UN Appointed Climate Science Team Demands The End of Capitalism

Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A team of scientists appointed by the United Nations has reported that a free market system cannot provide the economic transition required to defeat climate change.

Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism’s Imminent Demise

By Nafeez Ahmed
Aug 28 2018, 1:40am

A climate change-fueled switch away from fossil fuels means the worldwide economy will fundamentally need to change.

Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN Secretary-General. The main reason? We’re transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet’s environmental resources.

Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems, the new report says that these are not really separate crises at all.

For the “first time in human history,” the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.” This applies to all forms of energy. Producing usable energy (“exergy”) to keep powering “both basic and non-basic human activities” in industrial civilisation “will require more, not less, effort.”

The shift to renewables might help solve the climate challenge, but for the foreseeable future will not generate the same levels of energy as cheap, conventional oil.

Read more: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43pek3/scientists-warn-the-un-of-capitalisms-imminent-demise

The new report is available here

From the report;

… Rapid economic transition requires proactive governance – markets cannot accomplish the task

It is clear from these examples that strong political governance is required to accomplish the key transitions. Market-based action will not suffice – even with a high carbon price. There must be a comprehensive vision and closely coordinated plans. Otherwise, a rapid system-level transformation toward global sustainability goals is inconceivable. Mazzucato (2013, 2018) has examined this topic from the perspective of innovation policy and argues that historically, major system-level innovations such as the US Apollo program have required the state to set the mission and coordinate and finance much of the related research and development. According to her research, achieving system-level transition has required and will require proactive mission-oriented innovation – it will not be enough for the state to fix “market failures” reactively. Of course, innovation alone is not enough, and we will return to the question of limiting resource use and organizing jobs below. …

Read moreL https://bios.fi/bios-governance_of_economic_transition.pdf

No doubt the United Nations will step in to provide the necessary strong governance if we ask them to.

1 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 29, 2018 1:09 am

Orwell missed by only 34 years…..

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 2:51 am

The problem, good people, is that green energy schemes do not work – I wish they did – but grid-connected wind and solar power FAIL based on high-cost and intermittency – and there is no practical super-battery in most situations to solve the problem.

Energy is my area of expertise and I have a very successful predictive track record. I have two engineering degrees and have studied this subject for many decades.

Fully 85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, and the rest is hydro and nuclear. Green energy would be near-zero except for massive wasted subsidies and use mandates. Only a few places have enough hydro to provide their needs, and greens hate hydro. The only practical alternative is nuclear, and the greens hate nuclear too.

Without fossil fuels, most people in the developed world would just freeze and starve to death. This means you and your family.

There is strong evidence that climate is relatively INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 and there is no real global warming crisis. The only major impact of increasing CO2 is greatly-increased plant and crop yields – and any resulting warming will be mild and net-beneficial.

Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity at this time – Excess Winter Mortality totals about 2 million souls per year.
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015

Intelligent people should strongly reject green rhetoric – it is a false-front for the far-left’s political and economic agendas, which will lead to enormous human suffering and death.

The far-left killed over 200 million people in the 20th Century – do we really have to do all this again?

That is the deadly path the far-left and the phony greens are trying to take us on:
“Trust us! This time it will be different!” No, it won’t!

Regards, Allan


Fossil fuels still provide 85% of Global Primary Energy, whereas Hydro is 7% and Nuclear has dropped to 4%. This “Conventional Power Generation“ totals 96%, and Renewables have increased to 4%.

Despite tens of trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies, Renewables still provide only 4% of global primary energy, and CO2 emissions have INCREASED in the countries that have introduced the most Renewables. This is because Renewables are not green and do not produce much useful (dispatchable) energy. Renewables are too intermittent and require almost 100% spinning reserve (backup) of Conventional Power Generation to fill-in when the wind does not blow or the Sun does not shine.

This “4% Renewables” would drop to near-zero if our idiot politicians did not force renewables into the grid ahead of useful, dispatchable power – this is another huge hidden subsidy for Renewables. Grid-connected wind and solar power are harmful, because they drive up energy costs AND also seriously destabilize the grid. South Australia has experienced two long outages caused by wind power.

In Alberta, our imbecilic politicians are phasing out our coal plants, and replacing them with natural gas-fired units. While gas-fired power plants are much better than wind power, our energy prices are going to increase sharply and become more volatile in the future, because gas prices are at historic lows and will almost certainly increase.

The NDP’s argument against Alberta coal is “air pollution” – but ALL our coal-fired plants have pollution controls and all air pollutants from all these coal plants equal ~1/1000 of the air pollution we experience each year from forest fires. In effect, all we have to do is defer ONE forest fire per year (0.1%), and we can keep our coal plants operating and keep our electrical power costs very low.

The NDP also believe that CO2, essential for all plant and crop growth, is a pollutant. It is not, and it is not causing dangerous global warming. That falsehood is popular among the uneducated and green extremists.

The only measurable impact of increased atmospheric CO2 is significantly increased plant and crop yields.



August 29, 2018 5:48 am


Green policies are well on their way to surpassing the 20th Centuries appalling death rate of 200 million. The World Health Organisation predicts that 120,000,000 people will die in developing countries by 2050 from smoke inhalation caused by being forced to cook and heat with bio fuels, the romantic term for animal faeces and wood.

1,000,000 people a year die from lack of vitamin A in their diet, easily and cheaply addressed with GM modified Golden Rice, but the greens also hate anything GM so it can’t be used.

So far, we’re up to 170,000,000 and will be only half way through the century. Nor do these figures include the numbers that have died in the last 18 years. And what will the numbers be like from 2050 to the end of the Century?

Mau and Stalin will be considered humanitarians by the standards set by the greens and their socialist brethren.

Reply to  HotScot
August 29, 2018 7:08 am

Correct HotScot

And millions of kids died from malaria due to the ban on DDT .

The DDT ban and malaria, Excess Winter deaths from fuel poverty, lung disease from green opposition to fossil fuel energy in the developing world, the list goes on…

Radical greens are the great killers of our time.

August 29, 2018 7:40 am

No Allan, millions of kids did not die from malaria due to the ban on DDT. You see, you are ignorant of what the “ban” is. The ban is against the agricultural use of DDT, not against mosquito control (Stockholm Convention).


Reply to  David Dirkse
August 29, 2018 10:00 am

David, you need to dig deeper into the history of DDT and the world wide effects of the USA ban on DDT. When the USA banned DDT many countries, most especially third world countries banned DDT imports. Their reasoning being, if the USA thinks its bad then they were not going to allow it in their country.

That said, mosquitoes were the first insect to develop resistance to DDT in the USA along the Florida East Coast where it was used for everything from aerial spray to larvicide. It still has its place when used as a surface spray around doors, walls, etc. Combined with bedding netting it can dramatically reduce malaria transmission and stop epidemics. Yet the reason malaria cases have grown is due to politics and the influence of naive environmentalists.

Reply to  Edwin
August 29, 2018 10:17 am

Edwin, follow your own advice and dig deeper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Convention_on_Persistent_Organic_Pollutants

Part II, Annex B

Reply to  David Dirkse
August 30, 2018 2:02 am


Wikipedia is not a trusted source. You behave like an undergrad student who does not understand that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should not cited. So, please put up the primary or secondary source of your information to support your argument.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  craig
September 1, 2018 5:06 am

FYI, when my wonderful daughter was doing her medical degree, she & her fellow students were warned well away from Wikipedia because of its poor accuracy of information. It’sperfectly ok for guidance but is not tobe relied upon for accuracy at all!!!!

Reply to  David Dirkse
August 29, 2018 10:00 am

As always, those who wish to defend the indefensible quible over definitions.
There was no “ban” on DDT. Instead there was a ban on funding any agricultural programs that did not promise to not use DDT.

The difference only matters to those who wish to escape responsibility for their actions.

Reply to  MarkW
August 29, 2018 10:23 am

Wrong MarkW
William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the EPA cancelled uses of DDT in the summer of 1972, and his action was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in 1973.

Reply to  David Dirkse
August 29, 2018 2:07 pm

As usual for David, he didn’t even try to address the issue I brought up. Instead bringing in yet another non-sequitor.
Yes, the courts did rule that Ruckelshaus had the authority to completely ignore the advice of his scientists and ban DDT.

Reply to  David Dirkse
August 29, 2018 10:59 am

Nonsense David, and too-careful word-smithing by your sources – the “usual suspects” in this entirely avoidable disaster.

