Moderation "Best Of" -- Economic side of the IPCC...

[Crick]

IPCC Summary for Policymakers reports offer prescriptions for distribution of wealth and resource redistribution, including regionalized (smaller) economies to reduce transportation demand, reorienting lifestyles away from consumption, resource- sharing through co-ownership, and encouraging citizens to pursue free time over wealth.

You started this post saying you wanted to get back to Bill Nye but then never said a word about him save a few casually-slung insults.

Here, you finally leave the common mode of this particular argument: claiming that Edenhofer was talking about the IPCC when he was quite obviously talking about the governments of the world. Here, we are finally talking about what the IPCC has actually said and SOME of the actions it has recommended. Let's see: regionalized economies, moving away from consumerism, resource sharing and encouraging people to pursue free time over wealth.

I'm trying to see the wealth redistribution inherent in any of that and I'm failing. Why don't you put on your economist's hat and explain that to us?

 

[flacaltenn]

IPCC Summary for Policymakers reports offer prescriptions for distribution of wealth and resource redistribution, including regionalized (smaller) economies to reduce transportation demand, reorienting lifestyles away from consumption, resource- sharing through co-ownership, and encouraging citizens to pursue free time over wealth.

You started this post saying you wanted to get back to Bill Nye but then never said a word about him save a few casually-slung insults.

Here, you finally leave the common mode of this particular argument: claiming that Edenhofer was talking about the IPCC when he was quite obviously talking about the governments of the world. Here, we are finally talking about what the IPCC has actually said and SOME of the actions it has recommended. Let's see: regionalized economies, moving away from consumerism, resource sharing and encouraging people to pursue free time over wealth.

I'm trying to see the wealth redistribution inherent in any of that and I'm failing. Why don't you put on your economist's hat and explain that to us?

You worship the IPCC.. It seems to define you. You honor it and sing it's praises on your profile page -- by stating it as your "homepage"... But you hardly know their mission or the volume or scope of it's work. There are THREE working groups producing regular reports and I've never seen you care or quote ANYTHING from the other 2/3's of their work. The staff of these other working groups have the right of review on ANY of the products of the working groups and the content and players. The ECONOMIC and POLICY folks pretty much drive the show. And as the General Secretary stated -- and Edenhofer confirmed -- the entire process is driven by a larger design than to produce the "Reader's Digest Commie guide to Global Warming science"..

Sorry that you can't comprehend words exactly as they are said. I know it's hard to read religious blasphemy. But the fact that you can't --- puts you in the running as one of LARGEST deniers in this forum.

 

[Crick]

My quotes from WG 2 and 3 have been rare, though I recently put links up to both their AR5 reports for Frank when he started obsessing on Edenhofer again. I don't quote them because they aren't talking about the validity of AGW. The ONLY reason I post here is to refute those who claim AGW is invalid.

I'm certain they can all review each other's work but WG II and III do NOT have the right to edit the output of WG-I. They are NOT in control. Edenhofer did NOT select or hire climate scientists. That's now the second or third claim made here to such an arrangement without the slightest shred of evidence. What a fucking surprise.

 

[bripat9643]

only for you cnm Crick knows about this. And the Slothrop doesn't really care about any of this..

Actually I got a dozen UN IPCC officials quoting the stated goal of redistributing wealth -- totally changing the world economic modes -- yada yada yada. We'll start with these 2 HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS of the UN IPCC...

YIKES!!!! I'm only interested in the Science. But knowing that's what the leaders of UN Climate charge have in mind? HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW THIS???

AND -- it's not a fluke.. I back up what I say...

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres speaks during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 22, 2014. AP View Enlarged Image

It sure sucks to be proven wrong!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Find us such statement, that it is the IPCC's interest to redistribute wealth, in any IPCC assessment report. Try http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ or IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014

