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

[flacaltenn]

First, you've provided a link to an out-of-date draft of WG-III, SPM.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.

Post #95 -- A paper CITED in the IPCC economic report and authors that were REPEATEDLY selected to bolster the aims and views of the Mitigation WG and the Economic WG STATING that major distribution is necessary. You never commented about their choice of "economic science" that they cite in those working groups. You don't know SHIT about those working groups.. In FACT --- we haven't gotten past fighting over the SUMMARY of one AR whether in Draft or Final version.


It's the ACTIONS of the CONFERENCES that matter. And as I posted in that synopsis from Oxfam -- the only thing SAVING those latest IPCC conferences from being irrelevant was catering to the beggars and whiners lined up with their hands out..

The entire economic formula of the other "non climate science" 2/3 of the IPCC is to PAY OFF the less developed countries NOT TO DEVELOP... It is NOT like giving your money to a grocery store.

 

[flacaltenn]

Paying expenses is not the redistribution of wealth numb nuts.

It most certainly is if the developed nations are paying the undeveloped nations not to develop along the same consumeristic, capitalistic lines that got us here. OR if we are being pestered and bullied to relocate islanders who give a sad story of sinking atolls, or other real or perceived damages.. That's why the walk-outs. They were not walking out because they didn't like the WG reports. It's all about the cash.. And the redistribution and social justice and sustainability. The latter being a fluid term that can apply to anyone's particular list of visions for societal development...

 

[flacaltenn]

I didn't want to have to do it.. But SOMEBODY needed to scan/read the WG3 latest report to see if all this wealth transfer actually appears there. Perhaps the most boring reading since my last read of a UL specification..

BUT -- it's all there really. The equity sharing, the remaking of economies. the transfer payments from rich to poor.

file:///C:/Users/hp4/Downloads/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf

13.11 Investment and finance
Since AR4, international cooperation on climate policy has increasingly
focused on mobilizing public and private investment and
finance for mitigation and adaptation activities. Such cooperation
has included the setup of market mechanisms to generate
private investment as well as public transfers through dedicated
institutions (Michaelowa, 2012b). The Copenhagen Accord of 2009
included a provision to jointly mobilize 100 billion USD per year by
2020 to address the needs of developing countries, in the context of
meaningful mitigation actions and transparency of implementation
(UNFCCC, 2009a). In order to reach this goal, the High-level Advisory
Group on Climate Change Financing (AGF) (AGF, 2010) identified four
potential sources of finance: public sources (funds mobilized under
the UNFCCC), development bank instruments, carbon market finance,
and private capital.
In the follow-up to the Copenhagen conference, the term ‘climate
finance’ has been coined for financial flows to developing countries,
but there exists no internationally agreed definition (Buchner et al.,
2011). Stadelmann et al. (2011b) provide a discussion of what could
be counted and how the baseline for international climate finance
could be set to provide ‘new and additional’ funds. See Section 16.2.2
for a description of the potential financing need and Section 16.5 for
a description of possible public funding sources.

13.11.1.1 Public funding vehicles under the UNFCCC
The largest share of UNFCCC-organized climate finance goes to mitigation:
Abadie et al. (2013) provide reasons for this, such as the differences
between mitigation and adaptation regarding public good
characteristics and the lack of information regarding context-specific
climate impacts. The UNFCCC mobilizes financial flows to developing
countries and countries in transition through four primary vehicles: (1)
the GEF, which focuses on mitigation (GEF, 2011); (2) the LDCF and
SCCF, which focus on adaptation; (3) the Adaptation Fund, which also
focuses on adaptation; and (4) the GCF, which will focus on both mitigation
and adaptation when it becomes operational. The GEF is the
secretariat for all funds other than the GCF. This section reviews the
literature on these four mechanisms (see also Section 16.5; UNFCCC,
2012a).

The Adaptation Fund is financed through a 2% in-kind levy on emissions
credits generated by CDM projects, though parties to the Kyoto
Protocol have contributed additional funding (Liverman and Billett,
2010; Horstmann, 2011; Ratajczak-Juszko, 2012). All other UNFCCC
funding vehicles are based on voluntary government contributions
that can be counted as official development assistance.


The Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC has decision-making
power regarding the representation of country groups on the governing
boards of the UNFCCC’s funding vehicles, voting rules, the choice of
secretariat and the choice of trustee (e.g., who oversees the finances
and ensures funds go where they are supposed to go). Due to its complex
structure, the GEF faces challenges coordinating with UNFCCC
decisions (COWI and IIED, 2009; Ayers and Huq, 2009). Recipient countries
have a majority on the board of the Adaptation Fund, while the
decision-making bodies for the other UNFCCC financing institutions
have equal representation for developing and industrialized countries.
The Adaptation Fund has allowed the possibility of ‘direct access’ by
host country institutions, which has been used sparingly to date (Ratajczak-Juszko,
2012). The GEF is also starting to experiment with this
approach (GEF, 2011).

The papers quoted to "justify" all this social justice reads like a leftist manifesto. Mostly a lot of "from each according to their ability -- to each according their needs" kinda thing. Along with the threat of establishing a UNFCCC institution for enhancing the ability of lesser developed countries to more efficiently legally sue for direct damage payments..

Wasn't it nice of them to put a majority of Recipient countries on the board of the Adaptation Fund?? The fund that deals with those payments for NOT developing in the same way that we did or that China is doing??

It's everything the IPCC Secretary said it was in her statement about ambitiously remaking the world economy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Truly weird shit passing for climate science and economic policy going on in WG3.. The section on "Ethics" is truly amazing stuff --- including..

An argument for recognizing value in plants as well as animals was proposed by Richard Routley (1973). Routley gives the name ‘human chauvinism’ to the view that humans are the sole possessors of intrinsic value. He asks us to imagine that the last man on earth sets out to destroy every living thing, animal or plant. Most people believe this would be wrong, but human chauvinists are unable to explain why. Human chauvinism appears to be simply a prejudice in favour of the human species (Routley and Routley, 1980). In contrast, some philosophers argue that value exists in the lives of all organisms, to the extent that they have the capacity to flourish (Taylor, 1986; Agar, 2001). Going further, other philosophers have argued that biological communities and holistic ecological entities also have value in their own right. Some have argued that a species has more value than all of its individuals have together, and that an ecosystem has still more value (Rolston, 1988, 1999; compare discussion in Brennan and Lo, 2010). It has further been proposed that, just as domination of one human group by another is a moral evil, showing disrespect for the value of others, then so is the domination of nature by humans in general. If nature and its systems have moral worth, then the domination of nature is also a kind of disrespect (Jamieson, 2010).

Kinda a biblical -- sort of religious nature about it. And we thought the IPCC was just about the temperature of the Earth..

No wonder CrickHam is so invested in the IPCC -- It's a one stop shop for cult science, moral purpose and global extortion..

 

[flacaltenn]

Truly scary stuff that passes as Climate policy.. But then again -- it's from the UN..

 

[Crick]

Six FCT posts in a row. What's wrong? Were you talking with JC before he got 'disappeared'?

Truly weird shit passing for climate science and economic policy going on in WG3.. The section on "Ethics" is truly amazing stuff --- including..

An argument for recognizing value in plants as well as animals was proposed by Richard Routley (1973). Routley gives the name ‘human chauvinism’ to the view that humans are the sole possessors of intrinsic value. He asks us to imagine that the last man on earth sets out to destroy every living thing, animal or plant. Most people believe this would be wrong, but human chauvinists are unable to explain why. Human chauvinism appears to be simply a prejudice in favour of the human species (Routley and Routley, 1980). In contrast, some philosophers argue that value exists in the lives of all organisms, to the extent that they have the capacity to flourish (Taylor, 1986; Agar, 2001). Going further, other philosophers have argued that biological communities and holistic ecological entities also have value in their own right. Some have argued that a species has more value than all of its individuals have together, and that an ecosystem has still more value (Rolston, 1988, 1999; compare discussion in Brennan and Lo, 2010). It has further been proposed that, just as domination of one human group by another is a moral evil, showing disrespect for the value of others, then so is the domination of nature by humans in general. If nature and its systems have moral worth, then the domination of nature is also a kind of disrespect (Jamieson, 2010).

