In a moment of unusual candor, a UN bureaucrat admitted that global warming is really about wealth redistribution.
CFACT shared his statement on a new billboard, right outside the Rockies 50,000+ seat ball park in Denver, Colorado.
Source of quote: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
As far as I’ve been able to figure, this is the german from the original source here ( http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227 ):
GoogleTranslate gives me this:
Anybody with good German skills able to comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Newsbusters translation?
I like the line after the bold..
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy”
“… moving away from fossil fuels “could” redistribute …”
What he actually said was: “Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um.”
My schoolboy German suggests that means: “But one must clearly say: We redistribute through the climate policy de facto the world wealth around.”
Not much sign of a “could”.
Interview: http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227
Dictionary:http://www.dict.cc/?s=verteilen
Matt Skaggs,
Who here was suggesting that he was talking about ‘taking wealth from rich people and giving it to poor people’? I see that Jim Watson made an ironic joke, I wonder if Edenhofer was including HIS wealth when he made that statement., but other than that there doesn’t appear to be much support for this idea.
If you agree that nobody here suggested your interpretation, would you further agree that this is a textbook example of a straw man argument?
For my part (and I expect most readers feel the same way), I understood what Edenhofer was saying. It doesn’t make me feel any better.
Gosh! Why did “Big Oil” (that we all know funds all skeptic endeavors) settle for just a billboard?
They have the cash to run the quote every 15 minutes on national, no, international TV!
Mark Bofill:
Yes, I can translate the German:
“Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um.”
“The industrialized countries have “quasi” expropriated the world’s atmosphere. We must clearly say: we will use climate policy to redistribute the world’s capital.”
The key point is that he is saying that climate policy will “appropriate” the right to emit GHGs from the industrialized nations and give it to the poor nations. The implication that he is talking about some sort of social engineering is ridiculous.
I did make a mistake in my previous post, I tried to find the original German and ended up quoting from a different interview. I apologize for that and the associated implication. However, none of Edenhofer’s statements even hint at the interpretation taken by some elements of the right-wing press, that the real purpose of climate policy is to take from the rich.
Matt Skaggs: while accusing this sit of taking things out of context, turns out it was you who took them out of context. The meaning (as far as I can tell) that EDENHOFER was trying to get accross was that the developed countries have already injected lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, so now we owe a debt to the under developed countries. That we should pay them money so that they can develope without themselves havting to inject a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. That sounds really nice. Matt, are you signing up to send them your money?
Matt,
Ok.
Much better than the botched Heartland serial killers support global warming campaign.
Matt Skaggs says:
“…none of Edenhofer’s statements even hint at the interpretation taken by some elements of the right-wing press, that the real purpose of climate policy is to take from the rich.”
In this instance I can read Ottmar Edenhofer’s mind. Edenhofer is thinking, “we will use climate policy to redistribute the world’s capital.”
…oh, wait. That’s exactly what Edenhofer said. Explicitly.
When someone says “redistribute”, the clear implication is that the redistribution will be in spite of those whose wealth is being redistributed. Because if they really wanted their wealth to be redistributed, why should they hand it over to a middleman like the UN? That middleman is just an unaccountable bureaucrat who will pocket his cut. Instead, just ‘redistribute’ it to whomever you want to have it. That is called “charity”, and it is a virtue. But confiscating someone else’s property is a vice.
It is also no coincidence that the UN has consistently and adamantly opposed any auditing of its finances. We are expected to “trust” them to spend the money wisely, and to make certain that it goes to the intended recipients, and not to the local strongman. Does anyone really believe the UN will do that? Anyone?
No, the billboard’s message is clear to me, and to most folks: “Climate policy” is a ruse to justify the UN’s socialist wealth redistribution plan. The ultimate target in this case is the wealth of the citizens of the U.S., and the West. Does anyone seriously believe that China and Russia are going to ‘redistribute’ their wealth to Chad, or the Sudan, out of the goodness of their hearts?
That ‘redistribution’ also does not apply to nomenklatura like Maurice Strong, Mark Cuban, Warren Buffett, various Hollywood stars, and other guilt-ridden hypocrites who have already got theirs, and who now want to cut you loose from your own personal savings and hand it over to the UN, in order for Mr. Strong and the rest to feel like they have done something noble — with your money.
The answer to poverty is all around us: a free market, with limited government that exists only to provide a level playing field for competitors. The examples abound: South Korea vs North Korea, Taiwan vs the PRC, East Germany [GDR] vs West Germany, etc. If you want a country to become very wealthy, simply follow proven free market economic policies.
The evil goblins released by the Russian revolution have very successfully used the most objectionable facets of human nature — especially green-eyed jealousy — to stir up resentment against those who have amassed more wealth through hard work and saving. It is true that capitalism results in unequal rewards. But so what? The poorest citizen in America is much better off than the average worker in North Korea — at least Americans don’t have to eat grass for lunch.
In general, those who have become wealthy have done it the usual way: saving more than you spend, working hard, accepting reasonable risk, avoiding drink and other vices that distract from the goal, working lots of hours, not giving in to immorality, and so on. And countries are no different than individuals: to the extent that a country lives beyond its means, and becomes immoral, it will eventually fail.
The whole goal of the UN is made clear in Ottmar Edenhofer’s unfortunate [for him] statement. The UN’s unstated goal is to take from those who have, and give it to those who don’t — with the UN taking its hefty cut of the action along the way. The ultimate goal is for the UN to become a super-EU; a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy, intent on ruling the world by an unelected committee. Eventually they intend to eliminate the Security Council’s veto power, and then the world’s 196 wolves will vote, along with the dozen or two rich lambs, on what to have for dinner.
