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

[flacaltenn]

NGOs that feed on UN funding help agitate and demonstrate for Global redistribution preedicated on Climate Change. They are an important part of the movement. Would be unseemly for the UN to be holding demonstrations for more $Bills to smaller nation members.. They let the NGOs do it -- and financially support their efforts. This is the "economic eco-system" behind the wealth transfer motives of the IPCC..

Africa: Time to Pay for Climate "Loss and Damage"

After the Fast Start: Climate finance in 2013 and beyond: An examination of developed countries' climate finance provisions

Oxfam Media Briefing
11 November 2013 Ref: 08/2013

Climate Finance in 2013 and beyond

Two key commitments helped to save the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen from disaster: 1) Developed countries agreed to provide 30 billion USD over the course of 20102012 as 'fast start' finance to help developing countries in the fight against climate change and, 2) they further committed to mobilise 100 billion USD a year by 2020.

The fast start period has come to an end. While perhaps successful in terms of spurring action on climate change in many countries, in most cases it failed to live up to the promise of being 'new and additional'. The focus has now turned to the long-term goal of ramping up climate finance to 100 billion USD a year by 2020.

With the 2020 deadline fast approaching, discussions both inside and outside the UN have increasingly started to focus on mobilising private finance to help meet the 100 billion goal USD. This overlooks the critical role of public finance both in supporting the adaptation needs of the world's most vulnerable communities, as well as in shifting private sector investment towards low- carbon and climate-resilient development.

At stake are the lives and livelihoods of poor and vulnerable communities on the front lines of the climate crisis, already grappling with the impacts of global warming around the world. They urgently need promised assistance to adapt essential livelihoods systems to a changing climate, especially food production. Developing countries also need promised support to put their economies on emissions pathways that allow the world to avoid warming of more than the 2 degrees C limit set in Copenhagen, let alone the 1.5ºC that is seen as the maximum warming acceptable to the most vulnerable populations and for small and low-lying island nations.

The 2013-2015 period is a litmus test for developed countries' commitment to scaling-up climate finance towards the 2020 goal. So far, most of them have failed this test. Last year's UN climate talks ended without clarity on the overall level of climate finance they intend to provide in the immediate future, just before Warsaw the situation has not changed.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

BULL SHIT BULLWINKLE.. Why all the delegate walkouts and protests about HANDOUTS and payment schedules?

WTF do you think those IPCC Climate Conferences are for??
Think the delegates from Tonga are giving papers on modeling methods??

and I DO need an answer to that question...

 

[Crick]

The claim here FCT is that THE IPCC is advocating or recommending the redistribution of wealth as a strategy to combat AGW. My response all along has been that the world's governments may certainly be redistributing wealth in their responses to AGW - financing the infrastructure modifications required of smaller, third world nations that can ill afford such massive changes - but that it is not being done at the behest of the IPCC. The IPCC has NOT MADE SUCH A RECOMMENDATION. Despite numerous claims that they have, no one has presented a statement of the IPCC doing so. The claim I am refuting is actually that this redistribution of wealth is ALL that the IPCC is interested in accomplishing; that their primary focus is economic and hopes to destroy the world's capitalist economies.

Sorry, but that's simply demonizing, paranoid nonsense.

 

[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.

BULL SHIT BULLWINKLE.. Why all the delegate walkouts and protests about HANDOUTS and payment schedules?

WTF do you think those IPCC Climate Conferences are for??
Think the delegates from Tonga are giving papers on modeling methods??

and I DO need an answer to that question...

What are the climate conferences for? Well, for one, they are NOT IPCC Climate Conferences. Here is the opening paragraph of Wikipedia's article on them:

The United Nations Climate Change Conferences are yearly conferences held in the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They serve as the formal meeting of the UNFCCC Parties (Conferences of the Parties) (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change, and beginning in the mid-1990s, to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.[1] From 2005 the Conferences have also served as the "Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol" (CMP);[2] also parties to the Convention that are not parties to the Protocol can participate in Protocol-related meetings as observers. From 2011 the meetings have also been used to negotiate the Paris Agreement as part of the Durban platform activities until its conclusion in 2015, which created a general path towards climate action.
****************************************************************************************************************************
Did you note that the term IPCC DID NOT APPEAR? Did you note that the conference are intended to "assess progress in dealing with climate change". Certainly they take input from the IPCC's assessment reports and intervening publications. But the conference is not intended to develop strategies or management changes or modifications to the IPCC's charter or anything else you're suggesting. And since no where in the IPCC's assessment reports does it advocate for the redistribution of wealth, that is not a recommendation they could take from them.