I have done considerable research on this subject.

DDT was effectively banned from 1972 to 2002 and re-introduced then. In that time period, deaths from malaria doubled , most of which were children under 5, just babies for Christ’s sake!

30+ years of many more dead babies from malaria due to the criminal banning of DDT – almost a million dead babies per year at the peak circa 2005. Too painful to contemplate.

Are there any greater crimes against humanity?

Here is one chart of the death toll – the red area is kids under five.


After DDT was re-introduced to fight malaria, deaths again declined. The battle against malaria continues…

Reply to  David Dirkse
August 30, 2018 4:20 am

Actually David, you are wrong.
The green killers rewriting history does not change the fact that DDT, for decades, was unavailable thanks to greens.

D. Anderson
August 29, 2018 8:22 am

We have genetic engineering techniques that could theoretically eliminate entire mosquito species from the planet. Only questions about unpredictable side effects and ethical considerations are holding us back.

Reply to  D. Anderson
August 29, 2018 10:06 am

D. we are having just such a debate in Florida relative to Aedes aegypti. Since there are 70+ species of mosquitoes in Florida, about eight more species than when I started in the game 30 years ago the ethical issue of losing a single species is only a concern for some environmentalists. They generally don’t understand that like feral hogs Aedes aegypti is an exotic species to the Americas it didn’t evolve here. As for filling the niche, Aedes albopictus would most probably step right in.

September 2, 2018 1:59 pm

“Radical greens are the great killers of our time.”

Is that not consistent with and contributing to their longer-term plan?

Reply to  HotScot
August 29, 2018 4:01 pm

Why are we tolerating the continuation of this genocidal ideology?

Reply to  Sommer
August 29, 2018 5:08 pm


Because we’re ‘safe’.

We expect others to rock to boat for us.

Shame on us.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  HotScot
August 29, 2018 7:49 pm

Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, the Green Blob.

Yep, it fits.

Robert of Ottawa
August 29, 2018 11:05 am

Like the Pope and contraception, the greens are not opposed to energy, only to energy generation that doesn’t work.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
August 29, 2018 3:42 pm

Like the Pope and contraception, the greens are not opposed to energy, only to energy generation that works.

Fixed that for you.

August 30, 2018 10:09 am

“Climate Change” is just a means to an end. No argument or fact’s will change a communist’s view. I think this article illustrates the real intention of the UN.
I really don’t like the UN in NYC. The US should stop supporting the UN altogether and have them move to some country that is more in line with their thinking, like North Korea.
I see the UN as a divisive and meddling influence in US affairs. The sooner the UN leaves, the better.
Why wasn’t the UN on the list of places to hit on 9/11 ?

David Guy-Johnson
August 29, 2018 1:17 am

What utter drivel. Lies built upon lies.

richard verney
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
August 29, 2018 4:20 am

On the contrary, I was surprised by the honesty

A climate change-fueled switch away from fossil fuels means the worldwide economy will fundamentally need to change.

Capitalism as we know it is over.
shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.

The shift to renewables might help solve the climate challenge, but for the foreseeable future will not generate the same levels of energy as cheap, conventional oil.

It is refreshingly honest that renewables only might help, not will help or do help, with climate change, and refreshingly honest renewables are not as efficient and will not generate the same levels of energy as cheap conventional fossil fuels.

They are revealing their true colours, and this simply emphasises that all of this is a political scam to change the world towards a more Marxist one world government. There is no case for any such shift especially as the less efficient renewables do not even solve the make believe climate problem. We just need some Governments with conjones such as that in the US

Reply to  richard verney
August 29, 2018 9:25 am

Not just a shift away from capitalism, but also a shift from democracy (rule by the people) to an autocratic (non-elected) government. Sounds like the philosophy of the old Soviet Union.

Reply to  donb
August 29, 2018 10:02 am

The alarmists have a long history of praising the Chinese system for it’s ability to do what the leaders want without having to worry about what the people think or want.
(Not just the climate alarmists, leftists in general have often wished for that power)

Reply to  donb
August 31, 2018 1:34 am

democracy (rule by the people) Do the American people get to vote whether to go to war or not ? or do you get to vote on how much to spend on defence ?
Here’s a small piece of American democracy at work.
And by the way it works way better then the Australian democracy. Were had 7 leaders in 11 years and I don’t think it will be long and we will be voting in another capitalist puppet .

Russ Wood
Reply to  donb
September 2, 2018 4:41 am

-and of the (unstated but there) philosophy of the EU.

Reply to  richard verney
August 29, 2018 10:23 am

“but for the foreseeable future will not generate the same levels of energy as cheap, conventional oil.”

That is not honesty, nor are the rest of their statements. Every one of their claims is phrased to appear innocuous to common audiences.

The sentence excerpt I quote is an admission that renewables can not, will not replace Fossil fuel, nuclear or Hydro generating facilities.

“for the foreseeable future” includes every technical fantasy improvement for renewable energy sources.

Nor does their alleged honesty evaluate all socialist and communist governments worldwide for:
1) Independent Eco-leadership; i.e. the government self started correcting their civilization and industrial environment negative influences. Instead of reacting to international pressures for publicized spot identified pollutions.

2) Communist and socialist governments act to improve their environment across the board while improving their citizen’s qualities of life.

3) Communist and socialist governments focus on citizen qualities of life and needs, before sacrificing any one of them for the “good of the state”.

4) Obtain 90+% accurate information from communist or socialist governments regarding the exact status of each and every genuine pollution source or environment hazard.

Instead their specious claims are all based on false Malthusian beliefs coupled with make believe dreamlands where communist and socialist governments are better than capitalism, because the authors are communist or socialist propagandists themselves.

Richard Patton
Reply to  richard verney
August 29, 2018 2:35 pm

Say what you want about Donald Trump, what he has done that is good is cause the Greens and those on the Left to reveal their true colors and intentions.

Reply to  richard verney
August 30, 2018 7:25 am

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken

That’s almost the definition of Climate Science.

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
August 29, 2018 5:04 am

There’s some (unintended) truth in there – “Market-based action will not suffice” is code for “This stuff will never be profitable”

Reply to  decnine
August 29, 2018 7:43 pm

UN Environment/UNEP

“Lenders And Investors Environmental Liability”

Re: Yieldcos and Green Bonds

Role of the USA leadership in financing renewable energy.


Reply to  Barbara
August 30, 2018 3:37 pm


Search results: Green Bonds

Includes a bit of history such as first Green Bonds began 2008 by World Bank.


Reply to  Barbara
August 30, 2018 3:39 pm
Reply to  decnine
August 30, 2018 5:03 am

The better translation of the UN word salad might be, “will never work”.

August 29, 2018 1:19 am

The paper’s lead author, Dr. Paavo Järvensivu, is a “biophysical economist”

Over time one becomes increasingly suspicious and disbelieving about measures tagged with “sustainability” and/or “environmental”.
We used to deride the green standard of science attached to those words, then we began to disbelieve less.
Such is a pattern of the madness of crowds.
Fellow thinkers, tell others to disbelieve this green propaganda, for a very good reason. The science associated with it, the standard of research, is too poor to accept.
Do not add credibility through support of such poor science. Geoff.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
August 29, 2018 1:41 am

What in the name of (..insert favourite supernatural entity here…) is a “biophysical economist” ???

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 3:03 am

A made-up title, confers the delusion of expertise.

Reply to  meltemian
August 30, 2018 7:09 am

I had a boss that used to tell us that we suffered from delusions of adequacy.

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 3:04 am

A “biophysical economist” is an economist who spends much time playing with himself.

August 29, 2018 4:18 am

Then he maybe should stick to that instead of writing gibberish. Much more productive outcome (oh, wait!) 😉

August 29, 2018 10:26 am

I suspect that it means it is a carbon based lifeform dependent on selling bad mathematics to gullible people.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 5:10 am

Sam Hill springs to mind.

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 7:37 am

Common sense is really having diverse bits of connecting information between seemingly unrelated things. Common sense is nurtured through generalization and diversity. Specialization therefore decreases common sense as narrowing the scope for detail can put cause and effect outside the scope of the specialization.
We have nurtured specialization and lost the art of generalization and thus lost the art of common sense. Such is surely the case with this egregious title.

