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

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick, here, read it. Start with the heading and the first sentence.

"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."

I have read the entire statement and there is nothing there about redistribution of wealth.

You read the entire sentence and still can't figure out why a climate report is talking about "Charges, Subsidies, and Taxes"

LOL

 

[Crick]

How many shots have you had to show us the text indicating the IPCC is recommending redistribution of wealth? Five? And Billy Boy and Paddie and all the rest. Yet... no text. What gives? Have you got it or not?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm convinced that a large portion, maybe even a majority of the "Climate research" money goes to pay people to post AGW talking point on Internet Boards

 

[Crick]

What was it? $70 billion? I must be stinking RICH! For that kind of money, the government could simply gather up all the deniers and put them up in huts on the beaches of the Maldives. Nice huts.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This shit is all bogus...........all we can do as skeptics is educate as many of the

This shit is all bogus...........all we can do as skeptics is educate as many of the low-information people as possible!!

The Green Agenda


These people are hard core socialists/communists...............anybody who doesn't realize it has a plate in their head.

The Conservative Agenda, see

Neo-Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and in our country, here,

Neo-Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

low-information people as possible!!

The Green Agenda


These people are hard core socialists/communists...............anybody who doesn't realize it has a plate in their head.

The Conservative Agenda, see

Neo-Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and in our country, here,

Neo-Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zzzzzzzzzzz


Naomi Klein~the man made climate change cult finnaly being honest | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[westwall]

This was your assertion. You have not supported it.

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

Of course I did.. In Post #42. Which you are NOW --- purposely ignoring because it makes your midget head explode.. Reasonable folks know that I backed up that statement. Or folks who can READ...

No, it doesn't make his head explode because he is in favor of the destruction of the economic systems of the world. It is pretty obvious that the people who ignore the evidence are totalitarians. They don't care about the science, they don't care about the environment, they don't care about people other than their ability to control them. These leaders are scum pure and simple and their followers are likewise.

 

[westwall]

What was it? $70 billion? I must be stinking RICH! For that kind of money, the government could simply gather up all the deniers and put them up in huts on the beaches of the Maldives. Nice huts.

Interesting you should mention the Maldives....did you know they just spent hundreds of millions of dollars for four brand new international airports to bring people TO the Maldives.

I would think that if they were going underwater in the time frame you all claim no one in their right mind would spend that sort of money. So either the rich people who paid for those airports are insane, or your claims are horseshit.

I know which way I'm leaning.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

The rules of the IPCC state that the PANEL has the right of review (editing) over ANY of the products. And the choice to reject participants. The fact that you DENY this process is driven by lofty UN motives is a huge form of denial when there are ADMISSIONS to this fact all over the place.

And it's not just the UN. This motive pervades almost every government that participates in the IPCC.. Look at the quote from the former Enviro minister of Canada in the Forbes paste above. Same theme of redesigning the economy of the world REGARDLESS of whether the science is valid or not..

The committees of each panel DO decide what research goes into their products. And if EdenHofer was just an ISOLATED commie nutcase --- he would NEVER be so bold as to declare "WE" and THE PROCESS..

Would be different if you acknowledged these quotes and DEFENDED THEM --- Or at least rationalize them for us. But by DENYING them -- you know what that make's ya -- don't you???

 

[Wyatt earp]

What was it? $70 billion? I must be stinking RICH! For that kind of money, the government could simply gather up all the deniers and put them up in huts on the beaches of the Maldives. Nice huts.

Interesting you should mention the Maldives....did you know they just spent hundreds of millions of dollars for four brand new international airports to bring people TO the Maldives.

I would think that if they were going underwater in the time frame you all claim no one in their right mind would spend that sort of money. So either the rich people who paid for those airports are insane, or your claims are horseshit.

I know which way I'm leaning.

Bwahahahaha


Maldives Opening Four New Underwater Airports



During the past year, they have been busy building four new airports.

• September saw the opening of the new airport at Kooddoo. The airport was developed by Bonvests Holdings Ltd, a leading property development company from Singapore. Bonvests Holdings owns the The Residence Maldives resort and they are currently developing another resort in Dhigurah island, both resorts are just few minutes from Kooddoo airport.
• In the same month, the new airport atMaamagili was completed. Villa Airport Maamigili is equipped with a full aerodrome comprising of a 1,800 meter long runway equipped with industry standard runway lighting system to facilitate landing and take-off in low visibility and at night.
• Construction finished at the new airport atDharavandhoo in April, and management was passed over to Island Aviation to sort out the finishing touches.
• At the start of the year, the airport atFuvahmulah began operations.

Of course, all the tourists flying in will want to stay somewhere, so the government there has has identified 14 virgin islands to be leased for resort development. The Minister for Tourism, Ahmed Adeeb,said the government is planning to build five new domestic airports and additional islands are to be leased near the airports. Airport development will be in Haa Alifu Atoll, Funadhoo in Shaviyani Atoll, Maafaru in Noonu Atoll, Kudahuvadhoo in Dhaalu Atoll and Fiyoree in Gaafu Alifu Atoll. Hanimaadhoo Airport in Haa Dhaalu Atoll will be further developed as an international

 

[flacaltenn]

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"

Probably should have highlighted this line as well Frank ----

These measures are desirable even in the absence of climate change; they become even more so when climate impacts are accounted for.