Crick has never read AR5

"17.5.4. Charges, Subsidies, and Taxes The environmental economics literature over the past 30 years has emphasized the importance of market-based instruments (MBIs) relative to command and control regulations. MBIs are shown to be generally more cost effective, providing stronger incentives for innovation and dynamic efficiency.Within the wide range of instruments that qualify as market based, there is a general preference in terms of overall efficiency for taxes over subsidies (Sterner, 2002; Barbier and Markandya, 2012). MBIs include charges on harmful emissions and wastes, subsidies to clean energy, subsidized loans, and others. Frequently Asked Questions FAQ 17.3 | In what ways can economic instruments facilitate adaptation to climate change in developed and developing countries? Economic instruments (EIs) are designed to make more efficient use of scarce resources and to ensure that risks are more effectively shared between agents in society. EIs can include taxes, subsidies, risk sharing, and risk transfer (including insurance), water pricing, intellectual property rights, or other tools that send a market signal that shapes behavior. In the context of adaptation, EIs are useful in a number of ways. First, they help establish an efficient use of the resources that will be affected by climate change: water pricing is an example. If water is already priced properly, there will be less overuse that has to be corrected through adaptation measures should supplies become more scarce. Second, EIs can function as flexible, low-cost tools to identify adaptation measures. Using the water supply example again, if climate change results in increasing water scarcity, EIs can easily identify adjustments in water rates needed to bring demand into balance with the new supply, which can be less costly than finding new ways to increase supply. Insurance is a common economic instrument that serves as a flexible, low-cost adaptation tool. Where risks are well defined, insurance markets can set prices and insurance availability to encourage choices and behaviors that can help reduce vulnerability, and also generate a pool of funds for post-disaster recovery. Insurance discounts for policy holders who undertake building modifications that reduce flood risk, for example, are one way that EIs can encourage adaptive behavior. Payments for environmental services (PES) schemes are another economic instrument that encourages adaptive behavior. This approach pays landholders or farmers for actions that preserve the services to public and environmental health provided by ecosystems on their property, including services that contribute to both climate change mitigation and adaptation. A PES approach is being used in Costa Rica to manage natural resources broadly, for example. Paying timber owners not to cut down forests that serve as carbon sinks (the idea behind the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) proposal to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)) or paying farmers not to cultivate land in order reduce erosion damage (as is being done in China and the USA) are examples. In developed countries, where markets function reasonably well, EIs can be directly deployed through market mechanisms. In developing countries (and also in some developed ones), however, this is not always the case and markets often need government action and support. For example, private insurance companies sometimes don’t cover all risks, or they set rates that are not affordable, and public intervention is required to make sure the insurance is available and affordable. Government also has an important role in ensuring that voluntary market instruments work effectively and fairly, through legal frameworks that define property rights involving scarce resources such as land and water in areas where such rights are not well established. An example of this is the conflict between regions over the use of rivers for water supply and hydropower, when those rivers flow from one jurisdiction to the next and ownership of the water is not clearly established by region-wide agreements. PES schemes can only function well when the public sector ensures that rights are defined and agreements honored. 966 Chapter 17 Economics of Adaptation 17 In many cases climate change exacerbates the effects of pricing resources below their social costs. This is true for some forms of energy (e.g., hydro- and fossil fuel-based) as well as many ecosystem services. If these resources were optimally priced, there would be greater incentives to investment in clean technologies and the need for additional public sector adaptation measures would be lessened (ESMAP, 2010). In addition to the instruments already identified, othersthat are potentially important include raising the price of energy through a tax (Sterner, 2011), developing markets for genetic resources (Markandya and Nunes, 2012), and strengthening property rights so schemes such as PES can be more effective. These measures are desirable even in the absence of climate change; they become even more so when climate impacts are accounted for. Yet it is important to note that though the case for such social cost pricing through the use of charges is strong, it also has its limitations. Higher prices for key commodities can hurt the poor and vulnerable and complementary measures may need to be taken to address such effects"

 

[Ravi]

This is new thread created from "off-topic" posts in an existing thread.
I contributed to the tangential discussion with a comment I made and it went off course.
This is a better place to discuss that tangent..

It's reassuring to know that truths about the environment depend on a likeable personality.

You gotta admit -- there's a pattern of assholic characters there tho... Al Gore, Henry Waxman, most of the Commies leading the charge at the UN --- and now this media whore....

The only "likeable" purveyor of GW doom that I know is Bernie Sanders.. And he has other issues...

Putin is in charge of the UN?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My quotes from WG 2 and 3 have been rare, though I recently put links up to both their AR5 reports for Frank when he started obsessing on Edenhofer again. I don't quote them because they aren't talking about the validity of AGW. The ONLY reason I post here is to refute those who claim AGW is invalid.

I'm certain they can all review each other's work but WG II and III do NOT have the right to edit the output of WG-I. They are NOT in control. Edenhofer did NOT select or hire climate scientists. That's now the second or third claim made here to such an arrangement without the slightest shred of evidence. What a fucking surprise.

