Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
From the climate politics news front line.
COP26:
Rich nations fail to meet $100 billion climate-funding pledge in blow to COP26
The Wall Street Journal, 25 October 2021
Glasgow in chaos ahead of COP26 with strikes and room shortages
Guido, 26 October 2021
Oh No, Joseph Robinette Biden:
Biden's climate ambitions die in the Senate
The Wall Street Journal, 25 October 2021
The Biden administration backtracks on its campaign against oil and gas
Seeking Alpha, 25 October 2021
COP26:
Rich nations fail to meet $100 billion climate-funding pledge in blow to COP26
The Wall Street Journal, 25 October 2021
Glasgow in chaos ahead of COP26 with strikes and room shortages
Guido, 26 October 2021
Oh No, Joseph Robinette Biden:
Biden's climate ambitions die in the Senate
The Wall Street Journal, 25 October 2021
The Biden administration backtracks on its campaign against oil and gas
Seeking Alpha, 25 October 2021
hairykrishna said:
Anyone who thinks that massively reducing the value of fossil fuels won't change the world's wealth distribution may be a little slow.
Indeed, except it’s going to destroy the Middle East, Russia and some other problematic regimes who hold many of the fossil fuel cards. An intended consequence of course. hairykrishna said:
turbobloke said:
Naturally this honesty had to be defended to the hilt and there are claims that the above quote is made up or taken out of context, so here's the full original Edenhofer interview in German. PHers can register if needed (free and easy) then apply any preferred translation method.
In the interests of this new found transparency of your TB, why didn't you quote a larger section? That way it's clear that he's not saying that the purpose of climate policy is not redistribution of wealth, instead that redistribution of wealth between countries is an inevitable consequence of not using the coal and oil reserves. Anyone who thinks that massively reducing the value of fossil fuels won't change the world's wealth distribution may be a little slow.random internet translation said:
(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Climate policy has almost nothing to do with environmental policy!
Diderot said:
hairykrishna said:
Anyone who thinks that massively reducing the value of fossil fuels won't change the world's wealth distribution may be a little slow.
Indeed, except it’s going to destroy the Middle East, Russia and some other problematic regimes who hold many of the fossil fuel cards. An intended consequence of course. Yoweri Museveni said:
Solar and Wind Force Poverty on Africa
Letting us use reliable energy doesn't mean a climate disaster
How dare he. You can read that without climbing a paywall.Letting us use reliable energy doesn't mean a climate disaster
https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-wind-force-pove...
In his lecture The New Cultural Imperialism (is) Greens and Economic Development
Prof Deepak Lal said:
The Green movement is a modern secular religion engaged in a world-wide crusade to impose its will upon the world. Its primary target is to prevent the economic development which alone offers the world's poor any chance of escaping poverty. This modern secular crusade has exchanged the saving of souls slogan for saving the planet. It needs to be fiercely resisted.
What does Lal suggest - firstly stand up to local 'converts' and secondly refuse to accept transnational treaties. COP26 may be successful by Lal's second point, it's a pity he's not around to see what happens.Kawasicki said:
hairykrishna said:
turbobloke said:
Naturally this honesty had to be defended to the hilt and there are claims that the above quote is made up or taken out of context, so here's the full original Edenhofer interview in German. PHers can register if needed (free and easy) then apply any preferred translation method.
In the interests of this new found transparency of your TB, why didn't you quote a larger section? That way it's clear that he's not saying that the purpose of climate policy is not redistribution of wealth, instead that redistribution of wealth between countries is an inevitable consequence of not using the coal and oil reserves. Anyone who thinks that massively reducing the value of fossil fuels won't change the world's wealth distribution may be a little slow.random internet translation said:
(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Climate policy has almost nothing to do with environmental policy!
Diderot said:
hairykrishna said:
Anyone who thinks that massively reducing the value of fossil fuels won't change the world's wealth distribution may be a little slow.
Indeed, except it’s going to destroy the Middle East, Russia and some other problematic regimes who hold many of the fossil fuel cards. An intended consequence of course. Of the top 10 emitters I would say only Germany, Japan and South Korea might be influenced to make targets that would cause big drops. And I'm not sure just how serious Germany is taking things right now.
