Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer
For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.
Interview by: Bernard Potter
NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Eden, 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.
Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change – especially in the global south.
It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased – and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.
Full Interview h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser at the GWPF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, of course we know how that wealth redistribution works: out of the pockets of working people, into the wallets of dictators, juntas and oligarchies, and then into the vaults of the banks.
Wealth Redistribution= “Stick-em up USA, Australia, Canada, ” and I bet it all goes into
UN Coffers.
So they can buy more ammo to shoot unarmed, sick hungry Haitians -if what I heard
last night about what is happening in Cap Haitien …
His response:
Let’s see if we can understand those two possibilities. 1) Huge amounts of money will flow into Africa which will allow them to industrialize and become huge emitters of CO2 or 2) the money will go down the drain through graft and corruption and there will be no net gain to the people of Africa.
Certainly sounds like two laudable outcomes! Who are they kidding (besides themselves?)
I get *SICK* to the point of barfing when I see those european socialists trying to spread their FAILED socialism… Happily the superior US democratic system gave socialist Obama a beating and probably the USA will not become another failed stagnated european welfare state.
Africa in the 1960s was richer than Hong Kong and Singapore, which were really really poor. Africa received tons of foreign aid and “advice” by the “geniuses” from Academia and look where Africa is now…
The “genius” economists and nobel prize winners at Academia considered Hong Kong and Singapore hopeless in the 1960s, so poor they were…But Hong Kong and Singapore received almost NO FOREIGN aid and, MOST IMPORTANT, they REFUSED to folow the “advice” from the Nobel Prize in Economics “geniuses” and from other “genial” bureaucrats and remainde with a small government instead of “stimulating” themselves with GIGANTIC european style government…
The result: Today Hong Kong https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html and Singapore https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html are richer than Sweden https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html ; Sweden was one of the world richest countries in the 1960s (about 4th place) but followed the “advice” of the Nobel Prize in Economics keynesian “geniuses” and “stimulated” its economy with big government… You see the results. And Africa today is much poorer than any of them, eventough it receive huge aid and “advice”
You see that socialism is a big failure. Centuries ago England was the world superpower… The REAL science from Adam Smith as stated in Wealth of Nations was maisntream then. But now England it has “stimulated” itself with big government and the pseudoscience of John Maynard Keynes… Today England, as an economic superpower, is a joke…
Western Europeans are just becoming everyday a less relevant part of the world thanks to PSEUDOSCIENCE that pretends to “justify” socialist opression but in fact ruins them…
Sweden was one of the richest nations
>>>To WattsUpWithThat Moderator. Dear Sir or Madam. Please ignore the comment that I just submitted in this same thread, it has some typographical errors. This comment is the same comment but with those errors corrected. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks<<<
I get *SICK* to the point of barfing when I see those european socialists trying to spread their FAILED socialism… Happily the superior US democratic system gave socialist Obama a beating and probably the USA will not become another failed stagnated european welfare state.
Africa in the 1960s was richer than Hong Kong and Singapore, which were really really poor. Africa received tons of foreign aid and “advice” by the “geniuses” from Academia and look where Africa is now…
The “genius” economists and nobel prize winners at Academia considered Hong Kong and Singapore hopeless in the 1960s, so poor they were…But Hong Kong and Singapore received almost NO FOREIGN aid and, MOST IMPORTANT, they REFUSED to follow the “advice” from the Nobel Prize in Economics “geniuses” and from other “genial” bureaucrats and remained with a small government instead of “stimulating” themselves with GIGANTIC european style government…
The result: Today Hong Kong https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html and Singapore https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html are richer than Sweden https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html ; Sweden was one of the world richest countries in the 1960s (about 4th place) but followed the “advice” of the Nobel Prize in Economics keynesian “geniuses” and “stimulated” its economy with big government… You see the results. And Africa today is much poorer than any of them, eventough it did received huge aid and “advice”
You see that socialism is a big failure. Centuries ago England was the world superpower… The REAL science from Adam Smith, as stated in Wealth of Nations was maisntream then. But in the 2oth century England has “stimulated” itself with big government based on John Maynard Keynes pseudoscience… Today England, as an economic superpower, is a joke…
Western Europeans are just becoming everyday a less relevant part of the world thanks to PSEUDOSCIENCE that pretends to “justify” socialist opression but in which in fact is actually ruinning them
But isn’t it all, and hasn’t it always been about redistribution of wealth?
Cash for clunkers
Bucks for bunkers (mortgage bailout)
Paying off the unions
Stimulus (look where the money really went)
Health care reform
Cap and trade
etc etc etc and on and on
Spread the wealth around………….
Well, at least they’re being honest and not hiding the true goal anymore…
mr.watt:
have you read the article in Scientific American about the “poll”???
you and yours readers are very “obnoxious”…
please it is a must read
I am always amazed at the GOOD economics that I read in this forum of NON ECONOMISTS….