Pretty much an echo of the Edenhofer comments and the quote from the Canada Enviro minister..
These guys already had the script before the Science reports were generated..

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

We could only hope that someone is in charge. In the case of remaking the world's energy economies and redistributing "damages" from developed to undeveloped -- that's the M.O. of every UN committee and gathering..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

BTW ---- You are flat-ass WRONG about cross-editing in the WGroups. THEY DO -- have right of review on the "EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES" of each Report. And that's the ONLY PART that policymakers and the media largely read. Doesn't matter whether the CONTENT of the report disagrees with the summary ---- as usual in matters of Climate Science..

 

[flacaltenn]

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"?

No .. It's NOT taxes.. It is DIRECT CASH PAYMENTS from developed countries to those showing impacts from "Global Warming" .. In other words $BILLs in cash from the developed nations who HAVE an energy economy and are the "bad guys" to the folks who don't..

And similarly --- the UN is a master at economic imperialism to MAKE CERTAIN that the underdeveloped victims NEVER have an economy anything LIKE ours...

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You go and read the entire interview in NZZ.. I have... and I gave you the link.. Then tell us WHAT was "taken out of context"...

 

[flacaltenn]

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 take for the right to emit CO2. that money is given to third world countries..

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.

This ^^^ is the Robin Hood / Sheriff dichotomy in a nutshell.

Q. Is coal clean

Do you support the Clean Air Acts?

A bit of history, or you can be an ostrich and claim this is a bit of propaganda:

Understanding the Clean Air Act | Plain English Guide to The Clean Air Act | US EPA

Why is the repeal of the EPA a goal of conservatives and Republicans?

Pollution or Republicans have nothing to do with G. Warming..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Translation: It's the first time I've heard of this, didn't bother reading the interview, but am reflexively taking the side of the Warmers.

Nothing out of context, the author of AR4 and 5 flat out admits AGE is a scheme to redistribute wealth having little or nothing to do with science

 

[Crick]

You already posted this. Edenhofer is not talking about the goals of the IPCC but how governments are dealing with AGW. Ms Figueres is not stating what your article claims she is stating. You have found NO statement from the IPCC suggesting or recommending the redistribution of wealth. You FAIL.

 

[flacaltenn]

Crick, here, read it. Start with the heading and the first sentence.

"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."

I have read the entire statement and there is nothing there about redistribution of wealth.

Not really in that small excerpt. It's on the minds of all those beggars and whiners attending each and every climate conference tho.. THESE ARE THE DELEGATES.. THEY run the entire circus..

Doha: climate change talks end with compensation deal for poor nations that could cost billions

Britain faces paying billions of pounds in compensation to less developed countries as part of a new international deal on climate change.

The agreement, which was thrashed out in an extra day of talks at the United National climate change summit in Qatar, will mean rich nations having to compensate poorer ones for losses they suffer due to global warming.


Angry exchanges between delegations over the measure brought threats of walkouts and even tears from small island states, which pushed to have the new mechanism introduced despite fierce opposition from the United States.
Although it is not due to come into force for at least a year, the agreement could cost wealthy nations such as the UK billions of pounds.

A coalition of 43 small islands and low lying coastal countries, including the Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles, Cuba, Bahamas and Fiji, pushed for the measure, stating they faced an onslaught of drought, floods and famines, and so needed help to cope with the harm.

There were cheers around the Qatar National Convention Centre in Doha yesterday when the final text of the agreement setting out the plan to introduce the compensation measures was passed despite objections from Russia and the USA.

Happens every climate conference. Redistribution is the PRIMARY TOPIC.. And you are blind to it.. Because you're a huge DENIER...

If you can't see REDISTRIBUTION in the agenda now -- you're too much religious faith in the IPCC and way too little objective sense..

 

[flacaltenn]

You already posted this. Edenhofer is not talking about the goals of the IPCC but how governments are dealing with AGW. Ms Figueres is not stating what your article claims she is stating. You have found NO statement from the IPCC suggesting or recommending the redistribution of wealth. You FAIL.

The governments RUN THE climate conferences. The delegates represent their countries. THEY vote on resolutions to redistribute the wealth. Edenhofer is just being honest about what the process is really for..

And when HE tells you --- it's not about science and all about fair distribution. And you see the ACTIONS of the delegates to these conferences and STILL you deny the underlying motive -- You are a denier..

 

[Crick]

The IPCC is an organ of the UN and is governed by its charter, written at its inception. Governments get to select who they send and they get some right to review the assessment reports. They do not get to dictate the findings of ANY of the working groups. And, as far as I can see, none of the working groups is advocating the redistribution of wealth. How many chances do you folks need to find such a statement from them were that actually the case? Ten? Twenty? You've all failed because there is no such statement and there is no such statement because redistribution of wealth is not something the IPCC has ever advocated.