Gerard O'Dowd
Reply to  Pierre
August 29, 2018 5:08 pm

Pierre: Doesn’t your comment point to the lust for political power both its acquisition and continuity overwhelms all other sensibilities common or uncommon? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the danger of the politicization of science is not only the corruption of the scientific method but the morality and ethics of scientists themselves in the pursuit of a political agenda and the maintenance of power and its rewards.

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 10:31 am

Never heard of that title but soon there will be many more forced into organizations to go with Diversity VP and Sustainability VP.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 10:34 am

It’s a bean counter who beats you up if you don’t like his final tally.

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 1:47 pm

It is a sciencey sounding synonym for ‘Charlatan’.

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 2:13 pm

Thermoeconomics, also referred to as biophysical economics, is a school of heterodox economics that applies the laws of statistical mechanics to economic theory.[1] Thermoeconomics can be thought of as the statistical physics of economic value[2] and is a subfield of econophysics.

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 2:13 pm

oooohhhhhhh. A bull$h1t artist!

Chuck L
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
August 29, 2018 4:11 am

I’ll bet he believes strongly in “climate justice,” whatever the #&$@% that is.

Timo V
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
August 29, 2018 7:04 am

Oh schist! He is finnish! I’m so ashamed! I pay my taxes, and get this back!

Reply to  Timo V
August 29, 2018 12:47 pm

Timo V

No problem mate, he’s finnished.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
August 30, 2018 2:33 am

Dr. P. Järvensivu is a self-declared degrowther.

August 29, 2018 1:21 am

I don’t see any “demands”. Did you make that up Eric?

Steve Reddish
Reply to  RyanS
August 29, 2018 1:40 am

“Market-based action will not suffice – even with a high carbon price. There must be a comprehensive vision and closely coordinated plans.”

If you didn’t see this, you didn’t look, Ryans


Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 29, 2018 2:18 am

I read it Steve, but there is no “demand” which is confected, emotive poppycock.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  RyanS
August 29, 2018 2:45 am

“There must be a comprehensive vision and closely coordinated plans”. Seems pretty demanding to me! 1925 Pocket Oxford English Dictionary defines “must” as; expressing command, obligation, duty”!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 29, 2018 5:05 am

Shhhh! Don’t confuse him with facts!

Reply to  NorwegianSceptic
August 29, 2018 10:05 am

He’s already quite confused.

Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 29, 2018 10:04 am

Like the rest of his ilk, Ryan is hiding behind the fact that nowhere in the piece does the author explicitly use the word “demand”. As always, he is seeking to distract, not to inform.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 29, 2018 3:29 pm

“Comprehensive vision” is what tripped the marxbrothers up! It wasnt something they knew anything about about. Their 19th Century vision remains firmly unchanged.

John Endicott
Reply to  RyanS
August 29, 2018 5:47 am

You read it, but clearly you did not comprehend it. What part of “must be” do you think isn’t a demand? Saying you “must do” something is a demand for that something to be done.

Rich Davis
Reply to  RyanS
August 29, 2018 9:38 am

I really can’t believe that RyanS is an actual person. Only a program would continue to spit out garbage like that in utter defiance of logic.

Reply to  RyanS
August 30, 2018 5:25 pm

Pro Tip: Subtext is a thing.

Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 29, 2018 6:12 am

‘Market-based action will probably not be enough – I really do think there should be a comprehensive vision and closely coordinated’

Nope, just doesn’t have the same zing.


Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 29, 2018 10:30 am

“If you didn’t see this, you didn’t look, Ryans”

Pigeonholed ryans/giff in one go, Steve.
It doesn’t read or doesn’t understand or refuses to understand anything counter to it’s personal religion/delusions.

Reply to  RyanS
August 29, 2018 10:08 am

I couldn’t find any reference where this is demanded either. But an end to capitalism IS what most of what the NGOs, activists, and ‘scientists’ say is needed, am I right?

My question is, what economic system do they have in mind to replace capitalism? My bet is on a centrally planned global socialist system where they will make sure each ‘global citizen’ gets to use the exact same amount of natural resources (and whose views, communications, books read, etc. are monitored 24/7/365).

It is interesting to note that the current president of China, Xi, “wants his citizens to identify with “the motherland, the Chinese nation or race, Chinese culture, and the Chinese socialist road

I can also post google news archive links where the current leaders of communist Russia were quoted saying they support socialism.

So RyanS, if these commies support or supported socialism, why have they not ended communism and switched to socialism? In my opinion, they don’t want to switch to socialism, they want the control and security that communism gives them. Now if the whole world goes socialism, I think there’s a good chance that it’ll eventually end up communist. I believe they are pushing in that direction because socialism gets them a foot in the door towards communisum.

Fixing bad weather, caused mainly by old conservative, Christian, capitalistic white men is IMO, their tool to get them there.

Reply to  kramer
August 29, 2018 5:34 pm

I don’t bother to split hairs between socialism and communism. One leads to the other and it’s just a matter of degree.

Reply to  KT66
August 29, 2018 7:32 pm

Communism has never been practiced as Marx envisaged (although he wasn’t clear about how communism would work, it didn’t involve the State). Socialism is the precursor to communism, where the State controls the means of production and distributes wealth. Funnily enough, once the State seizes control, it never cedes control to the people! Socialism IS effectively communism. When people talk about ‘socialist’ economies like France and the Scandinavian countries, they are really talking about mixed economies. When young people say they prefer socialism to capitalism, they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Reply to  Sylvia
August 30, 2018 5:41 pm

I expect few would say they’d prefer to earn stuff versus getting it for “free”.

Reply to  RyanS
August 30, 2018 4:54 am

Clearly, you suffer under a reading comprehension deficit.

Steve Borodin
August 29, 2018 1:27 am

What a surprise. Capitalism is inconvenient for totalitarians. Now where have I heard that word before?

Donald Kasper
Reply to  Steve Borodin
August 29, 2018 2:13 am

The bane of environmentalism is that things cost money and solutions have to be profitable. So their solution is Marxism and money printing.

Reply to  Steve Borodin
August 29, 2018 5:59 am

Don’t weep for me, Venezuela….

Robert Lyman
Reply to  Steve Borodin
August 29, 2018 8:39 am

If I read the excerpts correctly, the report is not so much advocating communism or rejecting capitalism as it is criticizing the operation of free markets. Free markets basically allow buyers and sellers to decide through their unfettered (well, largely unfettered) trading to determine what prices are and to allocate scarce goods and services on that basis. It does not include provision for an environmental “premium” or extra charge placed on prices to reflect the alleged environmental externalities not captured by free markets. Thus begins the debate. Who gets to decide the value of the environmental externality? What is the marginal value in 2018 of an alleged environmental cost of a tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in 2018 on the 2100 environment? If the premium is to be captured by governments in the form of a tax, what will governments do with the revenues? (Experience shows politicians are delighted with revenue windfalls that they can spend on their favourite programs.) Where prices alone will not do the trick, what emphasis is to be placed on subsidies, programs and regulations? Above all, how will governments “manage” the transition to the energy system they, in their wisdom, have decided is the right one. The fact that governments have a terrible track record in picking technology or product “winners” is usually forgotten. Ultimately, if the crisis can be portrayed as serious enough (i.e. the end of the world), it becomes a justification for removing the rights of people to make their free choices about what they produce and consume. Because, in democratically governed countries, people have the nasty habit of pushing back when told what to do, authoritarian governments must be imposed instead – for the good of the planet, of course. It is all so logical.

Reply to  Robert Lyman
August 29, 2018 4:44 pm

Nice comments you made.
There are several high quality books about capitalism and socialism that have stood the tests of time and operation for decades. Ayn Rand is pertinent and enjoyably readable with “Atlas Shrugged” 1957 as I am sure you know. There are many others.
Now and then someone claims invention of a better mousetrap and the debates have another round. I hope we do not have to suffer regurgitation with this issue, which seems to be that the problems have dimensions that only global intervention can handle. I do not agree.
The immediate problem is the frequent strangling of market forces aka free enterprise. Time after time, critics allege free market failure, but fail to note that the market was not free at all, but was excessively regulated by bureaucrats and politicians.
History tells that the world sorts problems better by capitalism than by any other ism. The success is higher when he regulation is least. OTOH, our greatest killing episodes this last 200 years have been by manic individuals of socialist bent.
Why does the UN even bother to mention socialism/communism? Blind Freddy knows they are lethally evil. Geoff

Steve Reddish
August 29, 2018 1:34 am

For the “first time in human history,” the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.”