I am always horirfied by the piles of GARBAGE that I read from professional economists and from many nobel prize winning economists…
The lead quote is fake. Read the interview carefully – though I’d be leery of the translation too. They pasted together some of Edenhofer’s remarks out of context and added a few words out of thin air. This is a propaganda trick. The headline looks like a quote and frames how you read the interview. In fact many readers won’t even read the whole interview but will come away with a false impression. Some of you above have already taken the fake quote and put quotation marks around it. This will spread to other blogs and even op-ed pieces. This is how the propaganda mill works. You are seeing happen. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain!
REPLY: The original headline:
Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu
The online translation:
Climate policy distributes the world’s new wealth.
Seems OK to me. – Anthony
While Pachauri is a loose cannon, Edenhofer belongs in a league of his own:
“…..distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
“…..most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.”
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
These lunatics are building empires in their fevered imaginations!
Call it global warming or climate change or anything you want. It has always been about redistribution of wealth. A pittance to third world countries and a large amount from the middle class to the rich and from America to Europe.
SouthAmericanGirls says:
November 18, 2010 at 5:49 pm
“But Hong Kong and Singapore received almost NO FOREIGN aid and, MOST IMPORTANT, they REFUSED to follow the “advice” from the Nobel Prize in Economics “geniuses” ”
This is not entirely true. There was one Nobel winning economist who was profoundly influential in the economic revolutions there.
CONGRATULATIONS, this thread seems to be so popular that sending a link with this title as subject gets it bounced as being spam !
I did a “send link as email” to a friend earlier and it came back. I tried about a dozen permutations to see whether it was the IP, sender’s address or subject or body that triggered the bounce.
original title was:
“Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth” | Watts Up With That?
testing showed it was not the quotes or the “Watts Up With That?”
Unrelated different text in the body did not help either.
finally it seems the bounce was due to :
Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth | Watt
I should point out that the recipient is a proud user of gmail who seem to be using Tucows to transit traffic. This has given spurious bounces in the past.
It seems that there has been such a surge of email traffic on this subject that it is triggering some heuristic spam detection software.
How’s that for success?!
[Reply: Just send http://wattsupwiththat.com The article is at the top of the page. ~dbs, mod.]
Ottmar Edenhofer is a typical professional government bureaucrat.
He lives in a fairy tale land rather than the EU with its massive deficits and high unemployment.
The transfer of money he is proposing is to corrupt third world governments in Africa. His concern stated in the interview is whether the corrupt third world governments will be able to handle the responsibilities of the massive transfer of wealth his believes will occur. What do you think is the most likely outcome?
As it appears the planet’s response to an increasing in forcing is negative (cloud cover increases when the planet is warmer) rather than negative, the world will warm less than 1C due to a doubling of CO2. (The safe limit in warming has been stated arbitrary as 2C.) As it appears also that the warming will primarily be at high latitudes and beneficial, it is not necessary to transfer trillions of dollars from countries that have massive deficits to corrupt third world governments.
That is not going to happen. AWG is rapidly becoming a significant political liability. During times of high unemployment people start to question deluded leeches.
I think you all are missing something here. The AGW folks want to keep Africa as poor as possible, other than various oligarchies, so that Africa won’t emit any “evil CO2”. Money transferred from the US, Canada, etc, will just end up in the pockets (read Swiss bank accounts) of the oligarchs & tyrants.
I see the AGW people as basically racist. They want to maintain something like their current lifestyle, by driving Prius hybrids, while denying the world’s poorest people access to energy & markets, the two things necessary for those poor people to have a chance to lift themselves out of their poverty.
Hows it go? “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for life”.
Seems to me the third world has been given daily fish for decades now. No wonder they can’t stand on their own two feet.
This Ottmar bloke needs to open his eyes and see that African “leaders” are jetting around the globe attending various UN functions, eating caviar and lobster and throwing the fish bones to their people, GENERATION AFTER FRIGGING GENERATION.
Crimes against humanity indeed.
Wouldn`t this be poverty redistribution,rather than wealth redistribution?
The fallout may wipe out the liberal useful idiots as a political force for years.For our politicians and elites have brayed about the dread co2 for years and proposed destruction of our nation as the only solution.I call that treason. For they have always lacked the guts to say what they really support and now the attempt to cloak the agenda in science has failed they stand exposed as fools or 5th columnists.
I see the AGW people as basically racist.
Are you frigging kidding me? That must be some sort of joke that I am not getting. Quite ridiculous otherwise.
To Baa Humbug:
African leaders have been propped up and neutered in equal numbers by the UN, and it is the fact that the UN chooses to prop up UN stooges, like the current President of Rwanda (yes, he ended the 1994 massacre, but where was he during the 1993 massacre in Burundi?), that speaks most about the failure of the UN as a body.
Betsy says:
November 18, 2010 at 7:16 pm
I think you all are missing something here. The AGW folks want to keep Africa as poor as possible, other than various oligarchies, so that Africa won’t emit any “evil CO2″. Money transferred from the US, Canada, etc, will just end up in the pockets (read Swiss bank accounts) of the oligarchs & tyrants.
I see the AGW people as basically racist. They want to maintain something like their current lifestyle, by driving Prius hybrids, while denying the world’s poorest people access to energy & markets, the two things necessary for those poor people to have a chance to lift themselves out of their poverty.