Search the article for "IPCC". It appears three times. All three are statements to the effect that the conference accepts the inputs of the IPCC's most recent assessment report. N O T H I N G E L S E.

 

[depotoo]

Or have a financial stake in the scheme.

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

 

[depotoo]

Those figures come to a transfer of $1.053 Trillion from the West to the 16 recipient countries listed.

 

[cnm]

Climate has hardly to do with environmental protection slightly, says economist Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economic summit in which it relates to the distribution of resources. Interview: Bernhard Pötter: "Climate policy distributes the world wealth newly"

Which is not what you say here.

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​

 

[cnm]

No, it doesn't make his head explode because he is in favor of the destruction of the economic systems of the world.

Which only goes to show your opposition, like Inhofe's, is to the expense of combating global warming, where those who have contributed the most CO₂ to the atmosphere bear a proportionate cost, not opposition to the existence of global warming.

But it is normal for US right wingers to duck their responsibilities.

 

[westwall]

No, it doesn't make his head explode because he is in favor of the destruction of the economic systems of the world.

Which only goes to show your opposition, like Inhofe's, is to the expense of combating global warming, where those who have contributed the most CO₂ to the atmosphere bear a proportionate cost, not opposition to the existence of global warming.

But it is normal for US right wingers to duck their responsibilities.

No, I am opposed to a global government. Mankind has proven he's not to be trusted running one small government so the thought that he is capable of running a global government (which is their goal) is ridiculous, and like all totalitarian regimes, will end in wholesale murder. You bleat about responsibilities but the facts are we have been good stewards of the environment as we have learned that it is important. Your totalitarian regimes on the other hand are festering shitholes.

 

[flacaltenn]

The claim here FCT is that THE IPCC is advocating or recommending the redistribution of wealth as a strategy to combat AGW. My response all along has been that the world's governments may certainly be redistributing wealth in their responses to AGW - financing the infrastructure modifications required of smaller, third world nations that can ill afford such massive changes - but that it is not being done at the behest of the IPCC. The IPCC has NOT MADE SUCH A RECOMMENDATION. Despite numerous claims that they have, no one has presented a statement of the IPCC doing so. The claim I am refuting is actually that this redistribution of wealth is ALL that the IPCC is interested in accomplishing; that their primary focus is economic and hopes to destroy the world's capitalist economies.

Sorry, but that's simply demonizing, paranoid nonsense.

Didn't answer my question Bullwinkle. I'll wait..

 

[Crick]

Don't hold your breath. I've demonstrated the validity of my answer. NONE of you have demonstrated the slightest shred of your charge. The problem, of course, is that you chose to attack the IPCC and accuse it of conspiratorial behavior and secret agendas because that, apparently, is how conservatives believe the world works. And when you choose a falsehood as the foundation of your plan, your plan fails.

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate has hardly to do with environmental protection slightly, says economist Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economic summit in which it relates to the distribution of resources. Interview: Bernhard Pötter: "Climate policy distributes the world wealth newly"

Which is not what you say here.

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​

What does that poor translation the title mean? Climate Policy distributes the world wealth newly.

Didya READ IT? Wasn't it very clear? If you don't think that title was appropriate --- what would YOU call it.
But as it stands, you are either blind or dishonest if you don't think those comments admit the neccessity of redistributing the world's wealth and changing the fundamentals of economics..

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't hold your breath. I've demonstrated the validity of my answer. NONE of you have demonstrated the slightest shred of your charge. The problem, of course, is that you chose to attack the IPCC and accuse it of conspiratorial behavior and secret agendas because that, apparently, is how conservatives believe the world works. And when you choose a falsehood as the foundation of your plan, your plan fails.

If you can't answer simple questions -- you're in no position to claim any form of debate victory here. Winners don't hide from soft-balls..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Don't hold your breath. I've demonstrated the validity of my answer. NONE of you have demonstrated the slightest shred of your charge. The problem, of course, is that you chose to attack the IPCC and accuse it of conspiratorial behavior and secret agendas because that, apparently, is how conservatives believe the world works. And when you choose a falsehood as the foundation of your plan, your plan fails.