The USA will do what is best for the USA and always has. There is no way they will be as gung-ho as we seem to be, despite being far worse in terms of progress.
I can see the rest of them (China, India, Russia, Iran, Indonesia, Saudi etc etc) potentially making noises they are doing their bit, but effectively giving everyone else the 'V'.
Plus, where oil is concerned for example, won't the main producers just tweak the taps to control supply to avoid prices dropping through the floor?
Anyone expecting any country higher than us in the league table to be nailing themselves to the cross as hard as we are is kidding themselves, no matter how much premiers might like deep fried Mars bars. But hey, we invented the Industrial Revolution so it's important we do the most, eh Greta.
COP26 will deliver nothing of any substance or world saving value (IMVCO - Very Cynical).
Kawasicki said:
hairykrishna said:
turbobloke said:
Naturally this honesty had to be defended to the hilt and there are claims that the above quote is made up or taken out of context, so here's the full original Edenhofer interview in German. PHers can register if needed (free and easy) then apply any preferred translation method.
In the interests of this new found transparency of your TB, why didn't you quote a larger section? That way it's clear that he's not saying that the purpose of climate policy is not redistribution of wealth, instead that redistribution of wealth between countries is an inevitable consequence of not using the coal and oil reserves. Anyone who thinks that massively reducing the value of fossil fuels won't change the world's wealth distribution may be a little slow.random internet translation said:
(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Climate policy has almost nothing to do with environmental policy!
Cop26 on brink as Boris Johnson reveals he’s ‘very worried’ and climate fund deadline is missed
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/cop26...
All this angst about success, yet the fanfare after failure will be deafening.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/cop26...
All this angst about success, yet the fanfare after failure will be deafening.
kerplunk said:
It's an odd thing to say verging on the non-sequitour because it clearly *is* environmental policy as per the requirement that "most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil". Take away that requirement and the rest no longer follows.
It's quite hard to understand through the translation fog but I think he's trying to say that climate policy negotiated between countries is not being set by environmental concerns but by economic ones. From the rest of the text it's fairly clear that he's not advocating climate change as a means to redistribute wealth as turbo was implying. Rather explains that that's just what has to happen by default.
hairykrishna said:
kerplunk said:
It's an odd thing to say verging on the non-sequitour because it clearly *is* environmental policy as per the requirement that "most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil". Take away that requirement and the rest no longer follows.
It's quite hard to understand through the translation fog but I think he's trying to say that climate policy negotiated between countries is not being set by environmental concerns but by economic ones. hairykrishna said:
From the rest of the text it's fairly clear that he's not advocating climate change as a means to redistribute wealth as turbo was implying.
Ahh turbobloke has been projecting. Hadn't noticed Little Ice Age ahoy!
That's impressive tag team double bubble spinning for The Cause on behalf of The Team.
Edenhofer said:
"We (UN IPCC) de facto redistribute the world's wealth by climate policy. That has almost nothing to do with environmental policy".
And from the full text of the interview, that's exactly what he meant. The expropriation of the atmosphere climate wibble is a fig leaf providing a veneer of agw-compliant excuses for the redistribution of wealth scheme.
Note the annoyance over recent years from potential recipient nations that they're not getting as much redistribution as quickly as they thought, and from donor nations at the vast sums they're expected to redistribute. Apparently it's 2023 now before the redistribution of wealth really gets going. At which time agw supporters will still be spinning it away as nothing-to-see-here.
After all, and under the 'expropriation' fig leaf, if developed nations' CO2 emissions were controlling atmospheric CO2 levels which were controlling temperature, the data below would look very different. There would be some sort of fingerprint correspondence from right (emissions) through the middle (levels) to left (temperature), which is conspicuously absent.
A reduction in emissions would show up as a reduction in levels, it doesn't, and that would show up as affecting temperature accordingly, it doesn't. There's no excuse here either, carbon dioxide isn't allowed to go on holiday for 21 years if it's the dominant factor as claimed (wrongly). After all NASA agrees that the Sun is the primary forcing in the planet's climate system. The definition of primary is 'of chief importance'.
Edenhofer said:
"We (UN IPCC) de facto redistribute the world's wealth by climate policy. That has almost nothing to do with environmental policy".
