Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The problem is so big, and elected governments are so unreliable…
‘A kind of dark realism’: Why the climate change problem is starting to look too big to solve
By Steven Mufson
Updated 05 Dec 2018 — 2:03 PM,
first published at 11:26 AMIn the daunting maths of climate action, individual choices and government policies aren’t adding up.
…
But effective policy is lacking. Nordhaus advocates a whopping carbon tax, which the Climate Interactive model shows would kill off most coal, sharply reduce driving and boost purchases of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
No appetite
Getting such a carbon tax adopted in the US, however, is hard to imagine. Washington state voters in November rejected a $US15-per-tonne carbon “fee” after Big Oil companies poured more than $US31 million into the state to block the measure. BP, which had endorsed a $US40-per-tonne nationwide tax, gave the most to defeat the bill.
Congress hasn’t shown any appetite for a carbon tax, either. A proposal to impose a $US40-per-tonne carbon tax and return the revenue to people in dividends has not caught fire yet.
In France, President Emmanuel Macron has ignited protests by proposing fuel taxes he says are needed to fight climate change. “One cannot be on Monday for the environment,” Macron said, “and on Tuesday against the increase of fuel prices.”
…
Lack the authority
That’s partly because international organisations lack the authority to enforce rules on wayward nations. In Poland, several major countries are expected to admit to missing the targets they agreed to at the Paris conference three years ago. One example is Brazil, whose new president Jair Bolsonaro, the “tropical Trump”, has talked about clearing part of the Amazon for roads and development. That would damage the world’s lungs – the trees that absorb carbon dioxide and pump out oxygen at high rates.
…
What kind of world would we live in, if the UN had “enforcement” powers?
Imagine Brazil wanted to develop the Amazon, to help lift their suffering people out of poverty A United Nations armed with “enforcement” powers could send an international army to Brazil, to stop Brazilian politicians from “damaging the world’s lungs”.
What if French deplorables objected to climate change fuel taxes? The United Nations would issue an enforcement decree requiring the French government to crush the protests, to ensure the progress of vital policy action to combat global warming.
What if the USA elected a President who opposed United Nations policy? I think you get the idea.
There seems little room for doubt about the kind of world we would live in, if greens like Mufson have their way.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
At least it reveals the ambitions that they harbour, world government without a semblance of democratic legitimacy. That’s just NGO’s which astoundingly are accorded charitable tax break status in the U.K. but are chain most cases (Greedpeace, WWF) political organisations whose unelected, unaccountable ever more extreme inner circle leadership happily put any dopey green initiative ahead of human progress.
We should seriously consider defunding the UN if it carries on like this. When they devise a uniform for themselves to wear it will be too late. Even if it looks smart.
You should defund the UN regardless. Heck, you should have defunded it 30 years ago when we were warning you of what was coming.
Maybe a few things of value came from the UN fifty years ago, but nothing does today. At least, nothing that couldn’t be better done without it.
The title of this post is undermined by the fact that the word “enforcement” never appears in the selected quotations.
Lack of a particular word undermines nothing. Did Hitler include ‘massenmord’ in the Nazi Party’s 25 points? A thorough reading of the Copenhagen draft agreement reveals that it calls for “consequences” for violations, as well as an enforcement arm. They’re not stupid enough to call it that, but it’s very clear that any and all means necessary to wreak “consequences” upon individual countries are included in the scope.
Well, they keep edging towards their real goal, don’t they? Steady ratcheting.
Carbon taxes won’t hurt, even though they will increase the cost of everything in society, because we will give you a rebate at the end of the year. Because passing all of this through a government mandated process will be frictionless and cost free you will feel no pain. And buying your brand new electric vehicle will make your life better despite you having to pay 20% more than an ICE vehicle would cost, and pay more for electricity that is green power based.
And public transit will make traveling to work and shopping better, because you will be rubbing shoulders with your fellow citizens, and you can engage with them while you jointly complain about the weight of the shopping bags you are holding onto as you stand swaying back and forth in the crowded aisle between the packed seats during you hour long trip to your destination.