Translation: 'I have my head up my ass and nobody is going to make me pull it out'

No cognitive thought ability... = Drone...

 

[flacaltenn]

In the meantime --- These folks are oft-quoted in IPCC WG reports.. Here's a sample of their work..

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1548.html

ABSTRACT ----
Many scientists and policymakers agree that large financial flows from richer to poorer countries will be necessary to reach an agreement on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions enough to keep global warming below 2 °C. But the required amounts of transfer payments and justifications for them remain contested. We contribute to this debate by developing an argument for transfer payments that derives from the differences between carbon prices that different countries may set in light of two distinct criteria for appropriate levels of emission reductions. If, for reasons of cost efficiency, a globally uniform carbon price was installed, transfer payments would be required to offset these differences. We combine global climate modelling with regional welfare analysis to estimate regional carbon prices under various climate change, emissions and economic scenarios. The estimated ratios between regional carbon prices are surprisingly robust to different modelling assumptions. To the extent that burden-sharing choices in global climate policy are motivated by regional carbon prices, our analysis allows for a quantification of required transfer payments. Assuming a global carbon price of US$35 per t CO2, for example, our estimates would justify transfer payments of the order of US$15–48 billion per year.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let me explain that paper above and how it fits in with remolding the world economic system.

Think economic imperialism. Dictating the level and type of development ALLOWED in the currently less developed nations. You cannot allow a country like India to pull a billion people out of the cold and the dark by following the consumerism and industrialization model that every DEVELOPED country has done. Besides -- once the carbon taxes are implemented -- it would virtually impossible TO BUILD a new modern industrialized, mobile economy with that burden. The INDUSTRIALIZED nations will have to shrink their economies just to sustain under that burden.

So --- you offer them up platitudes about sustainable development and exclusive use of renewable energy in every new IPCC economic group and mitigation group report. Knowing this will hobble their growth (a plus for every committed leftist dweeb on the planet) --- You now need to pay them for what they are missing out on..

Like paying farmers NOT to plant rice or cotton.Or paying folks MORE not to work than they would make working. EXCEPT on a much grander scale. THAT'S the business of "other" 2/3s of the IPCC.. Keeping the world from making the same damn "mistakes" that gave us such an envious standard of living. TRANSFER payments are us sitting in our fine homes and BMWs paying OTHERS --- to not do that. .

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dr Tim Ball has an excellent essay on this very subject;

There Is No Climate Change Disaster Except The One Governments Created

At the Paris Climate Conference of the Parties (COP21) we witnessed the biggest display of failed leadership in history from 195 countries. They established incorrect and misdirected policy based on failed and falsified science. It is a classic circular argument on a global scale. They invented the false problem of anthropogenic global warming/climate change and now they want to resolve the problem, but with a more disastrous solution.

Priceless explanation of the scam..

 

[flacaltenn]

In evidence of that (and especially for Bullwinkle) here is some of the 2/3 of the IPCC workproduct that he refuses to discuss that MOTIVATED Ottmar to make those bold admissions about the true goals of the IPCC...

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...ipcc_wg3_ar5_sod_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-...ipcc_wg3_ar5_sod_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

Climate policy choices involve many ethical considerations. What duties and responsibilities do
5 present generations have towards future generations, in view of the fact that present emissions
6 affect environmental conditions in the future, and consequently the quality of life of future
7 generations? How should the responsibility to reduce emissions be allocated among nations and
8 individuals within societies, so that fair outcomes are achieved – who should act and who should
9 bear the costs? Do those who may suffer disproportionally from the consequences of climate change
10 have a claim to compensation? While there are many ways to weigh these ethical choices, the
11 literature points to two important perspectives—the process through which decisions are made and
12 the outcomes of such processes—and many different methods for assessment

Climate policy could provide an entry point to achieve a broader set of non-climate objectives.
11 Long-term transformation scenario studies have typically focused on the goal of reducing GHG
12 emissions. However, mitigation choices may have an impact other societal objectives and non-
13 climate policies may affect mitigation efforts. Similarly, if stringent climate policies are in place,
14 synergistic relationships between societal objectives tend to be stronger and the added costs of any
15 supplementary policies to reach other objectives (energy security/air pollution) at stringent levels
16 can be significantly reduced (Figure SPM.9) – particularly in the near term. The extent of the
17 synergies will depend on the ambition level for the different objectives

The costs of mitigation vary substantially across countries and regions if effort sharing institutions
22 are not available. Mitigation costs will not be identical across countries. This is influenced by the
23 regional distribution of emission sources, the nature of international participation in mitigation,
24 allowance allocations, and transfer payments. In the idealized scenario setting, a universal carbon
25 price encourages mitigation where it is globally most efficient. A robust result of modelling studies is
26 that, in the absence of transfer payments, OECD costs would be lower than the global average, Latin
27 America would be on average around the global mean, and that other regions would face costs
28 higher than the global mean. If some countries delay their mitigation efforts while others take on an
29 expanded role in mitigation, then the former will take on lower mitigation and costs in the near-
30 term. However, total costs borne over the century can be higher because of faster reductions that
31 may be necessary for meeting long-term stabilization goals

Mitigation costs borne in a region can be separated from who pays those costs using burden-
2 sharing regimes. The choice of stabilization level and effort sharing principle are both of large
3 importance for the regional distribution of policy costs, in particular in the near term (high
4 confidence). Such schemes can be introduced explicitly via regional emissions allowances traded on
5 a global carbon market or through direct transfer of revenues from a global carbon tax. The regional
6 costs are sensitive to the given allocation scheme, especially for developing countries; and they are
7 highly dependent on the concentration stabilisation target. Different effort sharing principles can be
8 applied in the design of transfer schemes (

Climate finance reported under the UNFCCC accounts for less than 3% of current climate finance
2 and about 15-25% of the public international climate finance flows to developing countries
3 (medium evidence, medium agreement). Annex II countries reported an average of less than USD 10
4 billion per year from 2005-2010. From 2010- 2012, developed countries committed USD 28 billion
5 (2012 USD) in Fast Start Finance. [

Note the largest bolded part I emphasized above. Almost IDENTICAL to the Edenhofer admission that this isn't JUST about climate change. MAYBE even EdenHofer write that part of the Report summary.. That the goals of this movement are identical to the general UN global societal and economic goals that it has always driven it.

 

[Crick]

First, you've provided a link to an out-of-date draft of WG-III, SPM. The correct address is http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

Second: Neither "other societal objectives" nor "non-climate policies" translate to redistribution of wealth.

Surprise, surprise, the text you quote does not appear in the final version of WG-III SPM. The closest thing to it reads as follows:

Climate policy intersects with other societal goals creating the possibility of co-benefits or adverse sideeffects. These intersections, if well-managed, can strengthen the basis for undertaking climate action. Mitigation and adaptation can positively or negatively influence the achievement of other societal goals, such as those related to human health, food security, biodiversity, local environmental quality, energy access, livelihoods, and equitable sustainable development; and vice versa, policies toward other societal goals can influence the achievement of mitigation and adaptation objectives [4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.8]. These influences can be substantial, although sometimes difficult to quantify, especially in welfare terms [3.6.3]. This multi-objective perspective is important in part because it helps to identify areas where support for policies that advance multiple goals will be robust [1.2.1, 4.2, 4.8, 6.6.1].

Jesus, just give it up. You people are looking more foolish with every post.

 

[Wyatt earp]

First, you've provided a link to an out-of-date draft of WG-III, SPM. The correct address is http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

Second: Neither "other societal objectives" nor "non-climate policies" translate to redistribution of wealth.

Surprise, surprise, the text you quote does not appear in the final version of WG-III SPM. The closest thing to it reads as follows:

Climate policy intersects with other societal goals creating the possibility of co-benefits or adverse sideeffects. These intersections, if well-managed, can strengthen the basis for undertaking climate action. Mitigation and adaptation can positively or negatively influence the achievement of other societal goals, such as those related to human health, food security, biodiversity, local environmental quality, energy access, livelihoods, and equitable sustainable development; and vice versa, policies toward other societal goals can influence the achievement of mitigation and adaptation objectives [4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.8]. These influences can be substantial, although sometimes difficult to quantify, especially in welfare terms [3.6.3]. This multi-objective perspective is important in part because it helps to identify areas where support for policies that advance multiple goals will be robust [1.2.1, 4.2, 4.8, 6.6.1].

Jesus, just give it up. You people are looking more foolish with every post.

Isn't that what you said when you considered going to Crawford Texas a vacation?