UN Climate Report Recommends Taxing Carbon and Discouraging Agriculture

Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon – The latest UN Emissions Gap Report provides psychological advice for defeating political opposition to carbon pricing, and suggests discouraging farming by taxing agricultural land.

6.3.3 Political and behavioural factors

Ensuring broad and stable support for carbon pricing and the phasing-out of fossil fuel subsidies requires more than addressing distributional, competitiveness and leakage impacts. A number of additional success factors can be identified (Klenert et al., 2018a) and table 6.1 provides country examples for addressing these. The challenge is particularly significant where trust in government is limited (Klenert et al., 2018a; Rafaty, 2018). And yet, where trust is strong, there is a tendency for citizens to question problems if policy solutions challenge their world views, e.g. on the State’s role in the economy (“solution aversion”) (Campbell and Kay, 2014; Cherry et al., 2017). Designing policies that are consistent with the prevailing world views of specific societal groups therefore requires extensive communication and consultation prior to implementation.

To secure popular support for carbon pricing, the public needs to be informed about its positive effect on emissions reduction targets, as well as the co-benefits of cleaner air, health and fiscal sustainability (Hsu et al., 2008; Bristow et al., 2010; Kallbekken et al., 2011; Baranzini et al., 2014; Baranzini and Carattini, 2017). Timing is also important: a gradual reform is more likely to be successful than sudden and drastic price increases. Similarly, if several fossil fuel subsidies are being reformed, this can best be done by sequencing the reforms (Beaton et al., 2013; Rentschler and Bazilian, 2017b). Language matters too, with terms such as ‘fee’ or ‘contribution’ likely to meet with popular support compared with ‘tax’ (Kallbekken et al., 2011; Drews and van den Bergh, 2016; Baranzini and Carattini, 2017).

Carbon pricing and fossil fuel subsidy reform generate public revenues, the use of which can strongly impact support for carbon pricing. This is discussed in the section 6.3.4.

6.3.4 Use revenues from carbon pricing to foster sustainable development

Raising revenue through energy tax reforms relaxes constraints on broader fiscal policy, creating opportunities to stimulate more productive and socially inclusive economic development. With respect to carbon pricing, its potential for contributing to public budget is illustrated in figure 6.2b. In developing and emerging economies, where tax revenue-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratios rarely exceed 20 percent, an additional €60/ tCO2 carbon price on top of existing measures would generate revenues worth more than 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). These revenues would not be available under non-fiscal climate policies like emission standards or ETS that do not auction permits.

Better alignment of broad tax policy can help reduce carbon emissions. Subsidies or tax deductions related to commuting (Su and DeSalvo, 2008), company cars (Harding, 2014) and the aviation sector (Gössling et al., 2017) are common in many developed countries and tend to encourage carbon-intensive transport choices. Replacing property taxes with land value taxes can reduce urban sprawl and increase housing density, which in turn reduces the need for longer commutes (Banzhaf and Lavery, 2010).

Fiscal policies such as ecological fiscal transfers, contingent on environmental performance, can also play a role in the land-use sector. They could be a way to implement REDD+6 when international pay-for-performance or carbon market finance flows to the national or state government level (Loft et al., 2016). There is growing experience with ecological fiscal transfers, including transfers of tax revenues to support protected areas and forests in Portugal (Santos et al., 2012), several Brazilian states (May et al., 2011) and India (Busch and Mukherjee, 2018). Land taxes on agricultural land can also help reduce agricultural land use and deforestation (Kalkuhl and Edenhofer, 2017).

Read more: http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26895/EGR2018_FullReport_EN.pdf

I’m horrified at the ongoing UN and green attacks on agriculture. The abundance we take for granted is politically fragile. We can all think of nations which rapidly fell from relative prosperity and security to utter desperation because they took a political wrong turn. The same thing could easily happen to any of us, if we let it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
101 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Madman2001
November 28, 2018 8:09 am

Let’s destroy agriculture (and people’s food supply) to save the planet.

MarkW
Reply to  Madman2001
November 28, 2018 9:23 am

They want to drastically reduce the number of humans living on the planet and don’t care how they go about doing it.
(Of course, those who need to die are always someone else.)

Alan Robertson
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2018 10:01 am

In almost every forum on the internet, one finds people who support the idea that too many human beings exist. Market the UN’s ideas to them in the right way and they will support it.
None of them ever volunteer to go first.

Honest liberty
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2018 11:42 am

Hey Mark, 10 years ago when people were clamoring, like Alex Jones, that global warming was all about establishing global carbon tax to find global government, he was called by nearly every uneducated bafoon a… Conspiracy theorist!
Imagine that.

