IMF Demands a Global Carbon Pricing Cartel to Meet $6 Trillion / Year Climate Infrastructure Spend

IMF Logo
By Source, Fair use, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The executive overview is a little vague about IMF intentions, but the report is very clear about what they think should be done with the money – funding the $100 billion / year climate pledge, kicking in additional money ($6 trillion / year) and governments using the carbon tax revenue to take a larger role in national economic activity (investing in economic “efficiency”).

Getting Real on Meeting Paris Climate Change Commitments

MAY 3, 2019
By Christine Lagarde and Vitor Gaspar

Climate change is the great existential challenge of our times. It is a challenge that spans all regions, with especially severe consequences for low-income countries.

Without mitigating actions, global temperatures are projected to rise by 4oC above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century—with increasing and irreversible risks of collapsing ice sheets, inundation of low-lying island states, extreme weather events, and runaway warming scenarios.

warming climate could also mean increased extinction risk for a large fraction of species, the spread of diseases, an undermining of food security, and reduced renewable surface water and groundwater resources.

The need for effective carbon pricing

There is a growing consensus that carbon pricing—charging for the carbon content of fossil fuels or their emissions—is the single most effective mitigation instrument. It provides across-the-board incentives to reduce energy consumption, use cleaner fuels, and mobilize private finance.

It also provides much needed revenues. These should be allocated to reorient public finances in support of sustainable and inclusive growth. How this is best done will differ across countries. In some cases it means investing in people and infrastructure, to attain the Sustainable Development Goals. In others it might mean reducing taxes that harm work incentives and growth.   

new IMF paper discusses how carbon prices could be used to meet Paris CO2 mitigation pledges. The pledges and required carbon prices to meet those commitments vary by country, and the paper considers the impact on CO2 emissions of $35 and $70 per ton carbon prices. A carbon price significantly below $35 per ton would be sufficient to meet the pledge for the G20 countries, which together account for four-fifths of global emissions, and this is also true for key G20 members such as China and India.

Although a $35 per ton price would roughly double coal prices, it would add only about 5 to 7 percent to pump prices for road fuels. For some countries with more ambitious pledges, however, even a $70 per ton price would fall short of what is needed.

Read more: https://blogs.imf.org/2019/05/03/getting-real-on-meeting-paris-climate-change-commitments/

From the “new IMF paper“;

8. Pricing and finance at the international level can also help. An international carbon price floor arrangement—requiring participants to impose a minimum price on carbon—could reinforce domestic mitigation efforts, accommodate diversity in prices and pricing instruments, and provide some reassurance against competitiveness impacts; and the technicalities seem manageable (see below). There also appear feasible pathways for meeting the advanced economies’ pledge to mobilize US$100 billion a year (from both public and private sources in unspecified proportion) from 2020 onwards for climate projects in developing countries. However, the measurement of finance flows will likely remain contentious, and total investment needs are at least an order of magnitude larger than pledged finance.

9. Political economy aspects can, however, be challenging. To enhance the acceptability of fuel price reform, Fund advice has emphasized the importance of a broad strategy that includes specifics on how revenues are to be used, assistance to vulnerable households and firms, gradual price reform, stakeholder consultation, and public communication. But pricing may also need to be part of a broader fiscal and regulatory reform agenda that is perceived as fair overall and it can be difficult to anticipate public opposition. For example, resistance to carbon pricing can be compounded if it is introduced simultaneously with broader tax reductions perceived as benefitting the wealthy. If political obstacles are insurmountable or might require using up all the fiscal dividend in universal compensation schemes, fiscal instruments which are less efficient but avoid increases in energy prices (e.g., that tax/subsidize activities or products with above/below average emissions intensity), or regulations (e.g., emission standards for vehicles, appliances, and power generation), may provide a reasonable ‘second-best’ approach.

Box 1. The Importance of Using Carbon Pricing Revenues Efficiently

A large, somewhat technical, literature decomposes the linkages between carbon taxes and the broader fiscal system into two effects.
First is the potential economic efficiency gain from ‘revenue recycling’. This could reflect gains from using revenues to reduce broader (e.g., income and payroll) taxes that distort the economy by deterring investment and labor force participation, promoting informality, creating a bias towards tax-preferred spending like housing and fringe benefits, etc. More generally, using revenues to fund public investments— perhaps to meet SDGs—or reduce fiscal deficits, could generate comparable efficiency gains.