Kinda a biblical -- sort of religious nature about it. And we thought the IPCC was just about the temperature of the Earth..

No wonder CrickHam is so invested in the IPCC -- It's a one stop shop for cult science, moral purpose and global extortion..

So... you can't handle discussions of philosophy? Or do you find your own views getting impaled there?

 

[SSDD]

So... you can't handle discussions of philosophy? Or do you find your own views getting impaled there?

Let me guess...you believe that is actually a defensible philosophy? The claim of human chauvinism is an unsuccessful attempt to separate anthropocentrists from nonanthropocentrists. It fails at its most basic level. For example, both anthropocentrists and nonanthropocentrists could equally and truthfully answer true to the following statements...

• Being in a forest can give one a sense of peace and well being
• Forests uplift the human spirit
• Forests make us feel closer to nature.
• I need to spend time in nature to foster my happiness.

Take two people, one who values forests instrumentally and one who values forests intrinsically and ask them to answer true or false to the above statements...both could honestly answer true to any or all of them. You could ask the same sort of questions regarding wildlife...

• Wildlife has intrinsic value above and beyond their profitability to human beings.

Both the person who values animals instrumentally and the one who values forests intrinsically could reasonable and truthfully answer true to that statement.

A philosophy that attempts to separate two groups but can not effectively do so by distinguishing the fundamental truths held by each group is simply not defensible. It is in fact, little more than sentimental drivel dished out in a futile attempt to make one group "feel" morally superior to the other group.

 

[flacaltenn]

Six FCT posts in a row. What's wrong? Were you talking with JC before he got 'disappeared'?

Truly weird shit passing for climate science and economic policy going on in WG3.. The section on "Ethics" is truly amazing stuff --- including..

An argument for recognizing value in plants as well as animals was proposed by Richard Routley (1973). Routley gives the name ‘human chauvinism’ to the view that humans are the sole possessors of intrinsic value. He asks us to imagine that the last man on earth sets out to destroy every living thing, animal or plant. Most people believe this would be wrong, but human chauvinists are unable to explain why. Human chauvinism appears to be simply a prejudice in favour of the human species (Routley and Routley, 1980). In contrast, some philosophers argue that value exists in the lives of all organisms, to the extent that they have the capacity to flourish (Taylor, 1986; Agar, 2001). Going further, other philosophers have argued that biological communities and holistic ecological entities also have value in their own right. Some have argued that a species has more value than all of its individuals have together, and that an ecosystem has still more value (Rolston, 1988, 1999; compare discussion in Brennan and Lo, 2010). It has further been proposed that, just as domination of one human group by another is a moral evil, showing disrespect for the value of others, then so is the domination of nature by humans in general. If nature and its systems have moral worth, then the domination of nature is also a kind of disrespect (Jamieson, 2010).

Kinda a biblical -- sort of religious nature about it. And we thought the IPCC was just about the temperature of the Earth..

No wonder CrickHam is so invested in the IPCC -- It's a one stop shop for cult science, moral purpose and global extortion..

So... you can't handle discussions of philosophy? Or do you find your own views getting impaled there?

Too much reading for ya?? Rather do the simple stuff? You should skip the melodramatic ethical defense of nature and go back to the Money flows that are clearly in the body of the WG3 reports. $100Bill/year and more is larger than the GDP of at LEAST 25 of the recipient countries. Like a large part of the world just won the lottery...

 

[Crick]

You have not shown a failure to distinguish the two groups' fundamental truths. You skip right over it. Just because you are able to find intersection in views does not eliminate the fundamental difference - that one places an intrinsic value on nonanthropocentric life while the other group only values it for what it is able to do for them - instrumentally. That is a fundamental difference.

 

[Crick]

Six FCT posts in a row. What's wrong? Were you talking with JC before he got 'disappeared'?

Truly weird shit passing for climate science and economic policy going on in WG3.. The section on "Ethics" is truly amazing stuff --- including..