Now look what is happening. That theory is reality and people like you still pick and choose what realities are “theories” and label people like me who have spent countless hours researching this global depopulation agenda, as crazies.

Way to stay consistent… Not

Joel Snider
Reply to  Honest liberty
November 28, 2018 12:26 pm

Honest Liberty: I think what you’re describing is the means to the end – Mark’s describing the end itself. Depopulation is a greenie anthem AND they all seem to be globalists – no contradiction. A lot easier to implement said policy (as opposed to the standardized ‘cull’ provided by all their eco-policies)

I’m not sure I understand your vitriolic response.

Honest liberty
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 28, 2018 12:43 pm

No, I do understand it. He recognizes the conspiracy related to this global warming hoax: depopulation. This was discussed decades ago and at that time people like mark would call them “conspiracy nuts”.
Now that reality is manifesting, so it isn’t theory, it is fact.

And it’s also irritating to see regular folk constantly making excuses when the very thing we warned about manifests. It’s not the consequence of plans in the works for decades, no, it’s random parties organically collaborating. It’s always about excuse to disprove the people who are now saying “I told you so”.

As far as I’m concerned, every American who rags on “conspiracy theorists”, scoffed at us, wrote us off, demeaned us… Even in light of all the realities coming to fruition.. You all get the suffering you deserve, and I’m disgusted your dismissal of reality, under the group think mind control automated response of attacking “conspiracy theorists” as kooks when you could have paid attention when it was early and able to be stopped.

It’s as bad as Democrats calling this invasion a caravan. You all suffer from selective confirmation bias and severe mind control. Full stop

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 28, 2018 1:18 pm

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said – I certainly agree that the label ‘conspiracy theory’ is used as a camouflage. And I’ve certainly done my share of shouting in an apparently vain effort to get people to see it.

I’m just not sure how this relates to Mark W’s post – I’ve never known him to call out ‘conspiracy theory’.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 28, 2018 4:05 pm

Honest Liberty, twice you referred to “people like” Mark. That must mean you never actually heard Mark make the statements you objected to. Why not just state your gripe against those who did make those statements?

SR

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2018 12:19 pm

‘Of course, those who need to die are always someone else.’

That’s simply an aspect of the inherent elitism that permeates their beings and is visible (I would say cloyingly obvious) in their every policy, every opinion, and every action.

Alice Krentz
Reply to  Madman2001
November 28, 2018 11:03 am

Again, ways to get money for Governments. Is there a difference in Carbons produced through fertilizers made of fossil fuels, as oppose to Carbons produced through fertilizers made from organics (such as manures, composted seeds, vegetable oils, ect.)? We should be incouraging more food production not less.

Reply to  Madman2001
November 28, 2018 11:40 am

“discouraging farming by taxing agricultural land.”

Very smart, actually a good start towards starving the poor as food prices get out of reach.

Are these guys sane?

Cheers

Roger

mike the morlock
Reply to  Roger
November 28, 2018 11:57 am

Roger November 28, 2018 at 11:40 am

Can we say “French Revolution” ?
Are they sane you ask?
Insane unknown, stupid confirmed

Hungry people will causes Wars, Revolutions, Genocide and anarchy.
avoid it.

michael

Honest liberty
Reply to  mike the morlock
November 28, 2018 1:11 pm

Anarchy does not equal chaos. That is pre programmed automated response, as a consequence of 15,000 hours of state mandated “education”, instituted to legitimize it’s illegitimate existence.

Nice try though.
AN-archony (without- external rulers)
Self governance, freedom, personal responsibility.

Tell me, how civilized this country is under this iron first of statism?
Police steal money and abuse authority because they are above the law
Blacks killing without Mercy at a rate 27 times that of whites, 9 times that of Hispanics.
Criminals invading the county and demanding free services on our dime
Property tax so you never own your own land
Income tax so you never own the product of your labor
Forced fluoridation of your water based on collusion, corrupted “science”
Forced vaccination
Estate tax
Gas tax
RTD tax
Food tax
Sales tax
Emissions testing mandates
Permission slips to hunt, drive a car, carry concealed
FDA SWAT attacking raw milk providers
Obama dropping 26k bombs on foreigners
IRS, TSA, FBI, CIA, BATFE (WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND!?)

This is the price of freedom eh? Slavery? Wonderful. I’m glad you folks are able to enjoy your cognitive dissonance so seamlessly

richard Patton
Reply to  Honest liberty
November 28, 2018 2:37 pm

I ask you again do you consider yourself a Slave Owner or Slave?

Honest liberty
Reply to  mike the morlock
November 28, 2018 1:15 pm

And look around you. We are all slaves the only reason you folks are content with your absolute slavery is because you have enough comfort to stay warm and fat.