Crick, any prediction on the climate in NY for January or do I just turn on the Weather Channel and listen to you squawk, "Manmade global climate warming change"? What are you calling it this week?

 

[Crick]

Find us such statement, that it is the IPCC's interest to redistribute wealth, in any IPCC assessment report. Try http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ or IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014

Crick has never read AR5

"17.5.4. Charges, Subsidies, and Taxes The environmental economics literature over the past 30 years has emphasized the importance of market-based instruments (MBIs) relative to command and control regulations. MBIs are shown to be generally more cost effective, providing stronger incentives for innovation and dynamic efficiency.Within the wide range of instruments that qualify as market based, there is a general preference in terms of overall efficiency for taxes over subsidies (Sterner, 2002; Barbier and Markandya, 2012). MBIs include charges on harmful emissions and wastes, subsidies to clean energy, subsidized loans, and others. Frequently Asked Questions FAQ 17.3 | In what ways can economic instruments facilitate adaptation to climate change in developed and developing countries? Economic instruments (EIs) are designed to make more efficient use of scarce resources and to ensure that risks are more effectively shared between agents in society. EIs can include taxes, subsidies, risk sharing, and risk transfer (including insurance), water pricing, intellectual property rights, or other tools that send a market signal that shapes behavior. In the context of adaptation, EIs are useful in a number of ways. First, they help establish an efficient use of the resources that will be affected by climate change: water pricing is an example. If water is already priced properly, there will be less overuse that has to be corrected through adaptation measures should supplies become more scarce. Second, EIs can function as flexible, low-cost tools to identify adaptation measures. Using the water supply example again, if climate change results in increasing water scarcity, EIs can easily identify adjustments in water rates needed to bring demand into balance with the new supply, which can be less costly than finding new ways to increase supply. Insurance is a common economic instrument that serves as a flexible, low-cost adaptation tool. Where risks are well defined, insurance markets can set prices and insurance availability to encourage choices and behaviors that can help reduce vulnerability, and also generate a pool of funds for post-disaster recovery. Insurance discounts for policy holders who undertake building modifications that reduce flood risk, for example, are one way that EIs can encourage adaptive behavior. Payments for environmental services (PES) schemes are another economic instrument that encourages adaptive behavior. This approach pays landholders or farmers for actions that preserve the services to public and environmental health provided by ecosystems on their property, including services that contribute to both climate change mitigation and adaptation. A PES approach is being used in Costa Rica to manage natural resources broadly, for example. Paying timber owners not to cut down forests that serve as carbon sinks (the idea behind the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) proposal to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)) or paying farmers not to cultivate land in order reduce erosion damage (as is being done in China and the USA) are examples. In developed countries, where markets function reasonably well, EIs can be directly deployed through market mechanisms. In developing countries (and also in some developed ones), however, this is not always the case and markets often need government action and support. For example, private insurance companies sometimes don’t cover all risks, or they set rates that are not affordable, and public intervention is required to make sure the insurance is available and affordable. Government also has an important role in ensuring that voluntary market instruments work effectively and fairly, through legal frameworks that define property rights involving scarce resources such as land and water in areas where such rights are not well established. An example of this is the conflict between regions over the use of rivers for water supply and hydropower, when those rivers flow from one jurisdiction to the next and ownership of the water is not clearly established by region-wide agreements. PES schemes can only function well when the public sector ensures that rights are defined and agreements honored. 966 Chapter 17 Economics of Adaptation 17 In many cases climate change exacerbates the effects of pricing resources below their social costs. This is true for some forms of energy (e.g., hydro- and fossil fuel-based) as well as many ecosystem services. If these resources were optimally priced, there would be greater incentives to investment in clean technologies and the need for additional public sector adaptation measures would be lessened (ESMAP, 2010). In addition to the instruments already identified, othersthat are potentially important include raising the price of energy through a tax (Sterner, 2011), developing markets for genetic resources (Markandya and Nunes, 2012), and strengthening property rights so schemes such as PES can be more effective. These measures are desirable even in the absence of climate change; they become even more so when climate impacts are accounted for. Yet it is important to note that though the case for such social cost pricing through the use of charges is strong, it also has its limitations. Higher prices for key commodities can hurt the poor and vulnerable and complementary measures may need to be taken to address such effects"

Frank, what you have quoted here, including what you've highlighted, does not advocate for the redistribution of wealth. Taxes move money from individuals to their governments, not from the rich to the poor. And the intent of a tax on energy is to reduce energy's consumption and thus its production, not to move money around.

 

[Crick]

My quotes from WG 2 and 3 have been rare, though I recently put links up to both their AR5 reports for Frank when he started obsessing on Edenhofer again. I don't quote them because they aren't talking about the validity of AGW. The ONLY reason I post here is to refute those who claim AGW is invalid.

I'm certain they can all review each other's work but WG II and III do NOT have the right to edit the output of WG-I. They are NOT in control. Edenhofer did NOT select or hire climate scientists. That's now the second or third claim made here to such an arrangement without the slightest shred of evidence. What a fucking surprise.

[
Crick, any prediction on the climate in NY for January or do I just turn on the Weather Channel and listen to you squawk, "Manmade global climate warming change"? What are you calling it this week?

Frank, as I've told you before I couldn't watch the Weather Channel even if I wanted to. No cable. As to the rest of your nonsense, do you know what the term "NON-SEQUITUR" means?

 

[Billy_Bob]

IPCC Summary for Policymakers reports offer prescriptions for distribution of wealth and resource redistribution, including regionalized (smaller) economies to reduce transportation demand, reorienting lifestyles away from consumption, resource- sharing through co-ownership, and encouraging citizens to pursue free time over wealth.

You started this post saying you wanted to get back to Bill Nye but then never said a word about him save a few casually-slung insults.

Here, you finally leave the common mode of this particular argument: claiming that Edenhofer was talking about the IPCC when he was quite obviously talking about the governments of the world. Here, we are finally talking about what the IPCC has actually said and SOME of the actions it has recommended. Let's see: regionalized economies, moving away from consumerism, resource sharing and encouraging people to pursue free time over wealth.

I'm trying to see the wealth redistribution inherent in any of that and I'm failing. Why don't you put on your economist's hat and explain that to us?

You worship the IPCC.. It seems to define you. You honor it and sing it's praises on your profile page -- by stating it as your "homepage"... But you hardly know their mission or the volume or scope of it's work. There are THREE working groups producing regular reports and I've never seen you care or quote ANYTHING from the other 2/3's of their work. The staff of these other working groups have the right of review on ANY of the products of the working groups and the content and players. The ECONOMIC and POLICY folks pretty much drive the show. And as the General Secretary stated -- and Edenhofer confirmed -- the entire process is driven by a larger design than to produce the "Reader's Digest Commie guide to Global Warming science"..

Sorry that you can't comprehend words exactly as they are said. I know it's hard to read religious blasphemy. But the fact that you can't --- puts you in the running as one of LARGEST deniers in this forum.

I believe you have just described the term "useful idiot" in its exact form. No real knowledge of the stated problem or the science being used to back up the false assertions.. No real knowledge of the organizations goal which are clearly stated in their organizational and recorded statements. Yet are willing to spew talking points and half truths to support the lies and deceptions.

These are the people who are not here to debate. They are hear to lie, belittle, discredit, etc anyone not toeing the political lie AGW line.

Bill Nye is just one more of these liar/hypocrites who is clueless. The term useful idiots applies 100%. Those who dont understand the real science and motives are easily duped if we do not stand up and show these people for what they are.

 

[Crick]

He has NOT described how the text to which he refers is suggesting the redistribution of wealth. Without that, he's got diddly squat.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Find us such statement, that it is the IPCC's interest to redistribute wealth, in any IPCC assessment report. Try http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ or IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014

Crick has never read AR5

"17.5.4. Charges, Subsidies, and Taxes The environmental economics literature over the past 30 years has emphasized the importance of market-based instruments (MBIs) relative to command and control regulations. MBIs are shown to be generally more cost effective, providing stronger incentives for innovation and dynamic efficiency.Within the wide range of instruments that qualify as market based, there is a general preference in terms of overall efficiency for taxes over subsidies (Sterner, 2002; Barbier and Markandya, 2012). MBIs include charges on harmful emissions and wastes, subsidies to clean energy, subsidized loans, and others. Frequently Asked Questions FAQ 17.3 | In what ways can economic instruments facilitate adaptation to climate change in developed and developing countries? Economic instruments (EIs) are designed to make more efficient use of scarce resources and to ensure that risks are more effectively shared between agents in society. EIs can include taxes, subsidies, risk sharing, and risk transfer (including insurance), water pricing, intellectual property rights, or other tools that send a market signal that shapes behavior. In the context of adaptation, EIs are useful in a number of ways. First, they help establish an efficient use of the resources that will be affected by climate change: water pricing is an example. If water is already priced properly, there will be less overuse that has to be corrected through adaptation measures should supplies become more scarce. Second, EIs can function as flexible, low-cost tools to identify adaptation measures. Using the water supply example again, if climate change results in increasing water scarcity, EIs can easily identify adjustments in water rates needed to bring demand into balance with the new supply, which can be less costly than finding new ways to increase supply. Insurance is a common economic instrument that serves as a flexible, low-cost adaptation tool. Where risks are well defined, insurance markets can set prices and insurance availability to encourage choices and behaviors that can help reduce vulnerability, and also generate a pool of funds for post-disaster recovery. Insurance discounts for policy holders who undertake building modifications that reduce flood risk, for example, are one way that EIs can encourage adaptive behavior. Payments for environmental services (PES) schemes are another economic instrument that encourages adaptive behavior. This approach pays landholders or farmers for actions that preserve the services to public and environmental health provided by ecosystems on their property, including services that contribute to both climate change mitigation and adaptation. A PES approach is being used in Costa Rica to manage natural resources broadly, for example. Paying timber owners not to cut down forests that serve as carbon sinks (the idea behind the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) proposal to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)) or paying farmers not to cultivate land in order reduce erosion damage (as is being done in China and the USA) are examples. In developed countries, where markets function reasonably well, EIs can be directly deployed through market mechanisms. In developing countries (and also in some developed ones), however, this is not always the case and markets often need government action and support. For example, private insurance companies sometimes don’t cover all risks, or they set rates that are not affordable, and public intervention is required to make sure the insurance is available and affordable. Government also has an important role in ensuring that voluntary market instruments work effectively and fairly, through legal frameworks that define property rights involving scarce resources such as land and water in areas where such rights are not well established. An example of this is the conflict between regions over the use of rivers for water supply and hydropower, when those rivers flow from one jurisdiction to the next and ownership of the water is not clearly established by region-wide agreements. PES schemes can only function well when the public sector ensures that rights are defined and agreements honored. 966 Chapter 17 Economics of Adaptation 17 In many cases climate change exacerbates the effects of pricing resources below their social costs. This is true for some forms of energy (e.g., hydro- and fossil fuel-based) as well as many ecosystem services. If these resources were optimally priced, there would be greater incentives to investment in clean technologies and the need for additional public sector adaptation measures would be lessened (ESMAP, 2010). In addition to the instruments already identified, othersthat are potentially important include raising the price of energy through a tax (Sterner, 2011), developing markets for genetic resources (Markandya and Nunes, 2012), and strengthening property rights so schemes such as PES can be more effective. These measures are desirable even in the absence of climate change; they become even more so when climate impacts are accounted for. Yet it is important to note that though the case for such social cost pricing through the use of charges is strong, it also has its limitations. Higher prices for key commodities can hurt the poor and vulnerable and complementary measures may need to be taken to address such effects"

One doesn't have to look very hard to find the facts about the real agenda. Even their organizational statement is bold enough to show the deception. they wont even consider natural variation becasue it does not further the goal.

 

[Crick]

I believe you have just described the term "useful idiot" in its exact form. No real knowledge of the stated problem or the science being used to back up the false assertions.. No real knowledge of the organizations goal which are clearly stated in their organizational and recorded statements. Yet are willing to spew talking points and half truths to support the lies and deceptions.

I believe, Billy Boy, that he's just described YOU.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He has NOT described how the text to which he refers is suggesting the redistribution of wealth. Without that, he's got diddly squat.

You cant even be honest for one second can you.. Useful idiot! All three of us have posted direct access to the statements and directives showing the deception. You insist that you never saw it or deny that they said it when it is so well documented. IS your UN-IPCC shrine right next to the Obama one?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I believe you have just described the term "useful idiot" in its exact form. No real knowledge of the stated problem or the science being used to back up the false assertions.. No real knowledge of the organizations goal which are clearly stated in their organizational and recorded statements. Yet are willing to spew talking points and half truths to support the lies and deceptions.

I believe, Billy Boy, that he's just described YOU.