The second effect is the efficiency loss from the potential impact of higher energy costs on reducing overall investment and employment (which are already inefficiently low, due to harmful incentive effects of labor, capital, and other taxes)—put another way, taxes on fuels act like implicit taxes on labor and capital. The effects are complex, however, depending, for example, on the labor intensity of the expanding (green) sectors relative to the contracting (polluting) sectors.

The first effect can dominate the second effect in some cases. The more important point however, is that if carbon pricing revenues are not used to increase economic efficiency, pricing can be substantially less cost effective in a broad sense than regulatory combinations or similar policies mimicking many of the behavioral responses from carbon pricing (e.g., emissions standards for power generators, vehicles, and electricity-using products). This is because the latter policies avoid a large first-order impact on energy prices, thereby limiting the increase in energy costs and potentially adverse economy-wide reductions in employment and investment.

16. Carbon taxes are not new and existing taxes often amount to substantial carbon prices. Averaged globally, road fuel taxes are currently around US$1 per liter, or US$380 per tonne of CO2 emissions from these fuels, while average royalty rates for oil and gas extraction are around 12 and 6 percent respectively, implying taxes equivalent to US$33 and US$10 per tonne of CO2respectively. Carbon charges need to be imposed on top of these taxes because existing taxes are embedded in BAU fuel use projections and may be addressing non-carbon externalities and fiscal needs.

Box 2. Financial Sector Policies to Complement Mitigation and Adaptation

The financial system can play a key role in supporting price signals to redirect finance towards clean technologies, without losing sight of financial stability. It already has a crucial role in financial protection through insurance and other risk-sharing mechanisms to reduce the cost of disasters when they occur.

Most climate finance is likely to be intermediated through the financial system. Advanced economies pledged to mobilize US$100 billion a year from 2020 for mitigation and adaptation in developing economies. The needs for global finance are an order of magnitude higher, with estimated infrastructure needs about US$6 trillion per year to 2030. This would require both public and private finance.

28. Carbon pricing in large developing countries could catalyze, and efficiently allocate, private sector finance but is less urgent in low-income, low-emitting countries. Unlike under carbon pricing, top-down finance provides no automatic mechanism for ensuring that the most cost-effective projects are selected first. Also, high transaction costs may prevent funding for small- scale opportunities (e.g., adoption of energy efficient vehicles, appliances, or lighting). Although low-income, low-emitting countries contributed mitigation pledges for the Paris Agreement (Appendix I), their individual (and collective) contribution to global emissions is minimal and their capacity for enforcing carbon pricing may be weak (e.g., in some cases because it might promote informal use of charcoal and firewood). Developing capacity and financing adaptation strategies is generally the more important priority for these countries.

Nitric and Adipic Acid
The process used to produce nitric acid (commonly used as feedstock for fertilizers) and adipic acid (commonly used as a feedstock for synthetic fibers like nylon) generates nitrous oxides which account for 1 percent of projected BAU non-CO2 GHGs in 2030 (Appendix Figure 1). Abatement possibilities include, for example, thermal destruction and catalytic decomposition applied to the tail gas streams—emissions could be reduced by an estimated 79 percent in 2030 with a US$50 carbon equivalent price. Taxes on acid manufactures could be applied based on default emission rates with rebates provided to entities demonstrating emissions mitigation.

Read more: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2019/05/01/Fiscal-Policies-for-Paris-Climate-Strategies-from-Principle-to-Practice-46826

A global carbon floor price cartel so there is nowhere to escape (though developing countries are let off the hook, for now), taxing fertiliser manufacturers unless they fit expensive catalytic converters, demanding revenues be invested in economic “efficiency” (IMO code for greater government ownership of and intervention in the economy), and a demand that carbon taxes not be offset by reductions in other taxes.

My question, why is the USA still funding this organisation? 17% of IMF revenue comes from the USA, triple what any other country contributes.

Advertisements

77 thoughts on “IMF Demands a Global Carbon Pricing Cartel to Meet $6 Trillion / Year Climate Infrastructure Spend

    • Another important observation is the corruption of institutions. The green movement has been taken over by radicals, as described in 1994 by Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. That takeover by radical greens has now extended to universities, scientific associations, professional societies, media and governments.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/#comment-2690923

      This treatise is primarily about the homicidal nature of radical greens, who have killed tens of millions of innocents, especially children, through their deliberate actions. It is also about the overt and covert motives of these extremists: radical environmentalism is a false front for their far-left political objectives.

      The actions of radical greens are clearly anti-human and anti-environmental. They have already done enormous harm to humanity and the environment.