But if you think this country is free, you’re living 250 years in the past. Unless you are black, but then, once they were freed they owned other blacks at a rate more than ten times whites. So I don’t want to hear about slavery from blacks. If you cared so much you’d be fighting against the world’s child sex slave ring run by government officials and Muslims.
Too much truth here for you folks I’m sure this will be moderated out of existence. Slaves talking bad about anarchy- how rich

Richard Patton
Reply to  Honest liberty
November 28, 2018 1:17 pm

Which category do you place yourself? Slave owner or Slave?

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Honest liberty
November 28, 2018 4:14 pm

Honest Liberty:
“I’m sure this will be moderated out of existence.”
If you believe this you would not have posted it. Thus you know you are posting falsehoods.

I will not waste any more of my time reading comments from a poster who does not believe their own postings.

SR

Hivemind
Reply to  Roger
November 28, 2018 1:57 pm

They’re as sane as Stalin and Mao, who both starved tens of millions of peasants with their insane agricultural policies. The difference is that these people have history on their side. They saw the results of insane policies on a local scale and are deliberately doing it on a global scale, with the intent of starving billions.

Tim
Reply to  Roger
December 4, 2018 12:41 pm

They are sane, and they know what they’re doing.

brians356
Reply to  Madman2001
November 28, 2018 7:09 pm

You’re close to the Sierra Club’s lastest manifesto. Humans are the problem with the planet, don’t you know? Human population needs to plummet drastically to “save the planet for the gay baby whales” etc. Limiting agriculture is a good start.

Gaz
Reply to  Madman2001
November 28, 2018 8:59 pm

Ah … Soylent Green.

Gamecock
November 28, 2018 8:14 am

‘Designing policies that are consistent with the prevailing world views of specific societal groups therefore requires extensive communication and consultation prior to implementation.’

Sonny, we called that ‘brain washing’ when I was your age.

‘To secure popular support for carbon pricing, the public needs to be informed about its positive effect on emissions reduction targets, as well as the co-benefits of cleaner air, health and fiscal sustainability.’

It will have no effect on emissions. It’s just a tax.

‘Cleaner air’ ?!?! Cleaner than what?

‘Timing is also important: a gradual reform is more likely to be successful than sudden and drastic price increases.’

Turn the heat up on the pot slowly.

‘Language matters too, with terms such as ‘fee’ or ‘contribution’ likely to meet with popular support compared with ‘tax’’

It’s such a good idea, it must be marketed carefully.

Barbara
Reply to  Gamecock
November 28, 2018 12:21 pm

It’s very important to keep track of what the UN is doing. But it is difficult to keep track of their activities unless the public knows how to locate UN information.

Published links are ways to inform people.

Honest liberty
Reply to  Barbara
November 28, 2018 1:21 pm

And look around you. We are all slaves the only reason you folks are content with your absolute slavery is because you have enough comfort to stay warm and fat.

But if you think this country is free, you’re living 250 years in the past. Unless you are black, but then, once they were freed they owned other blacks at a rate more than ten times whites. So I don’t want to hear about slavery from blacks. If you cared so much you’d be fighting against the world’s child sex slave ring run by government officials and Muslims.
Too much truth here for you folks I’m sure this will be moderated out of existence. Slaves talking bad about anarchy- how rich

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
November 28, 2018 2:39 pm

UN Environment, 14 May 2014

For example: Keeping track of UN activities.
Re: UNEP’s role Post 2015.

Green issues status elevated Post 2015, launch of SDGs, launch of UNEA, and more.

https://unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/achim-steiner-briefs-european-environment-ministers-uneps-role-post

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
November 28, 2018 5:30 pm

UN Environment, 26 November 2018
Another example: Keeping track of UN activities.

Press release:

(UNEP-FI) and 28 banks launch “Principles for responsible banking”.

Includes SDGs.
http://unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-environment-and-28-banks-launch-public-consultation-principles

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
November 28, 2018 7:11 pm

UNEP FI

Press release, 26th November 2018

“Shaping the future of banking: UNEP FI’s Principles for Responsible Banking”, 4 pages.

Has more information on this topic.
http://unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Press_release_GRTCFD2018-EN.pdf

JohnB
Reply to  Gamecock
November 28, 2018 3:15 pm

I wonder which “specific societal groups” these policies are to comply with?

ToddF
November 28, 2018 8:20 am

The problem is, low information Democrat voters probably think food is created in grocery stores, so can probably be convinced to go along with this.

ThomasJK
Reply to  ToddF
November 28, 2018 9:34 am

Low information Democrat voters probably think food is created in grocery stores,and is paid for with food stamps which are provided free by government.

This inane hilarity is less humorous with each passing day.

Gary
Reply to  ToddF
November 28, 2018 11:06 am

Grocery stores? No they think the Star Trek replicators are making food (as seen on TV) and Amazon shortly will be delivering it by drones until the government gives us our own green energy replicators.

MIKE MCHENRY
November 28, 2018 8:23 am

It’s time for the USA to defund these clowns. Maybe others would join us.

Michael Spurrier
November 28, 2018 8:30 am

Just a quick question rather than a comment – if CO2 is increasing what atmospheric gas(es) are decreasing to accommodate that?

Steve Keohane
Reply to  Michael Spurrier
November 28, 2018 8:46 am

Not much. At 400ppm there is one CO2 molecule for every 2500 other molecules. If CO2 doubles to 800ppm, then there will be two CO2 molecules per 2500 other molecules, so one other molecule will be replaced. BFD IMO.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Keohane
November 28, 2018 9:25 am

Oxygen is dropping (very, very slightly), since it’s combing with C to make CO2.

Michael Spurrier
Reply to  Steve Keohane
November 28, 2018 9:32 am

Thanks…..I understand there wouldn’t be much of a difference at all – was just curious as I haven’t seen that question/answer before. So for arguments sake if there is one extra molecule of CO2 which molecule would it displace – maybe undetectable…….probably have too much time on my hands in the bad weather.

ThomasJK
Reply to  Steve Keohane
November 28, 2018 9:40 am

And the atmosphere contains 75 to 100 times as many water molecules as it contains CO2 molecules — in some locales the ratio may be much higher in favor of water molecules. Furthermore, each water molecule that’s present in the atmosphere is a more potent producer of the greenhouse effect than is an atmospheric CO2 molecule. But there is a global shortage of sanity.

Alasdair
Reply to  ThomasJK
November 28, 2018 2:27 pm

Just a point ThomasJK. The greenhouse effect of water is largely negated by the Latent Heat at phase change. This heat is produced by the absorption of radiation and enables large energies to be pumped up into the atmosphere and beyond to space. I think most people believe the absorbed radiation gets re- radiated as heat which just does not happen.
One kilogram of rain falling to earth has dissipated some 680 Watthrs of energy up through the atmosphere and beyond. (check the steam tables) The earth sweats to keep cool just like you and I.
So there is nothing potent about the greenhouse effect of water. On the contrary.

Cephus0
Reply to  Steve Keohane
November 28, 2018 3:14 pm

A frequently deployed argument is that electrical properties of semiconductors are dramatically modified by tiny percentages of dopant atoms and mechanical properties of metals are likewise modified by small additions of alloying elements. While absolutely true I’m not aware of the bulk thermodynamic properties of any system being seriously altered by low level molecular substitutions.

Reply to  Michael Spurrier
November 28, 2018 9:45 am

Actually Ferenc Miskolczi answered that question s a number of years ago. I think he used to work for NASA but left. He determined that as CO2 rose, the absolute water vapor concentration decreased.

“Raising revenue through energy tax reforms relaxes constraints on broader fiscal policy, creating opportunities to stimulate more productive and socially inclusive economic development. ”

This is just another revenue source, an underserved one, that it will not want to give up once created.

Reply to  Charles Higley
November 28, 2018 12:19 pm

“He determined that as CO2 rose, the absolute water vapor concentration decreased. ”

There also seems to be a small decrease in cloud coverage. If the regulatory process controls total atmospheric absorption, and the evidence of this keeps piling up, then this is the expected behavior. It there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, fewer clouds and less water vapor are required to maintain the same fraction of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere. The regulated fraction of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere seems to be about 0.78, or 2/(1+g), where g is the golden ratio of 1.618035. Whether or not the golden ratio is actually emerging is not completely clear, although measurements of the effective emissivity of 1/g, the surface power gain of g and the fraction of absorption at 2/(1+g) are all within less than 2% of golden prediction which is well within the margin of error in the data.

In modern climate science where causation is ascribed to tenuous coincidence, applying that same standard to the relevance of the golden ratio would assert it as settled science. Of course, any true scientists would say we can never have enough tests.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Charles Higley
November 28, 2018 1:20 pm

RE:He determined that as CO2 rose, the absolute water vapor concentration decreased.
Interesting, in that this is exactly the opposite of what the IPCC claims and since WV is a powerful IR active gas that would constitute a major negative feedback. Since the “catastrophic” part of CAGW is largely based on additional WV from CO2 heating creating a major positive feedback, it’s not surprising that I had not heard of Miskolczi before. It’s also no surprise that his Wiki page is being deleted as we speak or that one of the sources cited for that deletion is an attempt to refute his ideas on Real Climate. And since the IPCC also consider clouds to be a positive feedback, it’s no wonder the CAGW crowd wants to make Miskolczi a non-person. I find it extremely sad that I have lived to see character assassination become a major tool of science.

Reply to  Bill Murphy
November 28, 2018 8:38 pm

Bill,

The IPCC is so wrong about so much, are you really surprised?

The only ‘positive feedback’ from clouds, along with GHG’s, contributes to the 600 mw of surface emissions in excess of each W/m^2 of post albedo solar input (forcing). This is no where near the 3.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions in excess of the forcing required to support the IPCC’s ECS of 0.8C per W/m^2 since a temperature increase from 288K to 288.8K increases surface emissions by 4.3 W/m^2.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, the question whose answer will make CAGW go the way of an Earth-centric Universe is as follows:

The average W/m^2 of solar input results in only 600 mw/m^2 of warming in excess of the forcing. How does the system distinguish the next Joules from all the others so that the next Joules can result in 3.3 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ while all the others only result in only 600 mw of ‘feedback’?

Put another way, if each of the 239 W/m^2 of solar forcing resulted in 3.3 W/m^2 of feedback manifesting 4.3 W/m^2 of emissions each, the surface temperature would be close to the boiling point of water. It’s clearly not, so CAGW is unambiguously falsified.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 29, 2018 9:54 am

RE: The IPCC is so wrong about so much, are you really surprised?
No not really. As an old school type that believes theories should be modified to fit facts, I find it depressing that the new trend is to modify facts to fit (politically useful) theories.

old engineer
Reply to  Charles Higley
November 28, 2018 10:10 pm

I have been following WUWT for years and this is the first time I’ve seen reference to Miskolezi’s published, peer reviewed, work. If I understand it correctly, he uses measured data to show that the commonly accepted understanding of the “greenhouse effect” is not correct.

How come this is the first time I have heard of it? It would seem to put the nail in the CAGW coffin.

See: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/05/17/the-curious-case-of-dr-miskolczi/

David M Anderson
November 28, 2018 8:34 am

It’s easy to condemn people to hunger and cold when you never have to run for election.

MarkW
Reply to  David M Anderson
November 28, 2018 9:26 am

And it will never by “your people” who are cold and hungry.

Steve O
November 28, 2018 8:36 am

Dear Governments: Here are some great ideas for expropriating land without actually expropriating it, and for raising taxes under the guise of saving the planet. We’ll be stopping by later to collect something for our efforts. Good to have you on board.

Lucius von Steinkaninchen
November 28, 2018 8:39 am

So, they are proposing increasing taxes and at the same time that production is decreased.

What could possibly go wrong?

TheLastDemocrat
November 28, 2018 8:41 am

I think this urban density thing has been tried before…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_planning_in_communist_countries

MattS
November 28, 2018 8:52 am

Who is to say a tree is more valuable than grass, or an apple, or a lettuce?

Apparently these people have a morality that gives them this right.

Richard Patton
Reply to  MattS
November 28, 2018 12:42 pm

First of all, they have to deny that there is an objective standard of right and wrong. The fad now days is to say that truth is dependent on your culture or even language, and there isn’t some objective Truth. Then you can redefine the words and Viola! you have a new right!

markl
November 28, 2018 8:53 am

Sneaky bastards. Nothing more than wealth redistribution and population control. Western/Democratic/Capitalist countries have no need for the UN and its’ machinations as they gain absolutely nothing and in fact are victimized by the quango while supporting it. Formed to prevent wars the UN has the dubious record of having more wars started and continuing during their time than before.

November 28, 2018 9:00 am

They’ve been predicting that CAGW will cause a reduction in agricultural output and food shortages.

Looks like they’re trying to manufacture a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Dee
November 28, 2018 9:01 am

The solutions are now becoming worse than what they’re supposed to cure.

We all need to be wary no matter where we are of all politicians and political parties to ensure that we know their exact stance on the UN’S position on these matters. That way we can ensure they either have or have not got a political and democratic mandate to implement these measures.

It will be too late in 20 years time if the politicians turn around and say “Well it was part our manifesto back in 2018, 19 whenever, and you voted for us continuously”.

The French are now learning a lesson in this regard having voted for Macron and his climate policies, now being upset with them being implemented.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Dee
November 28, 2018 12:38 pm

The French are now learning a lesson in this regard having voted for Macron and his climate policies, now being upset with them being implemented.

I know, right? It’s quite amazing to me how people just can’t see that cause and effect!

I also get confused by people protesting about the outcome of a public vote, such as Trump and Brexit. I mean, what are you protesting against, really? Democracy? If you want a totalitarian state, go find one and move there. There are still plenty around!