Its kind of funny you snip this part off and then do exactly what it describes:

"These are the people who are not here to debate. They are hear to lie, belittle, discredit, etc anyone not toeing the political lie AGW line."

Thanks for proving my point with precise actions!

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's reassuring to know that truths about the environment depend on a likeable personality.

You gotta admit -- there's a pattern of assholic characters there tho... Al Gore, Henry Waxman, most of the Commies leading the charge at the UN --- and now this media whore....

The only "likeable" purveyor of GW doom that I know is Bernie Sanders.. And he has other issues...

Most of the 'commies' leading the charge at the UN. Well now, that is a revealing sentence. How about 'most of the Nazi's like you'? Has just as much validity. You just dropped an order of magnitude in my estimation of your intellect.

Actually those Commies in charge of the IPCC are just as honest as I am. They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH.. And you knew that. But choose to ignore it with any number of excuses I've heard from you and the faithful.. Like -- "Well they are not scientists".. Don't matter pal -- because in this case --- The commies hired the scientists and the science is the sideshow. The Main Event are those "beggar and whiner" meetings (like in Paris) where they all wants them some handouts..

If I turn Nazi anytime soon -- it will be obvious.. Because I'm proud of everything I support and stand for. You'll know before my immediate family does..

Explain to me the concept of "REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH"

I'm not asking for a Robin Hood / Sheriff of Nottingham explanation, but in the sense derided by the right for Obama's comment on doing things alone,

What is its antithesis, and wouldn't a solution come by a synthesis if an antithesis existed?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He has NOT described how the text to which he refers is suggesting the redistribution of wealth. Without that, he's got diddly squat.

Are you unfamiliar with the word "Taxes"?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's reassuring to know that truths about the environment depend on a likeable personality.

You gotta admit -- there's a pattern of assholic characters there tho... Al Gore, Henry Waxman, most of the Commies leading the charge at the UN --- and now this media whore....

The only "likeable" purveyor of GW doom that I know is Bernie Sanders.. And he has other issues...

Most of the 'commies' leading the charge at the UN. Well now, that is a revealing sentence. How about 'most of the Nazi's like you'? Has just as much validity. You just dropped an order of magnitude in my estimation of your intellect.

Actually those Commies in charge of the IPCC are just as honest as I am. They've TOLD YOU that their interest in this is not saving the planet from a couple degrees -- but to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH.. And you knew that. But choose to ignore it with any number of excuses I've heard from you and the faithful.. Like -- "Well they are not scientists".. Don't matter pal -- because in this case --- The commies hired the scientists and the science is the sideshow. The Main Event are those "beggar and whiner" meetings (like in Paris) where they all wants them some handouts..

If I turn Nazi anytime soon -- it will be obvious.. Because I'm proud of everything I support and stand for. You'll know before my immediate family does..

Explain to me the concept of "REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH"

I'm not asking for a Robin Hood / Sheriff of Nottingham explanation, but in the sense derided by the right for Obama's comment on doing things alone,

What is its antithesis, and wouldn't a solution come by a synthesis if an antithesis existed?

This one is easy!

Carbon credits are just one example.. Money is taken for the right to emit CO2. That money is given to third world countries.. COP21 is a perfect example of this...76 trillion demanded for third world countries from the US.. When it was apparent we weren't going to play they settled for 3.7 billion that Obama promised..

Or more pointed to the US.. The EPA regulations have increased the cost of coal fired plants to operate by 28% in the last three years while redistributing the monies collected to wind farms and other failed green agenda items. just lining up those democrap pockets. These have hit the poor and middle classes the hardest by increasing the cost of living all for your agenda and control mongers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Find us such statement, that it is the IPCC's interest to redistribute wealth, in any IPCC assessment report. Try http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ or IPCC WGIII Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change 2014