      Radical greens have perverted climate science as a means of stampeding the uneducated and the gullible. Every one of their scary predictions has failed to happen. They have perfectly negative scientific credibility. No rational person should believe them.

      The scientific reality is that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause increased plant and crop yields, and possibly some minor, beneficial global warming. There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather resulting from rising CO2 concentrations.

      Another important observation is the corruption of institutions. The green movement has been taken over by radicals, as described in 1994 by Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. That takeover by radical greens has now extended to universities, scientific associations, professional societies, media and governments.

      Whenever you see comments about global warming and climate change, you are listening to propaganda, not reality. The leaders of the radical greens generally know they are lying to you; their followers often believe the falsehoods, and do not have the education or the intellect to do otherwise.

      This global warming / climate change mania will eventually cease, but not before more tens of millions of people, mostly children, are killed and trillions of dollars of scarce global resources are squandered on a false crisis.

      Radical greens are the great killers of our age.

      Regards, Allan

      • A large percentage of them see mankind as a blight on the earth and would like to reduce the population to a third or less of the current number. So there is no wonder as to why they promote this insanity.

    • “Climate change is the great existential challenge of our times.” A consensus of 75 climate “scientists” (also known as 97%”) and the IMF (100%)?

  1. In addition to our percentage of the funding for the IMF, why are we also funding 22% of the Useless Nations?

    • The IMF was created to destroy independent countries by ‘giving’ them loans they can never ever pay back.

      Of course they first needed to corrupt the country’s political top but that’s the easy part if you have
      unlimited resources.

      And most politicians would sell their mother to climb the ladder. That’s why they all act like puppets because they are.

  2. Global Warming … its all about the Benjamins. Pallets and pallets of Benjamins. Stealing YOUR Benjamins and giving them to International bureaucrats who launder them as they see fit. Nothing more than Communist THEFT of wealth.

    • …and send it all to countries and people..that were too stupid to keep up

      somehow paying their way now….is supposed to make them smarter

      • Where the Benjamins are stolen by the Generalissimos and Presidents-for-life of all of those Peoples Democratic Republics, and sent to banks in places like Cyprus.

        That will fix the climate problem, won’t it?

        You just can’t be too rich, or too cynical. You can however, be too thin.

  3. So far, everything is going exactly to their plan! It has ALWAYS been about the money and the opportunity for governments to levy additional taxes on a population who have been brainwashed by the mainstream media into believing in this fabricated “existential crisis”! And, of course, those who are complicit in this grand fiction have their snouts in the trough just waiting to reap their rewards in terms of grants, government contracts, subsidies and all manner of dubious endeavours.

    Charlatan “scientists”, idiot celebrities, incompetent journalists, greedy financiers, opportunistic corporations, corrupt NGOs, alarmist environmentalists and tax-grabbing politicians all have their fingers in the pie and are determined to foist their ideology on the rest of us. Something needs to change…..and soon….or we will find ourselves in a serious mess that will be much worse than any recession or financial crash!

    • “Charlatan “scientists”, idiot celebrities, incompetent journalists, greedy financiers, opportunistic corporations, corrupt NGOs, alarmist environmentalists and tax-grabbing politicians all have their fingers in the pie and are determined to foist their ideology on the rest of us.”

      The list of shame! A formidable list that skeptics are up against. They have the upper hand when it comes to propaganda and “consensus”. Skeptics have the upper hand when it comes to the truth.

      Still, I don’t think the American people are going to buy into something like the Green New Deal. I think once the actual costs to the people in higher electric bills becomes obvious, and that’s starting to happen, the windmills and industrial solar parts of the GND will be rejected.

      We have several entitites, South Australia, California, the UK and Germany and other European nations who are going to give us a real-world demonstration of what happens when a nation depends too much on unreliable windmills and solar.

      There have also been several recent studies about how windmills and solar are going to increase the electric bills of those affected. Raising people’s electric bills is no different than raising their taxes, and I don’t think Americans want to pay more for electricity and will reject doing that as soon as they understand higher prices are the consequence of windmills and solar. Not to mention they are a blight the landscape with their ugliness, and a danger to living creatures, and should be rejected for that alone, when alternatives are available, such as nuclear.

  4. Comrades, we must comply! The central agency will take care of everything and us!

    • Just look at Venzuela don’t trust your government, less govt working for the people not the people working for the govt.

  5. What are the chances of the current US administration signing up for this? LOL Die hard Leftist states won’t even sign up for their own carbon tax. The New World Order must be financed by the West, after all, they’re the ones responsible for the need to redistribute the wealth.