And from the full text of the interview, that's exactly what he meant. The expropriation of the atmosphere climate wibble is a fig leaf providing a veneer of agw-compliant excuses for the redistribution of wealth scheme.
Note the annoyance over recent years from potential recipient nations that they're not getting as much redistribution as quickly as they thought, and from donor nations at the vast sums they're expected to redistribute. Apparently it's 2023 now before the redistribution of wealth really gets going. At which time agw supporters will still be spinning it away as nothing-to-see-here.
After all, and under the 'expropriation' fig leaf, if developed nations' CO2 emissions were controlling atmospheric CO2 levels which were controlling temperature, the data below would look very different. There would be some sort of fingerprint correspondence from right (emissions) through the middle (levels) to left (temperature), which is conspicuously absent.
A reduction in emissions would show up as a reduction in levels, it doesn't, and that would show up as affecting temperature accordingly, it doesn't. There's no excuse here either, carbon dioxide isn't allowed to go on holiday for 21 years if it's the dominant factor as claimed (wrongly). After all NASA agrees that the Sun is the primary forcing in the planet's climate system. The definition of primary is 'of chief importance'.
Net zero, the emperor’s new clothes.
It’s imperative that we (the human race) ignore this stuff. So no debate is allowed.
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-net-policies-emperor...
And for those interested in the physical reality of what achieving net zero by 2050 requires… I direct them here, for the Nth time…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/3...
It’s imperative that we (the human race) ignore this stuff. So no debate is allowed.
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-net-policies-emperor...
And for those interested in the physical reality of what achieving net zero by 2050 requires… I direct them here, for the Nth time…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/3...
ks, it's embarassing.kerplunk said:
turbobloke says if you're filling a bath and you turn the tap down a notch the water level should go down.
No, he's not, you're making things up (again) which I haven't said, in order to disguise your inadequate response.I'm saying that the water level should go up more slowly - and in fact that doesn't happen either. Are you OK this morning? In addition to the above fabrication, you forgot about the lack of fingerprinting to temperature. Tax gas on holiday.
kerplunk said:
Then he does the usual solar-driven rapid cooling ahoy thing by trying to make out that "NASA agrees".
Did I mention cooling, or indeed rapid cooling, in the post you replied to? No.When I say that solar forcing is the predominant climate factor, and NASA says the same, you claim that these two positions are different - as above the pro-agw wibble fiction factor is strong.
amgmcqueen said:
Until that blinkered idiot Thunberg, has the courage to face up to what is at the root of just about every environmental issue the ecomentalists want to bang on about (Not just climate change) she is not worth listening to. The ecomentalists, go on about what `Man' has done to the planet, and its climate, and the response to this? Lets add billions more `Man' to the planet in an unprecedented short space of time, at rates up to 326 thousand more (NET) resource consuming, waste and emissions producing numbers of `Man' per DAY, and then be all upset, and surprised, when the environmental issues, get worse, not better.
The Daily Mirror has been telling comrades that COP26 must not allow 'out of control' climate change with humanity to blame. Surely these wise media hacks know that the climate has been changing out of 'control' for over 4.5 billion years, doing its own thing, getting along purposefully - all on its own - with generating thermal maxima and ice ages, each beyond the delta T we must panic over, yet here we are. It's no excuse not to panic, world conflict and chaos will follow CPP26 failure...joining he queue for a slot after the Brexit WW3 has finished.
Link said:
The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.
42% of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30% opposed it, and 28% did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58% wanted a ballot on the issue.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/26/britons-want-referendum-no-10s-net-zero-plans-next-general-election/42% of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30% opposed it, and 28% did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58% wanted a ballot on the issue.
Odds are they / we won't get one, but it looks like reality is dawning.
turbobloke said:
Link said:
The British public are in favour of a referendum on the Government’s net zero proposals, a new poll has shown.
42% of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30% opposed it, and 28% did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58% wanted a ballot on the issue.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/26/britons-want-referendum-no-10s-net-zero-plans-next-general-election/42% of adults said they supported a vote on the plan, whilst 30% opposed it, and 28% did not declare a preference, according to a YouGov survey conducted this month.
When the “don’t knows” were excluded from the results, a majority of 58% wanted a ballot on the issue.
Odds are they / we won't get one, but it looks like reality is dawning.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff