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.
another water melon head green on the outside red on the inside
We’ve got to throw these quotes into the faces of our politicians and ask them point blank if they agree with Mr. Edenhofer. This has to be read into Hansard and the Congressional Record, and shouted from the rooftops so that Joe Average is forced to think about what it means and what the IPCC really is.
Having worked in African agriculture for five years I can say with confidence that pouring in ‘aid’ in the way these bureacrats propose will be as useful as providing free booze to an alcoholic.
I can’t get emails to work for people shown in http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/organization-and-tsu/tsu as contacts
Suggestions anyone?
It’s easier to make fast money from a position of privilege when the global economic motors are revving fast. It’s boring at idle speed.
Those of us younger than I who allowed these carpetbaggers to get a foot on the throttle have a bit to answer for. In my time we used to drag them off at the lights so they paled into insignificance.
Hmm. Well, it has been a good while since I posted this and it may have disappeared (never got the “awaiting moderation” notice, it just vanished). I hope this isn’t a double post, but if it is, I apologize in advance. Though I didn’t think I committed any fouls, I tried messing with it a bit in case I triggered a filter somehow. Hopefully this one passes through.
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 c0nspiracy 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 c0nspiracy involved was the c0nspiracy 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 c0nspiracy theorist, involved in black helic0pter talk, wearing a tin-f0il hat, etc. when bringing this up. Always the response was the same old nothing to see here with a “crackp0t” thrown in for good measure. Well I’ll be sure to share Edenhofer’s admissions with the next AGW zeal0t 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 cult!sts, 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 freeks (sic) 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 phant0m 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 intellectual 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!
This should be an outrage to everybody that believes in individualism. There should be an outpouring of angst against such ideas. Sadly, I can’t see any real anger occurring in the populace…………..A said day for humanity.
Sad, not said…………..still sad.
One World Government spokespersons are now emboldened, and saying publicly:
“Sure, it’s true – so what are you going to do about it?
Economic Aid – the process where money from the bank accounts of poor people of rich countries in moved to the bank accounts of rich people in poor countries.
If you laid all the economists in the world end to end you still would’nt reach a conclusion, (not sure who said that).
Then again, if you laid all climate scientists end to end you still would’nt reach a consensus.
Lord Monckton was dead right about the AGW hoaxers plan.
I will have a nice little letter ready to go out to a few GOP Congresstypes tomorrow, including Mr Boehner, with Herr Doktor Edenhoffer’s quote and his relationship to the IPCC, emphasizing the utterly crucial importance of having all the committees responsible for oversight of EPA, NOAA, NASA, DOE, etc. chaired by individuals of appropriately critical mindset.
Dissembling is not an ability the German national holds in high esteem – bless them all! China and the US saw this coming at Copenhagen so manufactured a cat-fight. I wonder what Can-cun has in store for us? Whatever transpires, it’ll be just in time for the English pantomime season-how apposite!
So, I see someone has spilled the beans and exposed the real agenda. I guess Edenhofer thought no one in America would pay attention to what he said. But it has been apparent for quite a while now what the real agenda was – not “climate change” but redistribution of wealth world-wide, with the UN bureaucrats and their lackeys, the NGO environmental groups, gaining a lion’s share of the wealth and power. Along with all of the corrupt leaders of the backwater governments who have been feeding at the international trough for years, at the expense of their people.
The UN and most of their affiliated agencies need to be abolished. World peace, my foot. They’ve been turned into a device for world domination and repression.
What I marvel at, is the way that people think that rising CO2 emissions at best loosely coupled with GDP growth and at worst totally independent.
I don’t how many people remember the “endogenous growth theory” of the naughties – but in principle this was a theory that it was possible to grow an economy without rising CO2 emissions (for those who do know – I’ve jumped a few steps). And it did appear to happen for a while. UK and US manufacturing emissions began to drop at a time that the economy seemed to be massively increasing in size without any apparent growth in manufacture.
… but then the idiots who weren’t already in the know learnt the truth: the economy had been pulled up by its own bootlaces on rising house prices. The economy hadn’t grown, only the level of borrowing had borrowed from future economic activity to fund the naughties economic “boom”.
… similarly, the reason we didn’t see a rise in UK/US emissions due to manufacture was because all that manufacture had gone abroad, mostly to china.
The simple fact is that I’ve yet to see any evidence that GDP and energy consumption are not one and the same thing. It appears to be a universal truth that you can’t grow the (real size of the) economy without increasing energy consumption … so it would seem economic growth is impossible without energy growth and as thing like solar panels are unenerconomic (On average they use more energy in manufacture than they give out in their lifetime), such things will never grow the economy!
@Anthony:
“The original headline:
Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu
The online translation:
Climate policy distributes the world’s new wealth.
Seems OK to me. – Anthony”
Not quite. “The world’s new wealth” would be “das neues Weltvermögen”.
Actually “neuverteilen” means redistribute”.
So the exact translation would be: “Climate policy redistributes the world’s wealth”.
Years ago a psychologist told me that “psychotics build castles in the sky and the psychologists who treat them collect the rent.” Seems to me that the extremely psychotic European Super Greens in the UN think they are smart enough to build castles in the sky, collect the rent then redistribute that rent! But their schemes are now out in the open for the world to see the horrifying extent and depth of the malignant and extreme psychosis these would-be ‘world leaders’ suffer from. Giving more funds to totally corrupt regimes such as that of Mugabe and his henchmen and women in Zimbabwe will only further enrich those leaders and their regimes and do nothing for their hard-pressed countymen already facing starvation in a geographic area which was once termed ‘the breadbasket of Africa’. Perhaps these psychotic ‘environmentalists’ in the UN who believe that every living creature on earth, with the exception of Man, is unique and precious, and the unhinged Greens really do favor the concept of mass starvation of almost entire human populations to acheive their lunatic aim of ‘sustainability’.
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
=========================================
Hi Anthony.
‘Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu’ means:
‘Climate policy redistributes the world’s wealth.’
The german ‘verteilen‘ translates as ‘to distribute’. ‘Neu verteilen’’ is ‘to redistribute’.
Headlines are concentrated and notoriously hard to translate with a computer program.
The ‘world’s new wealth’ would be ‘das neue Weltvermögen’.
These people (like Edenhofer) are unashamed fascists, and aren’t even ashamed to admit it anymore. They consider it their Gaiya-given right to steal from the hard-working, prosperous and once-free, and to give to the backward, undeveloped and shackled, and to deny individuals and nations the ability to better themselves. I do fear for the future of the once-free world now that these sick and twisted b….rds are running it.
We call it ‘overseas aid’ in the UK – defined recently (and spookily correctly) as: Taking money from the poor of a rich country and giving it to the rich of a poor country…
Oh – and we’ve just promised to stump up £7bn (which I didn’t think we had) to help out the Irish..
So does this “Economist” count as a “Climate Scientist” as he chairs (Or co-chairs, does this mean one keeps the seat warm while the other goes for a crap?) a chunk of the IPCC?
The UN and IPCC are naive, corrupt, selfish fools. I’ll do some redistribution for them – their faces across a road
“David says:
November 19, 2010 at 2:11 am”
The Irish govn’t has been receiving EU/UK grants since the very early 1980’s. The Irish economic “miracle” was a taxpayer funded bubble just waiting to burst.
I agree that wealth redistribution is the aim; but, you do not impoverish the wealthy to enrich the poor. You get the wealthy to show the poor how to enrich themselves so the poor can develop.
Show a man how to fish and he feeds himself for life. Give him a fish and he has one good meal then starves.
The IPCC methods are typically soviet socialist in style which have been shown NOT TO WORK. Never have.
The Socialist way is to give what is needed. This produces a reliant society waiting for the next handout. Wrong! Educate that riches must be earned by dint of hard work. This way is shunned by socialism. They still do not understand that to keep giving to the poor someone has to provide the riches to do this and this wealth base is getting smaller as more and more hold out their hands.