    • If half of the US population voluntarily submits to these taxes, just think what a powerful signal that would be to the world!

      I strongly encourage leftists to lead the way.

  6. Has the IMF assessed the efficacy of reducing emissions on reducing atmospheric CO2? The tax will have no effect on the atmosphere even if it reduces emissions because our emissions do not cause a response large enough to detect in the growth of atmospheric CO2. (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ ).
    I have to believe these folks have heard about this and have chosen to ignore it in there search for control of the worlds economies. It is high time they were required to address this information that contradicts their assertion of necessary action leading them to chose a meaningless response path.

    • Yes, it would make sound rational sense at this stage for some entity or other to conduct a comprehensive, INDEPENDENT generation / engineering study (that would get widely published) to determine whether the current “beliefs” in the efficacy of wind & solar with battery storage will EVER be able to meet current or future power demands all around the world.
      Enough with “climate scientists” pontificating about “redemption through renewables”
      Maybe James Hansen could lead the charge to rationality in power generation with this call to “go nuclear NOW”

  7. Marxism is the great existential threat of our time. FIFY

    The Founders would be reloading by now.

  8. Hmmmm… they want SIX TRILLION a year….
    in Texas we say they can want in one hand
    sh*t in the other…
    Let’s see which hand fills up first.

  9. If Trump loses it will be because the economy turned, which means there will be a recession underway. This proposals will turn that into a depression.

  10. Who will call these fools to account?
    “A warming climate COULD also mean increased extinction risk for a large fraction of species, the spread of diseases, an undermining of food security, and reduced renewable surface water and groundwater resources.”
    We have already had 1 degree C of warming since the assumed utopia of pre-industrial times – so surely there must already be evidence of increased extinctions and diseases, less food and water, more catastrophes?
    Yet by my assessment the world seems to be doing just fine in supporting more healthier and wealthier humans.

    • “the world seems to be doing just fine….” Well sure. But they still think we have gobs of money laying around that should be distributed to the lesser nations.

  11. My question, why is the USA still funding this organisation? 17% of IMF revenue comes from the USA, triple what any other country contributes.

    Fast Facts:
    Headquarters: Washington, D.C.
    Staff: Approximately 2,700 from 150 countries
    Total quotas: SDR 477 billion (US$661 billion)
    Borrowed resources envelope: SDR 500 billion (US$693 billion)
    Committed amounts under current lending arrangements: SDR 152 billion (US$210 billion), of which SDR 96 billion (US$133 billion) has not been drawn.
    The IMF net administrative budget for FY2019, which covers all administrative expenses less receipts has been set at US $1,135 million ($1,135,000,000) or $1.14 billion
    https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/IMF-at-a-Glance

    Lots of that money “gushes” down to the DC Swamp Politicians,

  12. “with increasing and irreversible risks of collapsing ice sheets”

    Yeah, I lose so much sleep because a chunk of ice somewhere might melt.

  13. I think that they have gone too far this time, such incredible demands on mainly the Western countries tells us what their real aims are, to destroy the West’s economy, thus making it easier for them to “Save us” by offering us Communism mark two.

    MJE VK5ELL

  14. It’s nothing but socialist world government theft. That’s what the man made global warming scam has always been about from the very start.

    • Socialist governments worldwide have confiscated all their population’s money away impoverished their entrepreneurial class, and are thinking of creative ways to get other countries’ money.

  15. Getting Real [Stupid]on Meeting Paris Climate Change Commitments. There, fixed.

  16. I follow a lot of what the post modern neoMarxists are putting out there these days (mostly coming out of our universities).

    They speak freely about the benefits and the goals of and the necessity of centralized global governance (nothing new there) and of the reduction of the global population to 1 billion or less.

    When marxists start talking about “getting rid of” 7 billion souls, my ears perk right up. Are they planning to resume their periodic killing spree YET AGAIN some time after somehow establishing power??

    No! They say….those were the great mistakes of the past (in the past like Venezuela where hospitalized children are starving to death this week, I guess)… We know how to do socialism correctly now, they say. I guess that means that they’ll just ask 7 or 8 billion of us to just leave since they are all done with mass killings.

    I hate neoNazi’s, but they are relatively harmless whacko’s with no paths to power. But these neoMarxists are already well situated in positions of power…and they own the MSM and our Universities (at least the humanities/social sciences) and half of the Democratic Party.