Russ R.
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 28, 2018 2:16 pm

The main problem with Democracy, is the lack of protection from the mob. We have a Bill of Rights that protects many of the worst abuses, but it has become common to “tax those that didn’t vote for me” and give most of the money to those that did (and keep a piece the action for the pork-barreling required to get more).
I don’t know the demographics of French voting, but it would not surprise me hear that urban voters are more supportive of fuel tax, than suburban and rural voters.
This type of political gerrymandering of the political pain, and the political benefit of government programs is a recipe for civil unrest and anarchy.

Cephus0
Reply to  Dee
November 28, 2018 3:23 pm

Pretty sure the rioters are the common French who didn’t vote for little Globalist Jupiter.

JRF in Pensacola
November 28, 2018 9:19 am

I know that several of us on WUWT are warily eyeing the relationships among food production, CO2, temperature, population and plant disease and feel that our food supply is more fragile than generally perceived. The recovery time from a miscalculation, whether political or scientific, could impose a great hardship on at least parts of the world population and we have been fortunate, so far, that factors and events have combined to generate the food supply that we currently have available. But…..

Joel Snider
November 28, 2018 9:25 am

You remember that fiction that the UN was supposed to be for the betterment of human life?

Honest liberty
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 28, 2018 11:51 am

They are satanic pedophiles. I’m certain. Who else would be so vile, depraved, disgusting?

DonM
Reply to  Honest liberty
November 28, 2018 5:58 pm

I think I would have a hard categorizing or differentiating Satanic, muslim, Christian, or any other grouped pedophile in terms of which most deserves the stated adjectives.

Although, in my honest opinion the independent/unaffiliated pedophiles wouldn’t rank as being as nasty as the others. another plus for anarchy….

(don’t reply, im just messn with u. i like most of what you post.)

Richard Patton
Reply to  Honest liberty
November 28, 2018 7:11 pm

Do you know that personally?

Lokki
November 28, 2018 9:32 am

Are these people insane? This is right up there with

“It is necessary to destroy the village to save it”

Stalin would be proud.

MattS
November 28, 2018 9:52 am

TLDR/Elevator speech version:

UN Climate Change Report recommends killing billions of people.

November 28, 2018 9:55 am

The supposedly uber-green EU has gone in the opposite direction, giving farmers subsidies based on land area, hence wildlife habitat gets removed to increase farmed land area. Either way (UN or EU) don’t sign anything that reduces your sovereignty.

ResourceGuy
November 28, 2018 9:57 am

Please start in Iowa next year and don’t let up. It would be so much fun to watch.

Bernie Goetz
November 28, 2018 10:04 am

Atmospheric CO2 does not drive the climate.

Jones
November 28, 2018 10:05 am

For some odd reason this popped into my head……..The virtue…it burns it burns…..I’m happy the great Bono is there to keep us on the right/correct moral track though.

Jones
Reply to  Jones
November 28, 2018 12:28 pm

I also love how, without insight, they are feverishly trying to out virtue-signal each other. GO Team America!…….

Joey
November 28, 2018 10:23 am

I recommend defunding the U.N.

James Clarke
November 28, 2018 11:00 am

“Ensuring broad and stable support for carbon pricing and the phasing-out of fossil fuel subsidies…”

The language out of the UN becomes more ‘Orwellian’ every year. This post is filled with words that don’t seem to mean what they mean in common usage. The word ‘subsidy’ is one of the most twisted. The dictionary defines it as:

a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
“a farm subsidy”

But in leftist literature, ‘subsidy’ apparently means: any sum of money or other assets that the government does not forcibly take from private individuals, businesses or industries.

The implication in these writings is that all wealth belongs to government, and any wealth temporarily in private hands is to be called a subsidy.

These are very dangerous people.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  James Clarke
November 28, 2018 12:44 pm

The implication in these writings is that all wealth belongs to government, and any wealth temporarily in private hands is to be called a subsidy.

Of course it is. Be grateful that we let joy keep a bit of your income for yourself, although we’ll take a good chunk of that too if you choose to actually spend it.

I’m going to tell you how it’s going to be,
One for you, nineteen for me.
Should five percent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all!

Taxman, the beatles.

Hivemind
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 28, 2018 2:06 pm

I particularly like the line about taxing the air you breathe. So prophetic!

Richard Patton
Reply to  James Clarke
November 28, 2018 12:46 pm

That is what the Dems have believed ever since Wilson.

Linda Goodman
November 28, 2018 11:11 am

The passive acceptance of insanity is far more disturbing than the insanity itself.

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

Philo
November 28, 2018 11:15 am

Not just destroy agriculture, but destroy people. The 1.5 billion or so people still in extreme poverty can’t afford any increase in their cost of energy.