It is amazing we don’t all rush forward to embrace this glorious future envisioned for us by the talking heads.
Our public transit is falling apart–the East Coast’s famed “Acela Corridor” is running on a roadbed laid in 1845 with sections of 100-year-old catenaries. Much of the rolling stock dates from the Nixon administration. The NYC subways’ switching and signal system, also over 100 years old, would take more money than anyone has to upgrade, and would have to be shut down while the work is going on. Meanwhile, the tunnel under the Hudson is about to collapse into the drink. Uber and medallion taxi drivers are committing suicide weekly because they can’t feed their families on what they make. So good luck with that public transit thing . . .
Meanwhile, the Great God Bezos just bought a very large piece of waterfront property in Queens, only a few feet above present sea level, to build Amazon’s new auxiliary corporate headquarters. If he REALLY believed the Seas are about to Rise, would they be building there?
Watch what they DO–always very different from what they SAY.
‘It is amazing we don’t all rush forward to embrace this glorious future envisioned for us by the talking heads.’
I know – isn’t a shame all us knuckle-draggers don’t just do what we’re told?
I guess they didn’t start teaching that sort acquiesce compliance until our generation was already out of school.
We have a very good, very reliable public transit system where I live. But they don’t come to my door. The nearest bus stop is a mile away. I don’t fancy walking home from the bus stop with 15 shopping bags of groceries on a blisteringly cold winter day, nor would I look forward to doing that on a hot summer day while my ice cream melts.
But Sara, isn’t that a small price to pay for saving the planet?
Joel you forgot to implore her to “think of the children”.
My ice cream is more important than the planet, which can take quite good care of itself. 🙂 So, NO, no!!!!
Sara, you won’t be able to afford ice cream anyway after their plan is implemented.
In the future Sara, you won’t be allowed frozen foods like ice cream. Too much CO2 generated making it. And why do you think you will be allowed 15 shopping bags. In Communist Russia, they got by with just half a pound of sandwich meat per month, and had to queue for two hours to get it.
My family has an old saying that is used in response to encroaching despots, carpetbaggers and snollygosters, “Over my dead body.”
I never heard of snollygosters before. After looking it up, I rather like that word. Will have to find a chance to use it in the future. thanks.
It’s perfect. Describes these warmists to a tee.
The UN tried to establish mandated commitments for greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the Paris agreement. The world’s governments told the UN to take a hike.
The BBC is now in the pits of despair, reporting: “Climate change: COP24 fails to adopt key scientific report” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46496967
They love the bureaucratic dream of ruling the planet, but still don’t understand that most of the people alongside them never actually mean the things they mouth-off about. Those are just platitudes for the media and public consumption.
The entitled hand-wringing from the people they quote is really quite something to behold.
“A United Nations armed with “enforcement” powers could send an international army”
Sure.
Wait until they get a taste of our artillery fire. That will be an education for them.
Lord Monkton has been pointing to this obscenity as the basis of climate fraud. That they are brave enough to speak. directly suggests either over confidence or desperation. The recent outrageous level of media climate propaganda suggests the latter.
The main problem with most liberals is that they really, honestly, believe that somebody, somewhere actually knows what the hell they’re doing, and if you just put them in charge, everything will be just fine. They’ve given up on God, but they still believe in government.
Quote for the day:
“You keep using that word Scientist. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
What the progs don’t get is that we now see the cracks in The Matrix.
What the foolish bureaucrats do not seem to understand is that after creating this army who will stop the leaders of that army from killing them and taking over everything?
For the US >>> UNexit
Delete the UN!
Now that all the promises have been made and virtue signaling actions have taken place the reality sets in. The world is addicted to fossil fuels for all the right reasons and just telling people to do without them isn’t going to work. The harder they push the divorce the more people realize it isn’t going to happen until/if we run out. I’m just surprised more effort isn’t being put into delegitimatizing the AGW meme.
The fascists keep knocking on the door. How long till they kick the door down and take over.
The very second they CAN.
That’s why they’re so mad at the Trump election – they were ALMOST THERE.