They seem to think the energy companies are shifting to less energy efficient sources voluntarily. The issue isn’t that capitalism is at fault, it is that government control has steered the energy industries onto a dead end track.


Donald Kasper
Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 29, 2018 2:16 am

Relax. The point of any UN agreement like the climate accord is to get the US to pay. If we don’t, then environmental extremism meets blathering idiot politicians who have no intention of paying a dime. They will learn to follow Xi and yack about going green in 30 years after they get out of third world status or help all their poor or help all the poor in other countries, but man, they are on it then. BS and delay the Chinese have evolved into a fine art. EU states are learning how to follow.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Donald Kasper
August 29, 2018 2:48 am

Is that for the USA to pay before or after it has been systematically dismantled by them because of its evil wicked capitalist nature?

Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 29, 2018 10:07 am

Paying is how they plan to dismantle the US.

Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 29, 2018 4:05 am

Germany is bent on that suicidal path right now. Unfortunately close ally Macron’s Energy Transition minister Hulot suddenly resigned yesterday. Hulot became pro-nuclear, and went after pesticides. Looks like Germany will stand very isolated with “fidgit power”, instead of 24/7 nuclear. Talking back auto emission limits began yesterday too. Could be unstoppable.

Reply to  bonbon
August 29, 2018 6:02 am

Wait – are you saying, bonbon, that Macron does not have a tight grip on his own government, after all?

Is this an early clue to the new direction, along with those riots in Chemnitz in Germany and Merkel’s hand wringing?

Don’t toy with me!

August 29, 2018 1:36 am

Brainless people living in an echo chamber.

Reply to  pochas94
August 29, 2018 10:08 am

Funny thing is these same guys will loudly proclaim that any group that fails to agree with them is nothing but an echo chamber.

Reply to  MarkW
August 29, 2018 3:28 pm

Mark, that’s because politicians prefer to heap aspersions. Rather like: my dad can beat up your dad! Followed by: nuh-uh, my dad can beat up YOUR dad, na na na!

Joel O’Bryan
August 29, 2018 1:42 am

They seemed to have overlooked critical aspects of climate justice and feminist intersectionalism in their scientific opinion on the global economic adjustments necessary to solve climate change.

August 29, 2018 1:43 am

The real agenda revealed?

August 29, 2018 1:44 am

“as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments”

The UN knows quite a lot of impotent organisation, agencies, useless interventions.

“capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient”

And the greens know quite a lot of inefficient energy sources.

Steve Reddish
August 29, 2018 1:56 am

The Apollo Moon Project was a spare-no-cost, cost-doesn’t-matter, tax everybody to put a very few on the moon program. It would never have been able to put everybody on the moon.

Applying the same methodology to energy production would likewise give adequate power to only a few. I guess the “scientists” who wrote that paper, and those at the UN who requested it expect to be among the few…


Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 29, 2018 2:08 am

It is my fantasy that we will eventually be able to build habitats in space that will allow us to become “space aliens” ourselves. We must be very careful not to start “Star Wars.”

Reply to  Steve Reddish
August 29, 2018 3:51 am

Apollo was a NASA project, N being National, that is foreign policy. No private firm alone could handle the risk. Instead 1100 firms and 440,000 staff did it. The economy totally changed – the very silicon these bytes traverse is a spin-off. A dollar in 1973 had nothing to do with a dollar of 1960 – monetarists look at the greenback and suppose, like Hayek, Apollo sprung spontaneously in an unknowable way from the currency. The intention was to totally change the economy with a very difficult mission, JFK’s legacy.
So Apollo changed everything on Earth. So back to the Moon with a settlement with the intention of again changing the economy here. He3 at the Lunar poles for Fusion being one mission.

Reply to  bonbon
August 30, 2018 7:12 am

Only government can handle big projects?
Is that really the line you want to go with?

Reply to  Steve Reddish
September 3, 2018 5:58 am

Apollo wasn’t essentially a rock transport operation?

Chris Lynch
August 29, 2018 2:05 am

No surprise to see the Marxist conspiracy emerging from the global warming Trojan horse

Reply to  Chris Lynch
August 29, 2018 10:34 am

Good one!

Donald Kasper
August 29, 2018 2:12 am

A call to Marxism. So basically no one is listening to them so their solution is force.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Donald Kasper
August 29, 2018 7:28 am

“So basically no one is listening to them so their solution is force.”

Always. Force and lies are the only way they can stay in the game and maintain power.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 29, 2018 10:09 am

When given the choice, people do what they want, not what the left wing elite want us to do.
Which is why the people must not be given a choice.

Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2018 5:58 pm

Or conned into giving up real choices for fake ones.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2018 6:01 am

Well of course, after all the left wing elite know better then the stupid little peons how best to run their lives. Or their deaths, considering the left wing elites think there are too many people this planet and thus there is a need to reduce the population (but not the population of the left wing elites, just that of the “little people”)

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
August 29, 2018 2:14 am

Perhaps we should ask the entire UN bureaucracy to set the example by relocating from fashionable Manhattan to somewhere more appropriate for the reduced lifestyle they envisage to conform to reduced energy consumption that will be necessary for all of us. I suggest they should move to sub-Saharan Africa or Venezuela to show us that they are serious about giving up on capitalism.
Or are they just global elitist hypocrites…oh what a hard guess to make!

Greg Woods
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
August 29, 2018 5:47 am

I have long advocated Burkina Faso as an ideal location for the UN…

Andrew Harding
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
August 29, 2018 6:10 am

Venezuela is a good idea. They can then experience what life would be like in a Socialist “paradise”.

Reply to  Andrew Harding
August 29, 2018 10:35 am

…and major power blackouts.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
August 29, 2018 6:10 am

It seems to me that it’s obvious that we ‘can’t just all get along’, as some slacker in a suit whined a few years ago. Keep NATO and ditch the UN. Turn the real estate into high-tax properties and send those other people home.
It was an interesting idea, but obviously, Wilson’s “League of Nations” which became the UN was a daydream. We simply can’t get along.

Reply to  Sara
August 29, 2018 1:18 pm


We are a tribal race. Muddying the waters with ‘integration’ is a fools errand. Enemies have infiltrated every culture and act from within.

We can no longer identify those who would act against us.

Reply to  HotScot
August 30, 2018 6:13 pm

Respecting boundaries is a prime requisite for the growth of trust. A firm sense of one’s identity and values is a prime requisite for genuine tolerance. By tearing down long-established boundaries and muddying the process of identity formation with their every new counter-cultural fad, so-called progressives, unwittingly or willfully, work to undermine trust between cultures and foment intolerance and hate.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
August 29, 2018 10:07 am

The UN, having announced itself as an enemy of capitalism, has essentially declared war on the U.S. So like any other invader, it should be expelled from our shores pronto. One-way tickets to the socialist paradise of Venezuela for all UN Climate Nazis now!

Reply to  AGW is not Science
August 29, 2018 4:31 pm

¡Viva socialismo! ¡Viva Venezuela! ¡Viva la revolución! ¡Viva otra dinero de gente!

August 29, 2018 2:23 am

Once again, the true agenda of the left exposes itself – “Climate Change” is the false front for far-left economic policies, which were so utterly discredited in the 20th Century, BECAUSE FAR-LEFT ECONOMIC POLICIES DID NOT WORK – THEY FAILED UTTERLY AND CAUSED ENORMOUS HUMAN DEGRADATION AND SUFFERING.

Stalin killed about 50 million of his own people. Mao killed about 80 million Chinese. Hitler was a Socialist and a Green, and his WW2 killed another 50 million souls. Then there were the lesser players like Pol Pot, etc who killed a few million Cambodians, but a much larger fraction of the country’s population. There were many more… This is the terrible history of the 20th Century.

I have travelled to Honecker’s East German AND to Fidel Castro’s Cuba. Both were failed states by any reasonable standards – there was extreme abuse of human rights, gross economic incompetence, and puppetry instead of Rule of Law.

This is the undeniable history of Marxist dictatorships – economic incompetence and huge systemic murder of civilians.

Can we not learn from history? Do we really have to do all this again?

Leftist leaders typically are psychopaths/sociopaths and leftist followers are delusional imbeciles.

Clearly, it takes people of far-less-than-average intelligence to want to relive the horrors of the 20th Century – and yet there they are, the so-called “Progressives”, concentrated in our public schools and universities, saying “This time, it’s going to be different! This time, it’s going to work! Just trust us!”