Crick has never read AR5

"17.5.4. Charges, Subsidies, and Taxes The environmental economics literature over the past 30 years has emphasized the importance of market-based instruments (MBIs) relative to command and control regulations. MBIs are shown to be generally more cost effective, providing stronger incentives for innovation and dynamic efficiency.Within the wide range of instruments that qualify as market based, there is a general preference in terms of overall efficiency for taxes over subsidies (Sterner, 2002; Barbier and Markandya, 2012). MBIs include charges on harmful emissions and wastes, subsidies to clean energy, subsidized loans, and others. Frequently Asked Questions FAQ 17.3 | In what ways can economic instruments facilitate adaptation to climate change in developed and developing countries? Economic instruments (EIs) are designed to make more efficient use of scarce resources and to ensure that risks are more effectively shared between agents in society. EIs can include taxes, subsidies, risk sharing, and risk transfer (including insurance), water pricing, intellectual property rights, or other tools that send a market signal that shapes behavior. In the context of adaptation, EIs are useful in a number of ways. First, they help establish an efficient use of the resources that will be affected by climate change: water pricing is an example. If water is already priced properly, there will be less overuse that has to be corrected through adaptation measures should supplies become more scarce. Second, EIs can function as flexible, low-cost tools to identify adaptation measures. Using the water supply example again, if climate change results in increasing water scarcity, EIs can easily identify adjustments in water rates needed to bring demand into balance with the new supply, which can be less costly than finding new ways to increase supply. Insurance is a common economic instrument that serves as a flexible, low-cost adaptation tool. Where risks are well defined, insurance markets can set prices and insurance availability to encourage choices and behaviors that can help reduce vulnerability, and also generate a pool of funds for post-disaster recovery. Insurance discounts for policy holders who undertake building modifications that reduce flood risk, for example, are one way that EIs can encourage adaptive behavior. Payments for environmental services (PES) schemes are another economic instrument that encourages adaptive behavior. This approach pays landholders or farmers for actions that preserve the services to public and environmental health provided by ecosystems on their property, including services that contribute to both climate change mitigation and adaptation. A PES approach is being used in Costa Rica to manage natural resources broadly, for example. Paying timber owners not to cut down forests that serve as carbon sinks (the idea behind the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) proposal to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)) or paying farmers not to cultivate land in order reduce erosion damage (as is being done in China and the USA) are examples. In developed countries, where markets function reasonably well, EIs can be directly deployed through market mechanisms. In developing countries (and also in some developed ones), however, this is not always the case and markets often need government action and support. For example, private insurance companies sometimes don’t cover all risks, or they set rates that are not affordable, and public intervention is required to make sure the insurance is available and affordable. Government also has an important role in ensuring that voluntary market instruments work effectively and fairly, through legal frameworks that define property rights involving scarce resources such as land and water in areas where such rights are not well established. An example of this is the conflict between regions over the use of rivers for water supply and hydropower, when those rivers flow from one jurisdiction to the next and ownership of the water is not clearly established by region-wide agreements. PES schemes can only function well when the public sector ensures that rights are defined and agreements honored. 966 Chapter 17 Economics of Adaptation 17 In many cases climate change exacerbates the effects of pricing resources below their social costs. This is true for some forms of energy (e.g., hydro- and fossil fuel-based) as well as many ecosystem services. If these resources were optimally priced, there would be greater incentives to investment in clean technologies and the need for additional public sector adaptation measures would be lessened (ESMAP, 2010). In addition to the instruments already identified, othersthat are potentially important include raising the price of energy through a tax (Sterner, 2011), developing markets for genetic resources (Markandya and Nunes, 2012), and strengthening property rights so schemes such as PES can be more effective. These measures are desirable even in the absence of climate change; they become even more so when climate impacts are accounted for. Yet it is important to note that though the case for such social cost pricing through the use of charges is strong, it also has its limitations. Higher prices for key commodities can hurt the poor and vulnerable and complementary measures may need to be taken to address such effects"

Frank, what you have quoted here, including what you've highlighted, does not advocate for the redistribution of wealth. Taxes move money from individuals to their governments, not from the rich to the poor. And the intent of a tax on energy is to reduce energy's consumption and thus its production, not to move money around.

Had you read AR5 you'd know that they want to reward the poor by taxing and regulating the rich.

Try reading what you link to, even one time

 

[Wry Catcher]

only for you cnm Crick knows about this. And the Slothrop doesn't really care about any of this..

Actually I got a dozen UN IPCC officials quoting the stated goal of redistributing wealth -- totally changing the world economic modes -- yada yada yada. We'll start with these 2 HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS of the UN IPCC...

YIKES!!!! I'm only interested in the Science. But knowing that's what the leaders of UN Climate charge have in mind? HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW THIS???

AND -- it's not a fluke.. I back up what I say...

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres speaks during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 22, 2014. AP View Enlarged Image

These opinions are just that. Opinions expressed which may or may not reveal the context in which they were made.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time", but some of us see the world through a panoptic lens and others are blinded by myopia.