===============================
I don’t believe it is intentional, just misguided.
Wealth redistribution to poor countries doesn’t work. The problem is that in order for a country to remain ‘rich’ it needs to keep generating its own money. Just giving a country a boat load of money when it has nothing of its own to spend it on and hence keep the value of that money in their economy results in a massive ‘spending spree’ on all sort of things sourced from elsewhere. In the end the money will just do a massive return trip either directly or via some Swiss bank account (psst don’t tell the African dictators about deposit coverage ratios…).
All that dark blue over the long-term capitalist democracies! Sheer luck, most likely. One would like to blame oppression and imperialism, but since all the other coloured bits have dished out their own forms of oppression and imperialism, of a far more savage nature, there must be something else at work. What can it be?
It can’t be that Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were right. We know from The Guardian and New York Times and Paul Krugman that can’t be so. So how did all those long-term capitalist democracies get to be dark blue?
In any case, all one has to do is spread the dark blue out over the other stuff and…problem solved!
Wow!
The toothless, retarded wolf has just shed his sheep’s costume.
Let him (them) keep talking. Its just plain fun listening to fools continue to make fools of themselves.
Christopher Monkton has been talking about this being a disguise for “wealth redistribution” for quite some time.
Would like to hear his invective about now. Lord M….you out there??
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Betsy says: “I think you all are missing something here. The AGW folks want to keep Africa as poor as possible, other than various oligarchies, so that Africa won’t emit any ‘evil CO2’.”
Bingo, despite some of the protests I see. I was reading through the comments waiting for someone to point out what is the real goal of the global governance/redistribution agenda. The agenda isn’t about helping the poor. It is about the effort to “make sure there is not another United States.” I wrote about this at length a while back on The Air Vent (thanks Jeff):
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/uns-ideal-global-government/#more-10157
A few comments here have touched upon the real agenda, but I am surprised at how many of the posters here are surprised. I’m sorry to echo crosspatch’s comment right out of the gate, but DUH! None of this was conspiracy theory or far-fetched in any way and the UN’s Emissions Scenarios was written a decade ago. As I point out in my article, this information is all out there in their own words! This might have been a hint:
“Massive income redistribution and presumably high taxation levels may adversely affect the economic efficiency and functioning of world markets.”
Whodathunkit. Using their own figures, the dent in global GDP by 2100 following their Sustainable Development B1 Scenario will be $200 trillion annually! The annual per capita income among the poor will be $35,000 instead of $70,000. Those are their numbers folks.
So, as Betsy points out, this is about controlling the world’s resources, stifling development in Annex 2 countries, and “de-developing,” as John Holdren calls it, the U.S. and other Annex 1 countries. As I note in the article, the only things sustained under SD B1 are misery and poverty, and that prolonging of poverty will be a death sentence for millions. As others have pointed out, the climate agreements transparently reflect this agenda. The only conspiracy involved was the conspiracy of not admitting to the real global governance agenda despite the readily-available evidence to the contrary.
I cannot tell you how many times I was called a conspiracy theorist, involved in black helicopter talk, wearing a tin-foil hat, etc. when bringing this up. Always the response was the same old nothing to see here with a “crackpot” thrown in for good measure. Well I’ll be sure to share Edenhofer’s admissions with the next AGW zealot who tries to claim that the IPCC is all about the science. The claim is right but they have the wrong scientific field in mind. These puppets are activist scientists engaged in wholly political science. Thanks for yet another exoneration AGW cultists, not that any skeptic needed it.
And the thing that angers me to no end is Edenhofer’s admission that this is not about the real environmental issues facing the planet. As an environmentalist myself, this diversion of resources, attention, and, last but not least, scientific credibility, has been one of my primary bones with these AGW control freaks all along. This “movement” has set back real climate science and true environmentalism for who knows how long.
While Hansen, Mann et al were pre-occupied with their misguided AGW advocacy, the last white rhino in Krugersdorp was killed, ridiculously huge areas of habitat was destroyed to make way for ends-justify-the-means biofuels and solar arrays, and many other environmental/humanitarian issues that could have been directly affected with proven results were put on the back burner to focus on the CO2 phantom menace. By-and-large the real environmental degradation taking place worldwide remains largely unaddressed. It is a travesty. Thanks for nothing. Since many of you are surprised and most might miss this in the article I reference above, here are some of the terms/phrases from the Copenhagen negotiating text I gathered that you should familiarize yourself with:
Historical climate debt; transparent system of governance; compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity; environmental justice; green fund; levies on CO2 emissions; taxes on carbon-intensive products and services; levies on international and maritime transport; levies on international transactions; penalties or fines for non-compliance; ODA additional to ODA targets; adaptation debt; 2 per cent of gross national product; and uniform global levy.
Open up your wallets folks. Oh, I almost forgot. As Doug says, this won’t go down without a fight. I’d say it’s high time to put up your dukes if you haven’t already. I hate to keep quoting myself, but the fastest way to true environmental stewardship is wealth. Get out of the world’s way or, quite simply, you’ll be pushed out of the way. I sure intend on fighting this fight until this people-punishing agenda in dead and buried. Ding. Ding. Cheers!