As George Carlin said, “Damn, there are a lot of really stupid people out there!”

August 29, 2018 3:35 am

That’s history for Dummies.
Truth is the WWF founded by Prince Philip (the virus), Prince Bernard (SS), Huxley (eugenist) et. al is not a Marxist plot (Marx was a Lord Palmerston Zoo project), rather an Imperial hoax.
Churchill only ran terrified to FDR when Hitler’s generals turned west instead of first going after the Soviet.
Even a cursory reading of Mackinders Geopolitics (word for word excerpted in Hitler’s book) shows why Trump has really disturbed the wasp’s nest in London – he effectively rejects Geopolitics, Britain’s keystone strategy since Edward VII. Witness the swamp’s McCain’s legacy, Trump’s non-remorse.
So no more fake history. Britain’s dying empire is going after Russia again, and prepared to poison the way. There were no thermonuclear arsenal’s when Mackinder wrote, but why let 100million degrees get in the way of a narrative?

Reply to  bonbon
August 29, 2018 5:46 am

It would seem your WW II timeline is a bit in error: https://www.historyonthenet.com/world-war-2-timeline-2/
Hitler attacked Soviet Union in June 1941 after signing a non-aggression pact in August 1939.
Germany bombed England from July to October 1940. Dunkirk (Germany occupies France) was in May 1940, along with Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Holland.
Looks like a lot of Germany going west before going east.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  rakman
August 29, 2018 10:19 am

Isn’t that what bonbon said? “Hitler’s generals turned west instead of first going after the Soviet[s]”?

Andrew Harding
August 29, 2018 6:38 am

Albert Einstein famously said: “The definition of insanity is to continue to repeat the same series of actions and expect a different outcome.”
One of the main reasons that mammals and especially humans are so successful is that our brains are hard-wired to provide for and protect our family. Our ancestors who did not have this trait, died out leaving those who did as the dominant sub-species.
In a modern society this becomes complicated because people are wealthier now than they have ever been thanks to Capitalism and most of us don’t mind paying some taxes to help those less fortunate than themselves. Socialists view taxation of their perception of the wealthy, as some sort of social engineering exercise. Make everyone the same,! The problem with this is those who feel that their hard work is not benefiting their family and themselves, will not work hard, why should they? The economy slumps, everyone is worse off especially the poor, elderly and infirm. Socialism has never worked in the past, does not work in the present (Venezuela and North Korea are prime examples) and therefor cannot work in the future.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Andrew Harding
August 29, 2018 5:56 pm

“Albert Einstein famously said: “The definition of insanity is to continue to repeat the same series of actions and expect a different outcome.””

I disagree with Herr Einstein. To me, that’s the definition of stupidity, the inability to learn from your mistakes.

Insanity is something completely different.

Reply to  Andrew Harding
August 30, 2018 7:53 am

“”In a modern society this becomes complicated because people are wealthier now than they have ever been thanks to Capitalism and most of us don’t mind paying some taxes to help those less fortunate than themselves.””

Concentration of wealth into the hands of a few, we have been warned about. This sometimes can be controlled by regulation against “monopolies.”
In our current society we should be very wary of monopolies in social media, Facebook and Twitter come to mind here.

Reply to  Carla
August 30, 2018 12:25 pm

Andrew Carnegie acquired a wealth equal to 2.1% of the GDP at the time. That percentage of the GDP would equate to $390 billion, today. Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the US, is worth an estimated $112 billion. If that becomes a problem, we will address it as we did in the past.

August 30, 2018 7:44 am

“”Once again, the true agenda of the left exposes itself””

Thank you for the post. I agree, but don’t dare call it a ‘grand conspiracy,’ started long ago.
Those who know, watch the U.N.

August 29, 2018 2:31 am

Will this panel point to the reduction in CO2 emissions from Venezuela as a shining example?

August 29, 2018 2:33 am

Ok, I’ll play their game for a moment.
IF they get their way, and Capitalism is diminished in its ability to make profit, where the hell will their grant monies come from?
Where will the subsidies come from to build all the ‘green’ machines.
Where will the industries get their innovation and drive, to build new and better products and machines?
Where will the discoveries come from to help cure diseases and help fight poverty?

Ok – moment has passed now – now back to reality.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  D B H
August 29, 2018 8:34 am

You misunderstand. There will party bosses and slaves. You will be told what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and how to do it. Refuse and you will be declared a reactionary and assigned to cleaning sewers and grease traps. Refuse that, and say goodbye to this plane of existence.

Alan the Brit
August 29, 2018 2:39 am

Which page of “Marxism is Infallible” fell open for them to come up with that one, I wonder? The UN, aren’t they the ones who banned DDT for no rational logical scientific reason causing some 65 million deaths from Malaria around the world? Weren’t they the ones who said AIDS wasn’t a deadly communicable disease therefore carriers were not required to be isolated & quarantined to prevent the spread of the disease, resulting in around 45 million deaths & rising? Weren’t they the ones who stood idley by whilst 3 million people were butchered in Rawanda afew years back? Yes we must definitley pay attention to all their wise pronouncements!!!! That makes about 113 million people died by their say so, more than Hitler & Stalin put together, one could probably throw in Pol Pot too!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 29, 2018 3:41 am

Lord Bertrand Russell’s narrative of population reduction. He called for world gov’t by UN and preemptive nuking of the Soviet, that peacenik. The Lord bemoaned the lack of wars and pestilence to this end. Have a look at the a couple of his books. It’s all in-your-face and happening.

August 29, 2018 3:21 am

Malthusian pessimists say the earth can’t support more than a billion people. Put the UN bureaucrats in charge and they might be right.

Reply to  Sean
August 29, 2018 3:57 am

Notably Dr. John Schellnhuber CBE, awarded the title in 2004 at the British Embassy Berlin by the Queen personally, for such “2 billion” statements. The Commander wrote the Pope’s Laudato Si, a paean to Gaia. As Merkel’s Science Advisor, set the Great Energy Transformation in motion. Could he possibly be at the UN now?

August 29, 2018 3:37 am

How are these plutocrats going to enjoy their current level of carbon consumption without capitalism?

Silly me, I forgot, it’s only the rest of us that have to do without….

Wot a dizzy I am….

“Let them eat cockroaches”…. h/t Marie Antionette…

michael hart
August 29, 2018 4:04 am

“Read more […]”

Thanks for the invitation, but I think I’ll pass. We’ve heard it all before.

But it is at least another indication that they know they aren’t going to get what they want, so they’d like a bigger stick to try and persuade us with. The greens never were much into using carrots. Must be the Trumpy orange color they don’t like.

4 Eyes
August 29, 2018 4:04 am

Greens hate capitalism because it is too sophisticated for them to understand

Reply to  4 Eyes
August 29, 2018 6:15 am

You left out the part about having to work to earn money to pay for things that they think should be free, like – EVERYTHING!!!

Reply to  4 Eyes
August 29, 2018 6:27 am

I disagree. Greens hate capitalism because it prevents them from getting their hands on the levers of power.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  4 Eyes
August 29, 2018 7:41 am

Just a slight amendment, sophisticated means corrupt & adulterated! I think the Greens will understand the word “simple” better, fewer letters & syllables for the poor dears!

Reply to  4 Eyes
August 29, 2018 10:13 am

Nobody understands capitalism. And that is it’s greatest power.

Reply to  MarkW
August 29, 2018 2:11 pm

Capitalism is the result of billions of people interacting with other dozens or more times a day. Making decisions using the knowledge that in many cases is known to just them or at most a small group of individuals.

Even if we tied all of the world’s computers together into a single humongous network, we wouldn’t have the computing power to have even a glimmer of an understanding of what capitalism processes with ease.

Steve O
August 29, 2018 4:05 am

What’s that? A global governing entity wants to dramatically increase the power of government? For the benefit of the people? You don’t say.

Well, Venezuela’s contribution to global warming has certainly dropped dramatically, so there’s that. And North Korea has always kept their emissions low, even without windmills.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steve O
August 29, 2018 7:40 am

“Well, Venezuela’s contribution to global warming has certainly dropped dramatically, so there’s that.”

I think that’s kind of what they have in mind. They want to turn every country into Venezuela by forcing them to give up fossil fuels.

The UN totalitarians proposing this are not living in the real world.

