system needs some regulation. The key is to have enough regulation to protect us without choking an Industry to death. It is a hard balance to achieve but it can be done.

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

On 12/6/2016 at 11:35 AM, Bigbens42 said:

 

Today cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbai and Lagos are facing their own environmental catastrophes. Hundreds of days each year when the air is literally too dangerous to go outside. On a larger scale, we are facing climate change that threatens to inundate Miami and New Orleans and return the American West to a drought-riddled desert.

The difference is that now we live in a truly global economy. We are interconnected with people in every continent and living under every form of government imaginable. The pollution pumped out by factories in Shenzhen and Guangzhou eventually gets to west coast of the USA. Some analysts believe a spike in food prices, sparked by crippling droughts in Russia, Ukraine, Argentina and China, led to the uprisings of the Arab Spring, the consequences of which we are struggling with today.

There is no more local when it comes to pollution. The only way we, as a species, can deal with this is through international cooperation. Through treaties. Through binding international agreements. Through public discussion and discourse.

America and other wealthy countries can do so because they can afford to. Developing nations such as India and China have a hard time making the same choice. From a purely capitalist, free-enterprise standpoint there would be no incentive for power-station operators in Atlanta and Los Angeles (let alone Mumbai and Shenzhen) to switch over from coal to costlier renewables.

Which is what Figueres was talking about: Some combination of national and international governmental actors need to change the way the market for electric power (and other industries) operates from pure capitalism to some blended system that assigns an appropriate additional cost on activities that create harmful environmental externalities.

Speaking of the cities Beijing...,my son recently visited China on business, after business concluded he stayed in a westernized hotel in Beijing for a few days of R&R and touring. The pics of the smog are unbelievable. He was more than happy to get out of the place. Said you could not see the sun.

Is it returning our west to drought-riddled desert? was it a drought riddled desert previously and saved?

Some analysts believe a spike in food prices, sparked by crippling droughts in Russia, Ukraine, Argentina and China, led to the uprisings of the Arab Spring, the consequences of which we are struggling with today.

Didn't Barry point this out?

[TheBlueVue 177]

On 12/6/2016 at 0:04 PM, homersapien said:

What happened to Chinese Hoax?  

Oh I still contend the whole issue is a contrived ho-axe. IMO, it is and always has been a political issue that has precious little, if anything, to do with ecological stewardship. Its about redistribution of wealth and eliminating capitalism and if its policy demands are followed, in the end, about 200 people will rule the world.

[TheBlueVue 177]

On 12/6/2016 at 11:08 AM, icanthearyou said:

No.  It is not clear.  That is why there is disagreement in the discussion.

The argument isn't really about "wealth redistribution".  It has more to do with the real and long run costs of carbon energy, how those costs are distributed.

Only caveat is there won't be much wealth to redistribute?  How about an inhabitable planet?  Without that, does wealth mean anything?

Can you explain to me how Co2 which occurs naturally in nature is pollutant? After you finish that will also explain to me how, even if I accept that climate change is man made, which I have serious doubts about, how raising taxes is going to stem its progression?

Look, the best science can tell, earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Weather patterns have been charted for 140 years. That is less than 1 second relative to the life of the planet. Based on that, I have serious reservations about increasing an already stifling regulatory environment and increasing taxes so we can give 3rd world nations $billions of dollars when the ONLY way China could be inveigled into participating in the Paris Climate Accord was by exempting them from having to comply with any of its mandates.

At this point, climate policies are a political scam because they aren't based on mutually accepted scientific facts but rather fashionable globalist politics.

[icanthearyou 4,464]

51 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Can you explain to me how Co2 which occurs naturally in nature is pollutant? After you finish that will also explain to me how, even if I accept that climate change is man made, which I have serious doubts about, how raising taxes is going to stem its progression?

Look, the best science can tell, earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Weather patterns have been charted for 140 years. That is less than 1 second relative to the life of the planet. Based on that, I have serious reservations about increasing an already stifling regulatory environment and increasing taxes so we can give 3rd world nations $billions of dollars when the ONLY way China could be inveigled into participating in the Paris Climate Accord was by exempting them from having to comply with any of its mandates.

At this point, climate policies are a political scam because they aren't based on mutually accepted scientific facts but rather fashionable globalist politics.

Sure Blue,

Ecosystems have delicate balances.  Altering the relative amount of CO2 has consequences.  For example, you need oxygen.  However, pure oxygen would not be good.

I do not know if taxation is the correct solution.  The theory is, if you make carbon based fuels cost what their true relative cost to humanity is (by taxation), there will be an immediate shift to alternative energy sources.  Not sure about the "carbon exchange".

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

58 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Sure Blue,

Ecosystems have delicate balances.  Altering the relative amount of CO2 has consequences.  For example, you need oxygen.  However, pure oxygen would not be good.

I do not know if taxation is the correct solution.  The theory is, if you make carbon based fuels cost what their true relative cost to humanity is (by taxation), there will be an immediate shift to alternative energy sources.  Not sure about the "carbon exchange".

Thanks for this new and enlightening information ICHY. We are " believers "  

[homersapien 11,513]

10 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Capitalism will play its part in going green. The coal Industry is dying not only because of government regulation but because of fracking and the amount of cheap gas we can produce. Coal plants are being replaced by gas plants, which while still polluting are much cleaner than coal.  Wind and Solar are also becoming competitive on a price point basis even though both have their own aesthetic and environmental issues (Bird Deaths). The price point on both solar and wind will continue to fall. The missing piece for wind and solar is reliable cheap energy storage or a national grid or a combination of both.

Capitalism is not against green. It is against inefficient green and crony capitalism where the government in its subjective wisdom (who donated to my reelection) tries and pick the winners.

With the amount of money and the number of different groups working on energy storage I predict within 10-15 years we will have viable batteries for electric cars that will allow the electric car to best the combustion engine in head to head competition on reliability, price, range, etc. We will also be able to store cheap solar or wind produced energy so we can phase out existing older less efficient plants. Capitalism is what will drive it.

As for unfettered capitalism thank heavens we have gotten rid of that many years ago. Every system needs some checks and balances, every system needs some regulation. The key is to have enough regulation to protect us without choking an Industry to death. It is a hard balance to achieve but it can be done.

 

 

Capitalism has to play a role in the necessity of our converting to a non-carbon emitting society, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I think such a wholesale technology conversion - which will last for decades - represents a huge opportunity to stimulate economic growth with new jobs and new technologies.  Not that the conversion won't be difficult, but it's not going to be the economy destroyer deniers make it out to be.

 

[homersapien 11,513]

4 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

Can you explain to me how Co2 which occurs naturally in nature is pollutant? After you finish that will also explain to me how, even if I accept that climate change is man made, which I have serious doubts about, how raising taxes is going to stem its progression?

Look, the best science can tell, earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Weather patterns have been charted for 140 years. That is less than 1 second relative to the life of the planet. Based on that, I have serious reservations about increasing an already stifling regulatory environment and increasing taxes so we can give 3rd world nations $billions of dollars when the ONLY way China could be inveigled into participating in the Paris Climate Accord was by exempting them from having to comply with any of its mandates.

At this point, climate policies are a political scam because they aren't based on mutually accepted scientific facts but rather fashionable globalist politics.

Japan, you "liked" this?

Is this what you seriously believe?

Do you really not understand how excess CO2 can effectively be a "pollutant"?

Do you think the age of the earth is relevant in the discussion? 

Do you deny the global scientific consensus?  You really think it's some sort of political scam?

[homersapien 11,513]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Thanks for this new and enlightening information ICHY. We are " believers "  

What do you mean by that exactly?

Do you think Blue's question was insincere?

[AURaptor 1,128]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Do you think the age of the earth is relevant in the discussion? 

Do you deny the global scientific consensus?  You really think it's some sort of political scam?

Absolutely. It puts things in perspective. 

It IS a political scam.