    This “tribe” of fellow travelers will do anything to get into power. The power of the US Constitution is the biggest obstacle to their ultimate goals…and they don’t really even hide this anymore.

    The Climate Change hoax is their biggest “play” for power currently underway. They’ve already got all the 2nd and 3rd world countries lining up to “extract what is due to them” from the US for “CLIMATE REPARATIONS”. Come and get it, I say.

    • “The power of the US Constitution is the biggest obstacle to their ultimate goals…and they don’t really even hide this anymore.”

      On a positive note, President Trump has now appointed 100 new conservative Federal Judges to the various Federal Courts I think Obama had appointed about 20 Federal Judges at this same period in his first term..

      Many more conservative Federal Judges to come in the future.

      Another reason why the Democrats are so desperate to rid themselves of Trump.

  17. Once the costs/prices are driven up to the point of all economic activity stopping, then what?
    What happens when all money is worthless?
    What happens when gold and silver are worthless? (When there is no food to buy, all the gold, or any other type of wealth, in the world, won’t help you then.)

    • The ‘elite’ emerge from their bunkers in New Zealand to rule over a world piled high with our dead bodies.

      ‘Sustainability’ is just a codeword for ‘kill the 99%’.

  18. The past history of changes in the cost of oil and consumption demonstrates that consumption does not change significantly with increasing oil prices. Therefore the only way to alter this relationship is to cause oil to be so expensive that people and companies will not be able to afford using the same amount fossil fuel products. This will devastate those on the lower end of the economic scale. Ignorant people do not see this and are more likely to go along with the scam of the price of carbon being proposed.

    • Exactly. What you are describing is price inelasticity. Sine there is no alternative fuel that comes anywhere close to providing the benefit is gasoline for example you must tax the crap out of it to have any effect. And at that level of taxation the effect will be economic disaster. Which means you will get tossed out on you ass in upcoming elections micron and trudope.

      • Oops. It is demand inelasticity. Regardless of price you need to get to work and heat your house.

      • The argument fails if an amazingly efficient source of electricity is discovered as everything (just about) can be created and recycled with electricity.

        I am very optimistic. People are clever. Mankind’s future is glorious. We have to get past the silly stage, however.

  19. Sounds like the Paris Accords (US taxpayer pays most of the money so goofy little countries…can build airports for more tourists) by the back door.

    Somebody (Trump) GO CLOSE THE BACKDOOR.

  20. What are the IMF smoking exactly to come up with 4 degrees of temperature rise for the century when there is zero evidence on observation to support such a guess?

    Perhaps someone gave them a Make Your Own Acid chemistry set last Christmas and they finally figured out how to do it from the instruction booklet. Better living through chemistry, for some.

    • EXACTLY where is he evidence!! The IPCC has been a proven liar and yet there are Judges in Canada that believe in Global Warming, they are to look at the evidence NOT their belief’s….get rid of Trudeau and get rid of the CARBON TAX!!

  21. So why hasn’t President Trump exited the UN Climate Protocol? Hired the skeptic science team to the executive branch?

    It’s the usual Greenshirt pandering dating back to Nixon. This isn’t winning just being a speed bump to the entire Orwellian plan outlined here.

    Climate Change is a Deathstar.

  22. Meet $6 Trillion / Year Climate Infrastructure Spend
    =========
    My house needs painting because of climate change. I don’t see TrueGrope advancing me the funds anytime soon. So where exactly is the 6 trillion/year going exactly?

    I realize in the grand scheme of things it is only $1 thousand dollars per person, on a planet where 2 billion people make less in a year, but what after all does IMF stand for? Impossible Mission Fukup.

  23. Meet $6 Trillion / Year Climate Infrastructure Spend
    =========
    My house needs painting because of climate change. I don’t see TrueGrope advancing me the funds anytime soon. So where exactly is the 6 trillion/year going exactly?

    I realize in the grand scheme of things it is only $1 thousand dollars per person, on a planet where 2 billion people make less in a year, but what after all does IMF stand for? Impossible Mission Fukup.