August 29, 2018 4:11 am

It’s funny how ‘deniers’ are mocked as conspiracy theorists when they say this is about global governance and destroying capitalism…and there we have it, straight from the horses’….

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Sylvia
August 29, 2018 7:42 am

“arse”, is what I think you meant to end with? 😉

Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 29, 2018 7:45 pm

I was too polite to say it 🙂

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Sylvia
August 30, 2018 6:32 am

Clearly, a lady of innate breeding, unlike those to who you refer!!!! 😉

Reply to  Sylvia
August 30, 2018 7:14 am

That’s why you have us.

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  Sylvia
August 29, 2018 8:07 am

” … straight from the horses’ … ”

… enormous backside?

Reply to  Sylvia
August 29, 2018 8:22 am

+1 “Conspiracy theory” is the Left’s “fake news”. Since the beginning of the AGW scam the UN has let out bits and drabs that the real intent is to destroy Capitalism and no one listened. With the UN’s record regarding the US I don’t know why we continue being a part of it. It’s nothing but another League of Nations that’s been given time and money to undermine Democracy and Capitalism.

August 29, 2018 4:35 am

David Legates provides the evidence against the authoritarian approach favored by th UN.

August 29, 2018 4:43 am

As it happens we have empirical evidence to test this assertion that socialism is superior to capitalism for saving the natural environment. David Legates points out recent historical examples where two modern societies were split, one part to develop for 50 years under a socialist autocracy and the other part under a free market democracy. What can we learn from these two experiments: North/South Korea and East/West Germany?


August 29, 2018 4:59 am

Is anyone surprised by this? It has been obvious all along that this is the left’s agenda, why else would they embrace climate change and renewable energy with such enthusiasm?

High Treason
August 29, 2018 5:03 am

They think we are a pack of dung beetles-able to swallow limitless quantities of bullshit. A call to end what makes a free society and our very civilisation itself tick based on a theory that is taboo to question should be making EVERYONE sit up and question .
The refusal to debate the issue-just destroy society should be getting those alarm bells ringing loud and clear.

Reply to  High Treason
August 29, 2018 6:18 am

Well, it DOES have my alarm bells ringing, but I also have enough sense to know that if this were NOT available for public scrutiny, then it would sneak in on little cat feet and pounce on us. And I don’t want that. Neither do you.

Doug W.
August 29, 2018 5:03 am

Well this is actually very refreshing! Glad to see the warmists admitting their true agenda.

Bruce Cobb
August 29, 2018 5:17 am

“Capitalism as we know it is over.” Riiiight. Just like “the debate is over”. They do live in their own fantasy land, wherein declaring that something is over, finished, makes it so. Pathetic.

Crispin in Waterloo
August 29, 2018 5:31 am

“Capitalism as we know it is over.”

Capitalism as they have lampooned it was over a century ago.

The moon landings did not require a ‘systems change’. They are speaking of a Manhattan Project but demanding that the science be subborned to the twin political goals of total societal control and the end of democratic representation. How convenient for the winners.

This is nothing more than rampant materialism in another form. Soon it will be illegal to point out their King of All Ideas has no clothes, not even underwear. Dialectical materialism is nothing more than the promise of material fruits at the cost of intellectual and spiritual liberty. Capitalism, which thrives on over-consumption and distractions, is rigged against the worker materially, and against the capitalists ethically. The consequence of both approaches is ultimately monstrous.

We need to step outside the box.

August 29, 2018 5:35 am

Scientists say capitalism is over? Hmm…maybe I am anti-science.

August 29, 2018 5:35 am

Biophysical economist? He could have shortened his title with just saying he’s a communist.

Frank K.
August 29, 2018 5:40 am

“Capitalism as we know it is over.”

If this is the case, then I suggest we relocate the United Nations to Venezuela…

Reply to  Frank K.
August 29, 2018 6:23 am

Agreed, as long as the USA does not give them any more money.

Oh! What would happen if Trump said ‘time to kick the UN out of the USA and the USA withdraw from its membership’? The weeping, the wailing, the howling in the outer darkness!!!!

Just to be safe, I may order a couple of oil lamps from Lehman’s Hardware. Nothing wrong with readiness, right?

Wayne Townsend
August 29, 2018 5:47 am

… and then the mask of environmentalism briefly slipped off and the hideous grin, dripped in blood, of Marxist collectivism was exposed.

August 29, 2018 5:55 am

Capitalism as we know it is over. – Nafeez Ahmed

The problem with socialism is that you run out of other people’s money. Margaret Thatcher.

Gee whiz, capitalism is the only thing that works and lifts people out of the Bog of Despair. Capitalism generates cash, independent entrepreneurism generates innovation and advances in just about everything including generating cash.

And Nafeez wants to do away with all of that? Where does he think money comes from? A closet?

Well, at least we know what goes on in his corner of the room. Cash doesn’t generate itself. If a country’s economy is so badly mismanaged that it turns into Venezuela, now politely termed the ‘depths of Hell’, you can thank a socialist for that.

Thanks for the article. It gives us a real insight to the annoyingly ignorant minds of socialists.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Sara
August 30, 2018 6:35 am

I think he has one of those oh so precious money trees, you know, the ones you just give a little shake to & down falls oodles of dosh!!!

August 29, 2018 5:57 am

It’s all just empty talk anyway, like most green ideas. I mean how many divisions the UN has? And even if they somehow manage to convice nations to adopt their ideas, soon people will realise the cure will be worse than the disease.

Reply to  Fredar
August 29, 2018 8:18 am


It’s all just empty talk anyway, like most green ideas. I mean how many divisions the UN has?

The UN’s divisions?
Tens of millions of kindergarten teachers, elementary education-indoctrinated and idealized teacher, every indoctrainted high school teacher, millions of college administrators, professors and staff members, tens of thousands of ill-educated but propagandized members of the mass mainstream news readers ….

These “divisions” really do control the message (“Why can’t we all just “GET IN LINE NOW CHILDREN!” and “get along?”

Without gun access (to really resist the government) and with thought control and with speech control, the UN (any domesticated government) really does have all of the divisions it needs.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  RACookPE1978
August 30, 2018 6:37 am

Disarming the people is the first step in the Totalitarian process, when the people cannot fight back, they’ve won!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 30, 2018 12:58 pm

I think that just delays things. SOMEONE has guns, if only governments, and others will take them away if necessary. 3-D printing, homemade weapons, IEDs, and bombs will also contribute to the general defense. If even that fails, economic collapse is inevitable under a totalitarian government.

August 29, 2018 5:59 am

Wonder what new economic system these people think we should switch to in order to make the weather better?

Bet zillions of dollars to doughnuts that its socialism…

Reply to  kramer
August 29, 2018 6:08 am

How can you say such a thing? 🙂

August 29, 2018 6:17 am

“A climate change-fueled switch away from fossil fuels means the worldwide economy will fundamentally need to change.”

is what was said.

“Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism’s Imminent Demise” and
“UN Appointed Climate Science Team Demands The End of Capitalism”

is NOT what was said, i.e., just made up.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
August 29, 2018 10:16 am

While the words are different, the meaning is the same.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  MarkW
August 29, 2018 3:39 pm

When a liberal tries to discuss anything, negative labels towards conservatives immediately come out of their mouths. When called on it, they apologize (saying they meant no offense), then proceed to repeat what they just said, with a slightly different choice of words. Liberals seem to think 3 things:

1) Everyone else must be thinking the same bad thoughts they know themselves to be thinking.

2) A negative label will shame a person into toeing the line. (No need for rational thought.)

3) Successful persuasion is just a matter of finding the right words. (Actual meaning is irrelevant.)


August 29, 2018 6:19 am

The new scare board game at the UN is to make a report out of a scrabble of key words dumped on the table using no science or rational thought process. It’s called “Doom Scrabble” and each (country) pays to stay or leave the game.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 29, 2018 6:29 am

Perhaps a BFG would upset the Doom scenario…

Cliff Hilton
August 29, 2018 6:37 am

I call upon the United States to cut off the electrical supply to the UN building and hand out dung to all those wanting heat. UN!, live without capitalism. YOU adopt Socialism. We’ll watch the progression to destruction.

Lead by example.

August 29, 2018 6:38 am

Just because the UN isn’t very smart, doesn’t mean that they’re not extremely dangerous.