It also raises the question that many of those people are “gatherers” and some hunters. None of the land they use agricultural or a commercial source of wood, which is carbon neutral in climate speak.

JohnB
Reply to  Philo
November 28, 2018 8:59 pm

Malnutrition reduces their health and then more die from smoke related diseases from cooking over wood and dung fires.

Monstrous in it’s simplicity.

I’ve never been one for conspiracy theories, but how many times can plans be put forward that will do little except kill non whites in the Third World? How can this be an “unintended consequence” every time for decades?

Robert W Turner
November 28, 2018 11:26 am

What better way to make sure your grandchildren don’t suffer from climaggedon than to make them starve?

StephenP
November 28, 2018 11:47 am

A few years ago the use of cereals for biofuels caused a marked increase in prices, and resulted in widespread rioting in many countries where they relied on imported grain.
Reducing agricultural output in the future would have the same effect.
Tax increases brought in steadily produce the boiling frog effect. Farmers will not produce quantities of food if any profit they make is taxed away, whether by income tax or land tax.
The people who suggest all these schemes would be insulated from the effects in much the same way as Stalin and his cronies were unaffected by the Holodomor.

RonK
November 28, 2018 11:49 am

Damn science is hard, what releases Oxygen back in to the atmosphere during photosynthesis , so you cut agriculture for what ever reason they come up with at the moment, and what happens to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. maybe tax land that is used to feed people first, that is taken out of food production.

November 28, 2018 11:49 am

Perhaps they want to reduce food production to make sure the Club of Rome’s projections of global starvation work out. Their studies were broadcast in 1872. “The Limits to Growth”.
And then there was the nonsense by Paul Ehrlich in 1968. “The Population Bomb”.
In the 1790s, Malthus had the same superstitions, but being of the educated classes his subtle advice was to reduce the numbers of the lower classes.
In 1968 Ehrlich was democratic in advising universal sterilization.
Al Gore is also democratic in wanting everyone to go back to the Stone Age.
Bureaucrats with power and persuasion can be very dangerous.

Bill Powers
November 28, 2018 12:23 pm

Could? Could happen to us???
Try is happening. The Propaganda Ministry has a near monopoly on Public School Education, Secondary and Post Grad Education, Social Media, Hollywood and the Primary media outlets. They have turned Science into Post-Modernist Nonsense.
This is their vision, this is their message, this is their educa…ahhh indoctrination. It simply is no longer a question of if and could but rather a matter of will and when. The Bureaucracy run by the elites are simply waiting for the last vestiges of the Baby Boomer generation to die off in sufficient numbers for the walking brain dead:: GenX and Millennials to vote them the power to implement their dystopian BiG Brother vision for control of the masses.

Zig Zag Wanderer
November 28, 2018 12:30 pm

The UN, wholly supported by taxation from governments all around the world, tells us that more taxation by governments all around the world will solve a problem that was defined by the UN.

Yup, seens legit!

Neo
November 28, 2018 12:33 pm

As a “3rd way” solution to the UN’s pressing problem, I suggest that all the revenue from the “carbon taxes” be sent to a Swiss account that I will setup later. /snark

Bob Maginnis
November 28, 2018 1:00 pm

Headlines for Eric Worrall article: “UN Climate Report Recommends Taxing Carbon and Discouraging Agriculture.”

Worrall puts up in red BOLD: ‘ Land taxes on agricultural land can also help reduce agricultural land use and deforestation ‘ and the headlines say “…Discouraging Agriculture….,’ but we need to know the context, by reading the preceding:
“…There is growing experience with ecological fiscal transfers, including transfers of tax revenues to support protected areas and forests in Portugal (Santos et al., 2012), several Brazilian states (May et al., 2011) and India (Busch and Mukherjee, 2018). Land taxes on agricultural land can also help reduce agricultural land use and deforestation .’

200,000 acres per day of the Amazon rainforest is sacrificed for cattle and soybean production (80% for cattle feed.) In that context, taxing the land isn’t discouraging agriculture as much as it is preventing the rape and exploitation of natural habitat. Better to eat a plant based diet and save US $1 trillion per year in health care costs of a diet of unhealthy animal and dairy products.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Bob Maginnis
November 28, 2018 1:24 pm

The Amazon has 5.5 million km^2 of rainforest. By 2017, only 20% of the forest that was there in 1970 has been deforested. So it has taken 47 years to clear 20% of the forest. A major part of the forest gets flooded every year by the Amazon river, so that part will NEVER be deforested. Sure, eventually man could deforest more than 50% of the Amazon, but that will take a long time. The Haitian people have deforested their own land so it is possible. However if you want to protect the Amazon, turn it into one big national park. No taxes needed.