Thanks, Mr. Edenhofer, for letting the cat out of the bag.
Wealth redistribution in this case means giving from the people who toil to make money to the people who do not (the rich). When has this not been the case? However, we are the ones who pay taxes to the elite. We could not pay or move. I see this happening already in the Northern US and see the fallout (Detroit). Remember, we have feet.
Exactly, Eve. The money shufflers have made a fortune in the “carbon market”, huge subsidies support wind farms, and so on and so forth. And the poor get screwed, as usual.
” climate policy will “appropriate” the right to emit GHGs from the industrialized nations and give it to the poor nations.”
That translation is meaningless rubbish, appropriately enough from the Church of Warmingology.
Hey, Eric Simpson, my pleasure. And, SUPER-precision firing of PTW at 1:44 o’clock…………. INCOMING!!!! Re: A-th-y, I think he reads most of the posts, so, when I don’t spell out his name, I hope he will read my compliment and I feel pretty sure he does (or hope a mo-d-er-ator passes it on). I just hate to burden him or the mode-r-ator-s with having to moder- at-e and, as you know writing out the entire A-th-y makes that happen. If I have something really important to tell him, I use his name. My little squeak above seemed too tiny to bother him about it.
Solid gold, Bofill, Stealey, and Eve (nice to hear from you!) — Mark, you were too kind to that prevaricating guy — but, WAY TO GO with all the refutation of his original post. Stealey, re: that fellow’s second attempt, SMOKIN’!
In a note to Craig Rucker at CFACT, I expressed the concern that the greenies might actually applaud the IPCC message (while ignoring the “stop the hype” line). I hope I’m wrong about this.
The problem is that a lot of people besides the most active greens do think redistributing wealth is A-OK (never mind that, for example, in slave times the wealth the slaves created was redistributed to their masters), and these as well as the hard greenies will applaud the IPCC’s statement
A further note: so-called “renewable” and “green” energy schemes are in fact devices by which wealth is redistributed from lower income electric ratepayers and taxpayers to rich investors in uneconomic energy projects. Somehow, such schemes always work in the reverse from what they are advertised to do. Transferring resources to poor countries doesn’t change this, because the money will wind up in the hands of the tiny kleptocratic elites in those countries, and none of it will filter down to the general population.
II havn’t seen any real redistribution to the third world. Out of context, the sentence can mean whatever your bias wants. Historically, there have been many organizations that have effectifely redistributed the worlds wealth. A couple that spring to mind are the Roman and British Empires. Now we have global corporations(bigger than governments) All have taken from the poor and given to the powerful (getting richer) elite. Our Australian Govt. takes from the worker and gives to big coal for clean coal research. So I agree with Eve. Big Oil? Big Coal? Nah! The people to be with are BIG CLIMATE.
But it is the effect of all climate policy as well as almost all policy from “leftist” governments, and even from governments that you cannot bring yourself to call “leftist”.
As far as being their “real purpose”, in that case you would need to read the minds and hearts of the people involved. Yes, some are actually dumb enough to believe they can affect climate through legislation and have no ulterior motives, and therefore are naive exceptions to the rule. But many, many more are pure Socialists believing the entire purpose of government is to redistribute the wealth of its citizens who that wealth doesn’t really belong to.
Matt, it sounds like you fear the phantom “right-wing” more than anything else, more than a government ( or worse, an international body ) that can take from one and give to the another ( and most insidiously gaining praise and votes in the process like a twisted Robin Hood ) in a form of legitimatized mob rule.
This is exactly how Socialists maintain their power even in our enlightened information age. They speak of the right wing boogey man even though the right and left are both wings of the same dangerous bird. People are either free and independent citizens with a limited government that serves at the pleasure of the people, or the inverse where the people are servants of the “government”. If you think their needs to be a compromise between these two methods then you need to do some more thinking.
Matt Skaggs says:
July 30, 2013 at 1:56 pm
==============
Allow me to stand among the common for a moment, just this moment.
Could you please explain what a “mouth breather” is? I may be one. While running, climbing, and biking, and sometimes yelling I may inhale through my mouth. From biology I seem to remember it connects to the trachea and any obstruction could cause asphyxiation. Is there a problem with me?
Do you have a different bodily orifice through which you speak and breathe?
Edenhofer is a german speaking German, being interviewed by a german language newspaper, very probably read and, if necessary, corrected what he said prior to publication, and now here we are and tell him what he meant to say. Amusing.
psudrozz said:
July 30, 2013 at 1:11 pm
it’ll probably be destroyed in a violent manner.
probably by someone who considers themselves nonviolent.
—————————————–
Well said!
Matt Skaggs says:
July 30, 2013 at 1:56 pm: You sir are a fool – one of Lenin’s idiots. The others have been much too nice to you. Go stick your head back into the cesspit of “global fanaticism and robbery, all for a good cause”. From this “mouthbreather”: you disgust me with your stupidity.
that statement makes no sense to 75% of the population. dumbed down stupidity needs dumbed down stupidity advertising, to make the dumbed down stupids, realize just what is really being done to them.
Can’t post,wuwt
Not so much how it says it as where it is saying it… might make COers stop and think. 😉
The proximity to ColoradoU (plus huge gov climate hub) is some great news here.