August 29, 2018 6:48 am

Get your scare screams in now before the satellites record further drops in global temps from ocean cycle decline.

william Johnston
August 29, 2018 6:49 am

I wonder how much of the inequality, unemployment, etc is caused by the “welfare mentality”. Having to provide your own food, clothing and shelter seems to keep folks focused on the important things.

Al Montgomery
August 29, 2018 6:56 am

Weird, a group appointed by the UN who desperately want to set up unaccountable world governance backs up this position. Credibility =0.

August 29, 2018 7:12 am

A desire for Arcadian Socialism is basic to the green ideology, along with hating people and their works. I think they desire “renewable energy” precisely because it will not work to sustain industrial society.
“It’s not a bug, it’s as feature”.

August 29, 2018 8:00 am

I saw one time where the Flat Earth Society used the UN flag to prove the Earth was flat.

I think I trust the Flat Earth Society more than I trust the UN.

August 29, 2018 8:17 am

So FINALLY they show their real colours and say what C Monkton has been pointing out for years. Climate is only the anvil to bend the rod. World socialist government is what this is really all about. But guys, without capitalism where does the money come from to pay all your lackies? Oh the Chavez system …..oh that will work!

August 29, 2018 8:21 am

The end of Capitalism means the end of Freedom. This is because whereas you can have Capitalism without Freedom, you cannot have Freedom without Capitalism. To ban Capitalism means to ban one of the most important human Freedoms, namely, the Freedom to run your own business, to strive to establish and grow your own business, the Freedom to join a business of your choosing either directly or by buying into it–it is the economic Freedom. No human Freedom is more important and more significant than this one.

Joel Snider
August 29, 2018 8:31 am

Of course they do. The usual suspects.

Kinda makes you think ‘the end of capitalism’ is really their end goal and ‘climate change’ is just the platform.

Curious George
August 29, 2018 8:42 am

This is a 2019 report drafted by the Group of independent scientists. Note that they are ahead of time. Also note that every single independent scientist is Finnish. So much for a global diversity.

They seem to advocate a Fourth Reich.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Curious George
August 29, 2018 9:37 am

I’ve been calling the entire movement the ‘Fourth Reich’ for a while now.

August 29, 2018 9:19 am

That’s awesome! Just let the socialist countries do something for a change! 👄

August 29, 2018 9:21 am

Now this is just a theory, but a workable theory.

I say we bomb the current Russian government out of existence and see how long it takes international institutions to become competent at thought.

My guess is 9 months.

August 29, 2018 9:22 am

open declaration of war on human beings.
best believe they mean it.
you won’t fix them with a hug.
there is only one relationship one can have with a cannibal, in the end.

Bob Kutz
August 29, 2018 9:31 am

Their call to end capitalism is as telling as their open admiration for the Chinese model. This is both frightening and hilarious.

China is among the worst polluters on the planet, especially in terms of growth, one of the least accountable, to the UN or anybody else and has a human rights record that ranks right up there with Idi Amin.

Their version of capitalism is ‘do whatever makes us look good, then when we decide you didn’t do it right, we put you in prison or execute you’.

The Chinese government staffs certain factories with state owned slaves. HOW IS THAT NOT AN INTERNATIONAL SCANDAL??? How is it that they are even allowed into the world market place with that going on? It’s not a secret.

They bring a new coal plant online every single week, they do not bother to include advanced scrubers and they do not care about the sulfur content of the coal they burn. And no one can tell them otherwise. In fact they were exempted from the Paris accords. Sickening.

And yet these yahoos (biophysical economist?) tell us we should start thinking seriously (must) about renouncing capitalism. They are apparently unaware of the track record of communism and socialism in the real world.

Perhaps we ought to send them to Venezuela for further research.

August 29, 2018 9:46 am

Capitalism and freedom simply have to go and no further correspondence will be entered into-
(via Jonova)

Russ Tibbitts
August 29, 2018 9:49 am

You can’t argue. I mean just look at the low carbon footprint of North Korea.

Burger Chef
August 29, 2018 9:52 am

I am waiting to hear the term “Population Fold-Back”.

August 29, 2018 9:53 am

In other words. Capitalism isn’t doing what we want, therefore government must take over and re-order the world in a manner preferable to us.

August 29, 2018 10:12 am

When not scheming to drive Israel into the sea, they have other pet scheming projects to attend to.

August 29, 2018 10:23 am

Because socialist nations were so pollution free….. 😛

Fred Ohr
August 29, 2018 10:33 am

Ahaha, so the sceptics were right after all.

Jeff Mitchell
August 29, 2018 10:36 am

Eric, this is just a variation of one of the stages of socialism. First, there is the revolution. Or vote. Somebody is put in charge of it. Whatever it is they try, doesn’t work. “Unexpectedly.” So they ask for more power so they can take care of the problems. They get it. That too doesn’t work. But now it is too late for the people to do much about it other than export themselves to neighboring countries or starve. In this case, we’re at the point where the U.N. wants more power, and they’re trying to use climate as the reason.

This article doesn’t specify what comes after capitalism. I’m guessing socialism. Socialism doesn’t work, of course. People starve? Feature, not bug. The greens want the world population billions of people smaller. Socialism is a great way to do that.

The claim that capitalism is dead is premature wishful thinking. Since it is not dead, no transition is needed. The premise they are using is false.

R Hall
August 29, 2018 10:52 am

A kleptocrat’s dream; scientific socialism for the environment. All managed of course by the ever so disinterested 3rd rate social scientists, and 4th rate climate scientists to guide humanity into the future of abject poverty directed by the haven of dictators and despots- the UN.

Robert of Ottawa
August 29, 2018 11:02 am

The UN Always has been eager to be a World Government. And now we know it would be a tyrannical socialist world government.

Alan Tomalty
August 29, 2018 12:23 pm

“A central claim of these scholars is that states can never run out of their own
Unlike natural, social, and technological res
sovereign currenc
not a limiting
factor in collective action such as
the transition to
sustainability. This has been the case since the gold
was abandoned
and fiat money
in the 1970s. The state can always spend and invest in
its own currency. ”

I went to the original report and found this howler. There are many other howlers in the report but this one negates the report by itself. I guess these scientists don’t have an economist on their staff. Venezuela and Zimbabwe are the latest examples of the falsity of the above. There have been many other examples in economic history almost too many to name. If you want I can give you a list. It isnt pretty. I am presently advocating withdrawal from the United Nations. It has outlived its usefullness and now is a danger to the world.

Farmer Ch E retired
August 29, 2018 1:06 pm

Alternate facts anyone? My take is that in general, socialist economies (top down governance) can’t provide for there populations as easily as capitalist economies can. It’s analogs to a human body which has a degree of paralysis below the neck and can’t compete on the athletic field with a healthy person. The degree of paralysis varies from government to government. The paralysis comes in the form population thought control, land control, not considering feedback from the population, etc. Couldn’t this be the reason countries such as China needs to “borrow” ideas from free-thinking capitalist societies? Their people certainly are not sub-par. Even with the “borrowed” ideas, their standards of living and environmental conditions are in general sub-par to more capitalistic societies. It stands to reason that socialist societies want to bring down capitalism because they can’t compete. (opinion)

Mr Julian Forbes-Laird
August 29, 2018 1:54 pm

Genuinely the most alarming thing I’ve ever read. Unquestionably a manifesto for totalitarianism

Lisa G
August 29, 2018 1:58 pm

Geebus. Yet another reason to DE-FUND and DIS-BAND the stupid UN.

Wiliam Haas
August 29, 2018 2:09 pm

The reality is that the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. This is all a matter of science. Apparently the climate science team is really a political team. Before they make any political statements, they need to determine exactly what is the climate sensitivity of CO2. After more than two decades of effort the IPCC has failed to narrow the range of their guesses one iota. According to Moncton and his group of scientists, assuming that all of the warming since 1850 has been caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels, the climate sensitivity of CO2 is less than 1.2 degrees C which Moncton considers to be trivial.

George Daddis
August 29, 2018 2:11 pm

Did these idiots even look at the US economy and how it is doing under these terrible “capitalist” policies?
CO2 down, GDP up, employment and wages of minorities up?
Venezuela and Cuba are better models?

August 29, 2018 2:58 pm

Hate capitalism, love its money.

Gary Pearse
August 29, 2018 3:07 pm

As they have been losing the the CAGW meme viability, first through sceptic arguments which they can ignore, but latterly through a noncompliant Nature, which they have tried vainly to adjust out of sight, but cant ignore. The fake news fallback strategy can only be a stopgap.