  24. Europe May Use Trump’s Favorite Economic Weapon to Punish His Inaction on Climate Change

    The threat in French President Emmanuel Macron’s remarks last week was easy to miss. But if he follows through, its effects wouldn’t be.
    More than 40 minutes into a meandering press conference, Macron reiterated his goal to put fighting climate change at the center of his government’s policies as well as those of the European Union, calling for a “carbon tax on borders” for the bloc
    http://time.com/5582034/carbon-tariff-tax-fee-europe-macron/

  25. Extinction Rebellion climate change protesters want to destroy the UK’s financial sector
    The founder of Extinction Rebellion has ambitions to upend the UK’s financial system after her organisation targeted the City in two weeks of London protests.
    Gail Bradbrook wants to provoke a “mass refusal” to pay off loans and mortgages in a bid to throw London’s financial district into disarray following action that saw climate change activists deface Shell’s offices and glue themselves to the London Stock Exchange.
    “Economic growth tends to require the taking of resources from the Earth,” Bradbook told Reuters in an interview published today. “So something has to change on a debt-based economy.”
    “That would entail a mass refusal to pay off mortgages and student loans,” she added.
    Bradbrook said a so-called debt resistance movement could lead to countries looking at alternatives to the global economic system.
    “I want the system to change so I think you could call that a revolution,” she said.
    http://www.cityam.com/276986/extinction-rebellion-climate-change-protesters-want-destroy

    • If everyone in the world defaults, the Rothschild family owns the world, they pretty much own the central banks which ultimately hold all the loans in the world. Can’t or don’t pay them back, they get your stuff.

  26. Are those IMF guys chartered t write a “Mein Kampf” on steroids using automated text generation programs ?

    Each and every way they are highly dangerous generators of third global world war starting schemes. No need to wait for hostile civilizations from alien planets to destroy us. We have whatever it takes.

    Just envision what happens when UN troops enter Russia to plug their oil and gas until due taxes are paid for their metered exploitation. The earth will sure get much warmer until vitrified continents cool down.

  27. The rest of NATO should be able to fund pet projects like this by themselves from the gap in their defense spending vs. commitments.

  28. Future historians are going to back at these years as a dark time in Science, when engineers made tremendous advances, but scientists demonstrated an estimated average IQ of 85.

    They’re going to be quite puzzled as to how things could get so bad.

  29. “…global temperatures are projected to rise by 4 degrees C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century…”

    Incredible. They just make it up as they go along.
    Is it because they realise that because nobody bothers to read what they say anymore they can say anything they like, secure in the knowledge that it will not be challenged?

  30. “Nitric and Adipic Acid
    [..]Abatement possibilities include, for example, thermal destruction and catalytic decomposition applied to the tail gas streams—emissions could be reduced by an estimated 79 percent in 2030 with a US$50 carbon equivalent “

    lol
    The IMF, perhaps having realised that they are useless at economics, now fancy themselves as chemical engineers!

  31. What “How this is best done will differ across countries. In some cases it means investing in people and infrastructure, to attain the Sustainable Development Goals.” means to me:

    Part of this carbon revenue would be used to invest in economic infrastructure in developing countries for the following main reasons:
    1) Once these LDCs are developed, they would be prime places to move manufacturing to in order to leverage the cheap labor. Who would benefit? Rich people.
    2) Developed countries have lower fertility rates so its a form of population control.
    3) In order to monitor people in LDCs 24/7/365 who currently don’t have cell phones, it requires power and communications links.

  32. Bret , May 5.

    If we ever got as far as a potential collapse of the financial sector, expect the military to take over.

    It would truly be a National Emergency so legit for them to ruin the country until sanity was restored.

    Expect Camps for all the present suspects to be created and perhaps
    to be re-educated.

    If you think that’s too way out, bring up a BBC drama of many years
    ago called, “The Guardians”.

    MJE VK5ELL

  33. “My question, why is the USA still funding this organisation? 17% of IMF revenue comes from the USA, triple what any other country contributes.”

    Nailed it right there Eric!
    Excellent summation.

    It is rather absurd to believe that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has any basis or rationale for making political or scientific claims.
    Especially given the IMF’s history of bad financial management and failure.

  34. We’re going to need a lot more capitalism and a lot more CO2 emissions to pay for this.

    Require the use of electric airplanes for them to fly to all meetings.

  35. IMF Demands a Global Carbon Pricing Cartel to Meet $6 Trillion / Year Climate Infrastructure Spend:

    Getting Real on Meeting Paris Climate Change Commitments

    MAY 3, 2019
    By Christine Lagarde* and Vitor Gaspar

    The executive overview is a little vague about IMF intentions, but the report is very clear about what they think should be done with the money – funding the $100 billion / year climate pledge, kicking in additional money ($6 trillion / year) and governments using the carbon tax revenue to take a larger role in national economic activity (investing in economic “efficiency”).

    * ‘Jau dou hob’i schau g’nu, Christine

    https://youtu.be/gfedPGGaIfU

Comments are closed.