JohnB
Reply to  Bob Maginnis
November 28, 2018 9:04 pm

Bob, I’ve been hearing the same story since the 70s. According to environmentalists, the Amazon rainforest was supposed to be gone by the year 2000.

That you use the emotive word “rape” concerning agriculture shows that you have nothing in the way of a factual argument. Sorry mate, but the BS has worn way too thin and nobody is listening any more.

C. Paul Barreira
November 28, 2018 1:05 pm

There seem to be at least two generations of people in the elites who have known only a very good life yet find something existential gravely wanting. It has all been too easy. So, somehow, they have decided to manufacture an apocalypse without themselves being the victim, for they are the elite, the priestly class. Apocalypse now, they cry.

JohnB
Reply to  C. Paul Barreira
November 28, 2018 9:10 pm

I do wonder sometimes if it is a form of “Survivors Guilt”. They feel guilty that they belong to the most successful society in history and must invent a cataclysm caused by that success to expunge the guilt.

Richard
November 28, 2018 1:06 pm

Tax carbon and discourage agriculture.

So, lining people up and shooting them is too humane for *progressives*. They want the poor to die slowly of starvation and disease.

LdB
Reply to  Richard
November 28, 2018 5:44 pm

I thought the same thing, so in one paper the UN discusses we are going to have trouble feeding our population going forward and in the next they want to discourage agriculture which can only lead to one outcome.

Bill Murphy
November 28, 2018 1:54 pm

RE:Tax carbon and discourage agriculture.
This is so obviously anti-human and Malthusian I can hardly believe even the UN could produce it. In other words, force energy poverty on as many of the “useless eaters” as possible and the hardy ones that do not freeze to death we can starve to death. What’s next? A 21st century version of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” or possibly a “Soylent Green” solution? My parents lived (and served) through WWII and talked later about how many people then thought it was the End Times and that civilization was not going to survive. That era was a Saturday in the park compared to what could happen now.

Gunga Din
November 28, 2018 3:09 pm

Odd.
Socialist and Communist reject the idea of “Supply and Demand” as a valid economic model yet they would invent a convoluted reason (CAGW) to reduce the supply of food to gain control, rather than money, over those who will demand it if their policies are followed.
But, I guess, no problem. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will just “pay for it”.

November 28, 2018 5:24 pm

The U.N. has gradually transformed itself from a humanitarian peace-keeping organisations whose function was to defend humanity, into a rabid fascist force bent on destroying liberty, enslaving billions and starving them into submission with insane regulations on climate and agriculture. This has been achieved with much help from the OIC and communist nations.

LdB
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
November 28, 2018 5:46 pm

Never attribute to malice what can reasonably be explained by people being stupid 🙂

michael hart
November 28, 2018 10:27 pm

Another “How to tax yourself richer” report from the UN. Quelle surprise.

Usually even most of these ijits also know that taxing food would be a quick way to civil unrest and revolution… so they try to argue that taxing agriculture instead might somehow get around the problem. In someways it really is very entertaining watching such stupid people trying to persuade themselves. A bit like watching a dog with a long stick in its mouth trying to walk through a narrow gap, and it simply can’t figure out why it is unable to get through, but keeps trying anyway.

Rhys Jaggar
November 30, 2018 3:49 am

The problem here is context.

The UN do not want uncontrolled forest destruction replaced by cattle leading to dead soil.

In places like US and Europe, agriculture is efficient enough on the flatter areas and forests can be regenerated where growing crops is stupid anyway. Trees on steeper slopes do not replace agriculture, they bind soil and promote biodiversity. Trees in urban areas again do not replace agriculture. Ditto trees along watercourses.

What is required is a sensible balance between food production and reafforestation. Vast swathes of the earth can do this.

Whether media sensationalism would survive it is another matter.

Gary Kendall
December 1, 2018 8:24 pm

This is a not-very-well veilled attempt to turn us all vegan { in case some people haven’t noticed the latest increase in vegan propaganda.} I haven’t seem a particularly recent paper on vegan food availability, but one a few years back posited that Earth could sustain 4 billion population max if we all went vegan. The main problem is lack of arable land. Not all animal-husbandry farmland is suitable for cropping, plus the requirement to rotate crops to maintain soil condition makes a lot of arable land fallow at some time. I have yet to hear a vegan explain how half the world’s population is to be exterminated.

Johann Wundersamer
December 3, 2018 4:16 pm

Eric Worrall, won’t happen – no pasarán!

That’s a kind of Terra forming / switching agriculture to settlements

globally

so monstrous

not even “Volk ohne Raum” fantasmorg A.Hitler dared to dream of.

https://goo.gl/images/ZtpaHT

%d bloggers like this: