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

[TyroneSlothrop]

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

There Is No Climate Change Disaster Except The One Governments Created
.

That would be this Dr Tim Ball a Geography professor...LOL this is an example of "unbiased REAL science" LOL
Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)
Tim Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community.

He has been Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “scientific advisor” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), and is associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) as well as numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.

TheNRSP's list of “scientific advisors” includes Tim Patterson,Tad Murty and Sallie Baliunas, all of which are also listed as advisors to the FOS.

DeSmog uncovered that two of the three directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project were at one time senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Sure, Crick. Sure

 

[depotoo]

If anyone really cares to see the truth of the financial end of this go to pdf page 186 of this report
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/219038.pdf

we are being taken to the cleaners, and most all thru "clean energy investments". Many pockets are being lined.

This is another interesting piece of the puzzle as well-
OPIC : Overseas Private Investment Corporation

In addition, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) has adjusted its policies to shift its international investments into climate-friendly activities. As the U.S. government’s development finance institution, OPIC mobilizes private capital toward development challenges, and in doing so contributes to U.S. development and foreign policy objectives. OPIC has pledged to reduce GHG emissions associated with its investments by 30 percent by 2018 and by 50 percent by 2023, and to promote clean energy and energy efficiency investments. OPIC has dramatically expanded its commitments to renewable resources, up 30-fold since 2007. OPIC has also introduced new tools for developing-country investors, such as direct financing for energy efficiency improvements; insurance against regulatory changes, such as cuts in renewable energy feed-in tariffs; and protection against government interference in the use of carbon credits. The United States remains committed to supporting multilateral climate change and environment funds, including the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The United States has pledged $2 billion to the CIFs, and to date has contributed ...

Also check out the GCF- Green climate fund.

This is a ludicrous scheme in more ways than one. Redistribution, lining pockets thru redistribution, etc., all in the name of saving the earth, when it will do nothing but fill many pockets.

 

[Crick]

Yo, guess what? No such thing as a free lunch.
What, specifically, do you find wrong with the polices lain out in those documents? If you're opposed to spending anything to reduce GHG emissions, then it's no surprise you disagree. But, if one assumes that reducing GHG emissions to be beneficial - to have value - then what is wrong with what you find at your links?

 

[depotoo]

As I assume you are well aware, most is a scheme for private investors to make boatloads of money- not to actually make any dent in climate change. All under the guise of saving the planet.
Climate change has been happening since the beginning of time. We can't stop it. And rather than policies to mitigate the changes, they throw around this false narrative that make big investments and we can stop it. It is totally outrageous, and ludicrous.
What is your investment stake in this scheme, Crick? Never mind. I know you well enough to know you wouldn't be honest about it.

Yo, guess what? No such thing as a free lunch.
What, specifically, do you find wrong with the polices lain out in those documents? If you're opposed to spending anything to reduce GHG emissions, then it's no surprise you disagree. But, if one assumes that reducing GHG emissions to be beneficial - to have value - then what is wrong with what you find at your links?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yo, guess what? No such thing as a free lunch.
What, specifically, do you find wrong with the polices lain out in those documents? If you're opposed to spending anything to reduce GHG emissions, then it's no surprise you disagree. But, if one assumes that reducing GHG emissions to be beneficial - to have value - then what is wrong with what you find at your links?

So it is about redistributing wealth afterall

 

[Crick]

Paying expenses is not the redistribution of wealth numb nuts.

 

[jc456]

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.

how does one respond to such a post and not violate zone 2 rules? This one is hard. When someone has no idea what tax money is or where it comes from and who receives handouts. This one is a hard one. Wealth is moved and reallocated and ole crick can't comprehend.

 

[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.

how does one respond to such a post and not violate zone 2 rules? This one is hard. When someone has no idea what tax money is or where it comes from and who receives handouts. This one is a hard one. Wealth is moved and reallocated and ole crick can't comprehend.

You know the AGW Cult pays people to post their talking points on the Internet

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Paying expenses is not the redistribution of wealth numb nuts.

Do you believe that or did someone pay you to post that?

 

[jc456]

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.

huh? What is opinion?

 

[Crick]

It's a fact, numb nuts.

 

[depotoo]

Wrong, in so many ways. Tell us what those expenses actually are for. Then you might see the light. Or you won't because, as I suspect you already know.

It's a fact, numb nuts.

 

[Crick]

Reducing GHG emissions and dealing with the effects of global warming. They are no more a redistribution of wealth than is Medicare. The recipients are not made wealthy; they are given a better chance to survive.

 

[jc456]

Reducing GHG emissions and dealing with the effects of global warming. They are no more a redistribution of wealth than is Medicare. The recipients are not made wealthy; they are given a better chance to survive.

because why? They can't afford insurance correct? Who pays for it then? They receive treatments correct and they don't pay correct? So who pays the insurance payments? Please I'm curious to who you feel pays for services.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reducing GHG emissions and dealing with the effects of global warming. They are no more a redistribution of wealth than is Medicare. The recipients are not made wealthy; they are given a better chance to survive.

LOL!!! What a clown!

Seriously, is that your personal belief or is this your day job or both?

 

[Crick]

Frank, you have to eat. To do so you have to buy food. When you do that, your wealth is transferred to the grocery store owners. Do you consider that a redistribution of wealth?

And, more importantly, is that transfer of money the purpose of your life?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you have to eat. To do so you have to buy food. When you do that, your wealth is transferred to the grocery store owners. Do you consider that a redistribution of wealth?

And, more importantly, is that transfer of money the purpose of your life?

Crick you're really not too bright. You just willingly accept your marching orders and come and post these "thoughts" here. Best thing for you is your don't have to read any of the Cult literature.

It's a particular redistribution of wealth because it's bleeding it from the US economy to pay off third world shitholes that signed up at Paris for their slice of our pie

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick thinks that government mandated redistribution is the same as free choice.

Progs are truly a weird subspecies

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

What the hell happened here? Was the topic too uncomfortable?
How was there 15 illegal waaaay off topic posts on guns in a thread about the economic side of the IPCC??
And side discussions about Obama and the military?


Lemme explain Zone2 rules one more time.. EVERY POST has to contain content relevant to the topic. Derailments that appear intentional are also illegal. Responding to off-topic posts with more off-topic, no content posts are illegal. Starting to get it? When the urge hits you -- go to the Taunting area or find an appropriate thread.

Now up to 28 posts to delete.