An argument for recognizing value in plants as well as animals was proposed by Richard Routley (1973). Routley gives the name ‘human chauvinism’ to the view that humans are the sole possessors of intrinsic value. He asks us to imagine that the last man on earth sets out to destroy every living thing, animal or plant. Most people believe this would be wrong, but human chauvinists are unable to explain why. Human chauvinism appears to be simply a prejudice in favour of the human species (Routley and Routley, 1980). In contrast, some philosophers argue that value exists in the lives of all organisms, to the extent that they have the capacity to flourish (Taylor, 1986; Agar, 2001). Going further, other philosophers have argued that biological communities and holistic ecological entities also have value in their own right. Some have argued that a species has more value than all of its individuals have together, and that an ecosystem has still more value (Rolston, 1988, 1999; compare discussion in Brennan and Lo, 2010). It has further been proposed that, just as domination of one human group by another is a moral evil, showing disrespect for the value of others, then so is the domination of nature by humans in general. If nature and its systems have moral worth, then the domination of nature is also a kind of disrespect (Jamieson, 2010).

Kinda a biblical -- sort of religious nature about it. And we thought the IPCC was just about the temperature of the Earth..

No wonder CrickHam is so invested in the IPCC -- It's a one stop shop for cult science, moral purpose and global extortion..

So... you can't handle discussions of philosophy? Or do you find your own views getting impaled there?

Too much reading for ya?? Rather do the simple stuff? You should skip the melodramatic ethical defense of nature and go back to the Money flows that are clearly in the body of the WG3 reports. $100Bill/year and more is larger than the GDP of at LEAST 25 of the recipient countries. Like a large part of the world just won the lottery...

None of those countries are going to be receiving a hundred billion dollars a year, are they.

 

[SSDD]

You have not shown a failure to distinguish the two groups' fundamental truths. You skip right over it. Just because you are able to find intersection in views does not eliminate the fundamental difference - that one places an intrinsic value on nonanthropocentric life while the other group only values it for what it is able to do for them - instrumentally. That is a fundamental difference.

And yet, at that most fundamental level, both groups agree...That is a failure of the philosophy...like it or not.

 

[flacaltenn]

Six FCT posts in a row. What's wrong? Were you talking with JC before he got 'disappeared'?

Truly weird shit passing for climate science and economic policy going on in WG3.. The section on "Ethics" is truly amazing stuff --- including..

An argument for recognizing value in plants as well as animals was proposed by Richard Routley (1973). Routley gives the name ‘human chauvinism’ to the view that humans are the sole possessors of intrinsic value. He asks us to imagine that the last man on earth sets out to destroy every living thing, animal or plant. Most people believe this would be wrong, but human chauvinists are unable to explain why. Human chauvinism appears to be simply a prejudice in favour of the human species (Routley and Routley, 1980). In contrast, some philosophers argue that value exists in the lives of all organisms, to the extent that they have the capacity to flourish (Taylor, 1986; Agar, 2001). Going further, other philosophers have argued that biological communities and holistic ecological entities also have value in their own right. Some have argued that a species has more value than all of its individuals have together, and that an ecosystem has still more value (Rolston, 1988, 1999; compare discussion in Brennan and Lo, 2010). It has further been proposed that, just as domination of one human group by another is a moral evil, showing disrespect for the value of others, then so is the domination of nature by humans in general. If nature and its systems have moral worth, then the domination of nature is also a kind of disrespect (Jamieson, 2010).

Kinda a biblical -- sort of religious nature about it. And we thought the IPCC was just about the temperature of the Earth..

No wonder CrickHam is so invested in the IPCC -- It's a one stop shop for cult science, moral purpose and global extortion..

So... you can't handle discussions of philosophy? Or do you find your own views getting impaled there?

Too much reading for ya?? Rather do the simple stuff? You should skip the melodramatic ethical defense of nature and go back to the Money flows that are clearly in the body of the WG3 reports. $100Bill/year and more is larger than the GDP of at LEAST 25 of the recipient countries. Like a large part of the world just won the lottery...

None of those countries are going to be receiving a hundred billion dollars a year, are they.

But COLLECTIVELY (in the true socialist meaning of the word) MANY of them stand to even DOUBLE their GDPs with that amount of cash.. At that point -- these voting delegates don't give a shit about Global Warming -- do they???