I agree Joel. The non-Hillary outcome was defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
Eight years of Hillary would have been 16 years of Barack Obama and the fade-out of America. The dream outcome of the anti-American left.
Yes. If Clinton had won, it would have been game over. WWIII followed by the ‘elites’ crawling out of their bunkers to take their rightful place on the throne of the world, telling the survivors what to do.
Except that billionaire bankers and politicians wouldn’t last long in a post-apocalyptic world where their money was worthless and there was little call for stocks and shares.
Trump gave us a brief breathing space to try to prevent that disastrous outcome.
Let’s list all the crises solved by the UN in the last 60+ years.
Treason.
It would look very much like Cuba. Even the Cubans don’t like it.
The reason why yellow vests are so
readily available is that the French nanny state requires them for all in your car – thus I have three and am ready to march
Thus, they are hoist by their own petard. Oh, the ironing.
No, not war. Waste of time and resources.
Disband the UN, and kick them out of New York City.
The UN was supposed to be a peacemaking council. It has NO authority to do anything. Gotten too big for its britches when this kind of thing is being suggested.
Defund the UN, send the diplomats home AFTER THEY PAY THEIR RENT AND PAY FOR ALL OF THE TRAFFIC TICKETS THEY’VE BEEN GIVEN.
Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant. Never forget that their end goal is to crush individual freedom because they don’t believe you deserve it (not born to the correct parents, not smart enough, not educated enough, etc.).
What a great idea… We just proved in France that eventually, given a high enough burden in taxes and lack of say in the matter, people will riot (Great Britain already learned this in the 1700’s). So lets create a NEW layer of government that is even MORE elitist and LESS eager to listen, and THEY can raise taxes to huge unsustainable amounts, and then watch the people riot about THAT.
Then, they need to form a “police force” to control these rioters, so even more taxes (and more rioters). Then grant themselves special powers to declare martial law. Then build huge prison camps to keep the unruly in. Then we can just rename Earth to Valenzuela, as they have managed to already test this political model.
YEAH. This is a GREAT idea. Just the kind of thinking a liberal elitist mind would come up with.
Well stated, Robert. Geoff
Green saber rattling
The ‘greens’ of today are clearly ideological b@stard-children of the ‘Unabomber’s manifesto’.
The best solution: Tax the Warmunists at COP 24 the IPCC recommended $8/gallon they propose as a their starter-tax on transits fuels to fly home from Poland as a pilot project to text the viability of proposal. This way they can walk their talk in a experience-based leadership position to take this back to their local governments.
At some point the action by governments to meet alarmist demands will exceed the ability of consumers and taxpayers to keep paying. This point may already have been reached in France, but I suspect that other governments will dismiss that as a typical over-reaction by the volatile French.
When such a point is reached, governments will have to assess what options they have to save the planet without driving their citizens into poverty or causing them to riot. It seems to me that questioning the robustness of the science that underpins the science would be another good option.
But they have no reason to do that. They have been aware of scepticism for years but have learned to ignore it. The vast global warming industry has made sure of that. Yet I am sure that we have a good case to present. There are observational results such as the satellite record which can be compared with the model predictions, the same with sea levels and extreme weather frequencies. We need a coordinated effort to gather evidence, present the evidence and spread the word.
Even sowing doubt in the minds of those in government would be a worthwhile start. But do we have any organised movement capable of organising such a exercise?
As a starting point, I am sure that many of us would welcome a review of the facts concerning climate change monitoring points – data that is valid to use to argue that the claims used by the MSM is wrong. Getting an agreed common argument would be a very good start.
Surveys show that the public are growing weary of alarmist claims and have doubts about them. Armed with verifiable data we could build on that.
All the things you recommend have already been done, SC.
But journals resist publication, the AGW-committed who have betrayed science loudly and publicly protest skepticism as persecution, the science establishment has rolled over, green environmental groups insistently lie and distort, and the press is either cortexually challenged or basely motivated and both wings are fully committed to the narrative.
First they crush your wealth, next they crush your freedom, then they crush you.
First they take your guns, then…….
Remember how the U.N. in 2013 tried to establish some degree of gun registration in the United States. Imagine what a horror story that would have been.