Wikileaks: Major UN Climate Programme ‘Basically A Farce’

Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser at The Global Warming Policy Foundation

A diplomatic cable published last month by the WikiLeaks website reveals that most of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment. Indian officials have apparently known about the problem for at least two years. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. –Quirin Schiermeier, Nature News, 27 September 2011 

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. –Ottmar Edenhoffer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

North Sea gas production has slumped by 25% in the second quarter of the year, an alarming increase in the rate of decline that will cut tax revenues and could put more pressure on government to agree controversial shale gas developments. –Terry Macalister, The Guardian, 30 September 2011

The costs of Alex Salmond’s green energy revolution are “going through the roof” and threaten to bankrupt companies by doubling energy bills, business leaders have warned the First Minister. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce (SCC) said electricity is currently about nine times more expensive to generate from wind farms than gas-powered plants. It warned this would hold back the Scottish economy and lead to businesses going under. –Simon Johnson, The Daily Telegraph, 29 September 2011

Poland would veto any EU legislation that threatened its sovereignty in energy policy, Maciej Olex-Szczytowski, an adviser to the Polish foreign minister on economics and business, said yesterday. Bloomberg, 28 September 2011

In an age of austerity, cheap gas—domestically produced and available in large quantities—could be a major tool for restoring European prosperity. It allows EU member states to directly tackle their alarming growth of fuel poverty while providing a new means to help rebuild competitiveness. That is an investment no country in Europe can afford not to make. –-Alan Riley, The Wall Street Journal, 30 September 2011

The shale boom of oil & gas is one of the few bright spots in the Obama economy. So it seems more than a bit paradoxical that Obama’s EPA and Department of the Interior continue working in attempts to find an excuse to shut it down — or at least slow it to a crawl. Al Fin Energy, 29 September 2011

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Wikileaks: Major UN Climate Programme ‘Basically A Farce’

  1. AdderW says:

    so carbon trading is a dud?

  2. John Marshall says:

    We should be helping the underdeveloped countries in Africa, like most of it, develop their own energy policies based on fossil fuels, but refused because of false theories about climate change built round CO2 fantasies. A developed Africa would not require any aid in food, health, or education and as a bonus their population would slowly decline as child mortality rates fell to levels in the West.

  3. nobody in particular says:

    But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.

    They’re redistributing it alright, by robbing the poor to give unto the rich as usual.

  4. Andrew Harding says:

    What the world doesn’t need, and certainly not now, is self righteous, allegedly green policies to reduce CO2 emissions. What we need is cheap, dependable energy (neither of which we get from the wind) to allow goods to be manufactured and distributed at a competitive price to kick start economic recovery.
    We are jeopardising our future and prosperity on non-proven science

  5. Another Gareth says:

    Ottmar Edenhoffer said: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

    After the shonky science this is my biggest gripe over AGW. On a global basis redistributing wealth is surely better when done via trade than taxing wealthy nations to a standstill and throwing the revenue at poorer ones. It happens by choice and needs little government involvement at either end. Trade gets our money in their hands and their goods and services in our hands. Both parties benefit in that.

    Even if the secret aim of AGW was to lift poor people out of poverty then it can be done by trade. But it’s not the outcome that is important to the politicians and lobby groups it’s the chance to pull at levers of power and to shuffle money around so their crony chums can skim of a fortune for themselves. AGW is a means to an end. Underdeveloped nations are a means to an end. Poor people are a means to an end. The end is authority and anything that stands a chance of actually achieving things is not welcome.

  6. higley7 says:

    “They’re redistributing it alright, by robbing the poor to give unto the rich as usual.”

    Hey, they did not say “who” they were redistributing it to. So, there’s no problem. Right?

    Think about it. Give the money to a third world country and most likely the people will never see the benefits, but it benefits the wealthy carbon traders and banks right off. Much more effective.

  7. Lars P says:

    John Marshall says:
    September 30, 2011 at 4:28 am
    “We should…”
    How very true!

  8. James Sexton says:

    It is time for people to understand that CO2 emissions are a proxy for economic activity. The world will never shake the malaise it is in until we understand that we must move our economy to move our science for us to advance.

  9. Dixon says:

    Fraud in the emissions bookeeping of a colourless, odourless, point source gas? Surely not!

    Compliance with regulation is expensive and that cost undermines the supposed cost-benefit of early, precautionary (and probably unnecessary) action, favouring strong direct reduction if that becomes necessary.

  10. More Soylent Green! says:

    Another Gareth says:
    September 30, 2011 at 4:57 am
    Ottmar Edenhoffer said: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

    After the shonky science this is my biggest gripe over AGW. On a global basis redistributing wealth is surely better when done via trade than taxing wealthy nations to a standstill and throwing the revenue at poorer ones. It happens by choice and needs little government involvement at either end. Trade gets our money in their hands and their goods and services in our hands. Both parties benefit in that.

    Even if the secret aim of AGW was to lift poor people out of poverty then it can be done by trade. But it’s not the outcome that is important to the politicians and lobby groups it’s the chance to pull at levers of power and to shuffle money around so their crony chums can skim of a fortune for themselves. AGW is a means to an end. Underdeveloped nations are a means to an end. Poor people are a means to an end. The end is authority and anything that stands a chance of actually achieving things is not welcome.

    Trade does not redistribute wealth.

    Otherwise, you’re on the right track. We need to focus on wealth creation, not redistribution. Capitalism and free enterprise create wealth. The pie expands and everybody has a chance to earn a slice.

    Redistribution cannot create wealth.

  11. Catcracking says:

    “They’re redistributing it alright, by robbing the poor to give unto the rich as usual”

    True in the US as outrageous subsidies go to Pelosi’s bro in law, Kaiser (sp) and other rich contributors to the President’s campaign. This affects more than just the poor, all US citizens that pay taxes or are asked to sacrifice!

  12. Philip Bradley says:

    Trade does not redistribute wealth.

    Wealth in this context means the purchasing power of individuals. Which at an economic level is ALL trade does – increases people purchasing power.

    More people have more money and can buy cheaper stuff.

  13. DirkH says:

    Took’em HOW long to notice?

  14. Mike Jackson says:

    “A developed Africa would not require any aid in food, health, or education and as a bonus their population would slowly decline as child mortality rates fell to levels in the West.”
    John, I know that and you know that and most people who stop to think know that but you would make half the NGOs in the world redundant if we went down that route and that would never do it, now would it?

  15. gmak says:

    @More soylent green:

    Savings and free enterprise create wealth. Productive capacity increases can only be funded by savings.

  16. More Soylent Green! says:

    gmak says:
    September 30, 2011 at 7:23 am
    @More soylent green:

    Savings and free enterprise create wealth. Productive capacity increases can only be funded by savings.

    Many things contribute to the creation of wealth — the rule of law, property rights, entrepreneurial spirit, etc. I was not attempting to be inclusive.

    In political debates, wealth and income are often incorrectly used interchangeably. Many tax the rich schemes are actually advocating increased taxation of income, not taxation of wealth. People with high incomes often do not accumulate any wealth because of their lifestyles.

  17. DEEBEE says:

    Carbon trading like communism would be ideal, if only we could get rid of the selfish people /sarc

  18. john says:

    I think you all will like this, be sure to check out the comment regarding a 2 part series regarding green jobs.

    http://dailybail.com/home/dr-obamas-miracle-green-job-elixir-gives-737-million-to-sola.html

  19. DD More says:

    The costs of Alex Salmond’s green energy revolution are “going through the roof” and threaten to bankrupt companies by doubling energy bills, business leaders have warned the First Minister.

    To say nothing about increasing unemployment by 3.7 per job.
    The report’s key finding is that for every job created in the UK in renewable energy, 3.7 jobs are lost. In Scotland there is no net benefit from government support for the sector, and probably a small net loss of jobs. http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/for-every-green-job-created-3-7-jobs-are-lost-united-kingdom/

    North Sea gas production has slumped by 25% in the second quarter of the year

    Peak oil?? No – from the article – “But the largest fall was in the amount of gas produced from the southern North Sea, where operators have been arguing that projects may have to be shut down because of a rise in government taxes in the last budget.”

    Peak Government interference.

  20. RayG says:

    @Catcracking says: “True in the US as outrageous subsidies go to Pelosi’s bro in law, Kaiser (sic)”
    September 30, 2011 at 6:43 am

    Cat, do you have a ready source for this? Thanks, RG
    btw, its “Keiser.”

  21. RayG says:

    Oops. It is Kaiser!

    Mea culpa.

    RG

  22. DD More says:

    The costs of Alex Salmond’s green energy revolution are “going through the roof” and threaten to bankrupt companies by doubling energy bills, business leaders have warned the First Minister.

    To say nothing about losing 3.7 jobs per ‘green’ job. Or Spain’s 2.2 jobs.
    The report’s key finding is that for every job created in the UK in renewable energy, 3.7 jobs are lost. In Scotland there is no net benefit from government support for the sector, and probably a small net loss of jobs.
    http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/for-every-green-job-created-3-7-jobs-are-lost-united-kingdom/

    North Sea gas production has slumped by 25% in the second quarter of the year

    Peak oil? No. From the article.
    But the largest fall was in the amount of gas produced from the southern North Sea, where operators have been arguing that projects may have to be shut down because of a rise in government taxes in the last budget.

    Peak Government interference.

  23. Bob Diaz says:

    RE: But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.

    Assuming that we are going to do this, how does the money end up in the hands of the poor, who need it AND NOT in the hands of some greedy powerful oppressor in control?

  24. Evil Denier says:

    Socialism doesn’t re-distribute wealth
    It distributes poverty.

  25. tom T says:

    There is no value at all to trading carbon, so it is worthless to do it.

  26. Catcracking says:

    RayG says:

    September 30, 2011 at 10:35 am

    @Catcracking says: “True in the US as outrageous subsidies go to Pelosi’s bro in law, Kaiser (sic)”
    September 30, 2011 at 6:43 am

    Cat, do you have a ready source for this? Thanks, RG
    btw, its “Keiser.”

    Ray, I understand your questioning this since it is beyond stupid by Chu who takes credit for the decision. and it is Cronyism beyond belief; but it is all over the non MSM news. Do they think we are stupid and noone would notice??? BTW I just read that there are billions more $$ being rushed out the door to meet the deadline since parts of the program expire today.

    http://patdollard.com/2011/09/nanci-pelosis-brother-in-law-is-on-board-of-directors-of-recipient-of-737-mil-solar-energy-subsidy-others-are-major-dem-donors/

    “It’s as if Solyndra never happened. The Obama Administration is giving $737 million to a Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve. PCG is an investment partner with SolarReserve. Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law happens to be the number two man at PCG.

    Team Obama is spending $737 million to create 45 permanent jobs.
    The Hill reported, via Free Republic:”

    “The Energy Department announced Wednesday that is has finalized a $737 million loan guarantee for a Nevada solar project.

    The decision comes several weeks after a California-based solar manufacturer that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration in 2009 filed for bankruptcy and laid off
    1,100 workers, setting off a firestorm in Washington.

    The $737 million loan guarantee will help finance construction of the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a 110-megawatt solar-power-generating facility in Nye County, Nev. The project is sponsored by Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve.”

    Another source:
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/crony-capitalism-737-million-green-jobs-loan-given-nancy-pelosis-brother-law_594593.html

  27. Roger Knights says:

    a 110-megawatt solar-power-generating facility in Nye County, Nev.

    That’s in “The kingdom of Nye”!

  28. John Trigge says:

    Articles such as these are the reason for so many Aussies being frustrated, angry and thoroughly p**s*d off with Australian politicians who seem hell-bent on taking us down the carbon trading/ETS route.

    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

    Why is it that there is never a politician around when you have the urge to throw something?

    Vive la revolution

  29. Oh, wait. Do you mean AGW and its derivatives are a scam?

  30. ferd berple says:

    Another Gareth says:
    September 30, 2011 at 4:57 am
    Ottmar Edenhoffer said: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

    Robbin Hood in reverse. Steal from the poor to give to the rich. Bankrupting the EU in the process.

  31. ferd berple says:

    Bob Diaz says:
    September 30, 2011 at 11:37 am
    RE: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

    Assuming that we are going to do this, how does the money end up in the hands of the poor, who need it AND NOT in the hands of some greedy powerful oppressor in control?

    Even if it goes into the hands of the poor, the government in power simply taxes it away, or gives it to a crony through government sanctioned monopolies. That is why the poor are poor and the rich are rich. Why else would a US politician spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that pays hundreds of thousands?

    The political equation:
    poor ==$$==>> government ==$$==>> friends of government ==$$==> political contributions
    The rich get richer and the poor get poorer

  32. RandomThesis says:

    Please remember when you use Robin Hood as an example, that the rich were the government. It is more accurate to say “Robin Hood robbed the GOVERNMENT and gave to the poor.”

  33. A Bear says:

    I’ll be honest with all of you. I don’t think the actual help for poorer countries was refused because of false theories. I think they knew it and did it on purpose. Why are our western governments so adamant in telling India and China how they must stop spewing so much CO2?

    Fear. Naked fear. India and China are giants which, once they reach a level similar to us, will likely steamroll us.

    Also remember that tomatoes from the EU are cheaper in Africa than local products. That only creates dependency. A local economy can never come to be with that. And I firmly believe this is done on purpose.

    Modern colonialism.

    Keep those countries down and poor, which makes them easier to be controlled.

    ferd berple, our EU governments (I’m using the term losely, since I don’t really see this circus as a working government) are doing that by themselves. My country just almost doubled the money we’ll be pumping into the black hole that is Greece. Our national debts have been growing for decades. What you see today in Germany (national debt has crossed above 2 trillion), Austria (national debt for 2012 was epected to be 75% of the GDP, it’s already at 80%) or the UK has nothing to do with “climate programmes”. It’s a problem our countries have been breeding for decades by crazy spending.

Comments are closed.