This has set the scene for the outing of the real agenda of the climateer enterprise. Maurice Strong let it all hang out, but then he died and people still don’t know who or what he was. Christiana Figueres the UNFCC head was clear it was to bring down capitalism, the Pope, etc, but now the UN and once again biologists are out making no bones about it. They are making a final stand with no props or costumes.

They see the signs as unemployment, slow economic growth, weak governments. Ya know when you throw away 10s of trillions on fantasy, its gotta have exactly this effect.

Gerard O'Dowd
August 29, 2018 4:34 pm

Yes, Energy Density and the profitability of extracting fossil fuels are two keys to our near term economic future and prosperity. Tell us something we don’t know. Hence the strategic and economic importance of the US Petroleum industry efforts to visualize, initiate, develop, and continuously improve directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing of known petroleum geologic sources during the past couple of decades. Just an amazing story of Industrial ingenuity and innovation, and the falsification of the Peak Oil Theory of King Hubbert. Julian Simon is probably smiling right now laughing at all the doomsayers. To George Mitchell, Harold Hamm, Aubrey McClendon, and the Engineers and Geologists at Mitchell Energy, Contintental, and Chesapeake, and many other oil field workers in the Permian, Bakken, etc, my sincerest thanks. Here’s to greater fracking operational efficiency, lower breakeven points, higher oil prices, longer well life, positive cash flows, and worker safety.

August 29, 2018 5:37 pm

I have a better idea……rather than end capitalism, let’s end the U.N. It really is nothing more than a Marxist organization in reality. World domination is, after all, the Marxist end game.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Joey
August 29, 2018 6:15 pm

The U.N. is no longer fit for purpose.

John Endicott
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 31, 2018 6:33 am

It’s questionable that it ever was.

August 29, 2018 6:00 pm

In the interests of an accuracy in its depiction, will somebody please change the UN logo as depicted at the beginning of this post from what I assume are a pair of olive branches holding and supporting and surrounding the Globe and its nations into a pair of equally prominent greedy, grasping, clutching, dissolute hands surrounding the Globe.
That would be a far more accurate depiction via the UN logo of what the current UN now stands for.

Patrick MJD
August 29, 2018 8:10 pm
dodgy geezer
August 29, 2018 8:50 pm

Having read the paper, it is obvious that they intend to do away with democracy as well.

August 30, 2018 12:30 am

Huh, Back in February 2015, Christiana Figueres, then executive secretary of the United Nation’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. She said “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.” They never learn.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  The Elephant's Child
August 30, 2018 6:45 am

Going back a little earlier to December 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark, Ugo Cheves of Venezuala stood on a stage in front of 2,000 UN delegates & said, “Capitalism has caused Climate Change!”, & got a two minute standing ovation! That in itself demonstrated the level of “science” being discussed!!!

August 30, 2018 4:17 am

The con artists are so confident they think they can takeoff the mask now.Yet reading this quotes, they are offering a word salad that is circular, non-rational and historically ignorant.
Not to mention that their evidence is lacking and their historical illiteracy is profound.

Dr. Strangelove
August 30, 2018 4:24 am

comment image

Jim Smith
August 30, 2018 5:04 am

Did anybody actually read the UN Paper? It most certainly did not “demand the end of capitalism.”

[??? .mod]

Reply to  Jim Smith
August 30, 2018 8:06 am

Did anybody actually read the UN Paper? It most certainly did not “demand the end of capitalism.”

That was in a widely-publicized, widely-approved, very popular “CAGW-approved” political speech at the UN by people demanding climate change money from the western civilizations.

Reply to  Jim Smith
August 30, 2018 1:12 pm

What is the world’s economy founded on, and how do you ‘fundamentally change’ it by not destroying that foundation?

August 30, 2018 5:51 am

This is how you shoot yourself in the foot. You aim downward, then pull the trigger.

old white guy
August 30, 2018 5:58 am

I demand that all communists and socialists as well as all those who believe in AGW remove themselves from the planet in the greenest possible way. I bid you adieu.

August 30, 2018 6:33 am

With out fossil fuel the world can not sustain 8 Billion people.
With out fossil fuel the world will transition to one gigantic Venezuela.
With out fossil fuel the world would suffer considerably more than the worst case of climate change.
Fossil fuel may yet provide the transition time required to discover an energy source yet not seen in our technological future.

Steve O
August 30, 2018 11:10 am

I wonder, if we looked back at where the initial seed money came for the first studies to identify CO2 as a problem requiring taxes, subsidies, wealth transfers, and powerful global government, would we find UN fingerprints all over it?

Eddie K
August 30, 2018 12:33 pm

Strong political governance, smells like totalitarianism to me. The US government needs to pull all funding to the U.N. and tell them to take a hike.

Peter D Gardner
August 30, 2018 1:31 pm

I suspect the UN is jealous of the EU’s position as the only supra-national undemocratic government in the world with the legal power to over-rule democratically elected national parliaments. And it is on the point of acquiring its own armed forces. The lunatics at the UN must be green with envy.

Ed Campbell
August 30, 2018 2:09 pm

They can’t lead themselves how do they think they can lead the world?

August 30, 2018 2:45 pm

Oh goody, then the whole world can be equally poor and miserable.

August 30, 2018 3:56 pm

Get us out of this anti-semitic, communist group of countries that hate the USA.

Gunga Din
August 30, 2018 4:02 pm

Hmmm… another example of “them” not thinking things through.
If “Capitalism” ended, where would the UN get its green?

August 30, 2018 4:18 pm

‘Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN Secretary-General. The main reason?’

Because they don’t like free enterprise. And they will use any trick to get rid of it, so they can create one-world, totalitarian socialism. Doomsday climate science is merely a tool; many climate scientists are useful idiots.

(past) Time to defund the UN.

September 1, 2018 10:07 am


barn E rubble
September 1, 2018 6:14 pm

Capitalism is the only thing keeping the *really* smart ones from making the most money. Just ask them . . .

barn E rubble
September 1, 2018 10:44 pm

The best thing about socialism is never having to say, ” Here’s where it worked.”

September 2, 2018 1:53 pm

So……Without market based economies, how do the nations of the world come up with the money with which to provide for the support of the U. N. ?

John P Poynter
September 4, 2018 6:17 am

So the UN now demands total control of the planet, through the use of force, in the name of greed and lust for power. They would destroy the hand that has been feeding them. Enough, already.

The UN has to go.

Виктор Родин
September 7, 2018 7:47 am

Quotation: “A group of scientists nominated by the United Nations said that the free market system can not provide the transition to the economy necessary to overcome climate change. Scientists warn of the imminent death of UN Capitalism. Author: Nafez Ahmed. August 28, 2018, 1:40.
The controversy about the incapacity of capitalism is a controversial issue, and it lasts for centuries.
I propose to eliminate warming – and then polemicize in a calm environment. To eliminate warming, it will take 10 years and start-up capital – one trillion dollars. What is one trillion? A trifle. Rich people have hundreds of trillion dollars available – and one trillion is easy to find. In three years I will begin to return the invested money – and return them with a profit of 2.4-2.7 dollars for each dollar invested.
Warming will restore the most important value – the health of earthlings. But this will take no less than 4-5 generations.
Sincerely, developer of environmental programs, Victor Rodin. Ukraine. Khmelnitsky NPP. Tel. Kiev Star: 961336344. Mail: dorosydos@gmail.com, rodinviktor@lenta.ru
— — —
Цитата: «Группа ученых, назначенных Организацией Объединенных Наций, сообщила, что система свободного рынка не может обеспечить переход к экономике, необходимый для преодоления изменения климата. Ученые предупреждают о неминуемой смерти ООН Капитализма. Автор: Нафез Ахмед. 28 августа 2018, 1:40.
Полемика о недееспособности капитализма – это вопрос спорный, и он длится веками.
Я предлагаю ликвидировать потепление – а затем полемизировать в спокойной обстановке. Для устранения потепления потребуется 10 лет и стартовый капитал – один триллион долларов. Что такое один триллион? Мелочь. У богатых людей имеются в наличии сотни триллионов долларов – и один триллион найти нетрудно. Через три года я начну возвращать вложенные деньги – и верну их с прибылью 2,4-2,7 доллара на каждый вложенный доллар.
Потепление восстановит самую главную ценность – здоровье землян. Но на это уйдёт не меньше 4-5 поколений.