The Real Objective Of Paris
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dave Norby
Just a reminder of what Paris is really about. From Investors Daily, last month:
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
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."
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming "the economic development model" because she’s really never seen it work. "If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page," notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It’s the age old aim of redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor, where the people doing the redistributing always believe that they fall into the latter category.
In any case, I’m not sure they adopted the best strategy to this end….
Isn’t a return to the feudal system already in train?
They might just increase injustice and conflicts. Are the involved Intelligence Agencies sufficiently intelligent?
The UN is not fit for purpose, it has become a self-serving parasite.
It should be dissolved and a new body formed from democratic states only.
Rotating “presidents” subject to direct election.
Actually, it’s from February – 10/2 English, not 10/2 American.
That doesn’t alter the fact that Christina ‘Tinkerbell’ Figueres is the kind of unelected, unpleasant, incompetent, narcissistic bullying follower of her own lifelong vanity project that a troubled world would be better off without in a position of influence.
Well said. She can take Scnellnhuber and Edenhofer with her.
Isn’t this just part of the UN Aenda 21 from 1993 – The UN wants to rule the world version 1
Yes.
It has become clear to me that The Green movement is all about ending capitalism. Greens don’t really give a toss about the environment. How to get Cameron to waken up to this reality?
Very difficult with a wife in thrall to Greenpeace.
Thanks, Paul.
This is more confirmation of what has been suspected; It is a water-melon: green on the outside, red inside.
🙂
Almost everyone in the “Green” movement is employed in some way in the public sector – except for those who make their money from the public sector through grants and other ways. As such, they all share the same hatred of the private sector – in effect it is communism, and whether they can attack the private sector through anti-capitalism or Global Warming – or whatever scheme is next dreamt up – the root cause is a hatred of the private sector amongst vast swathes of the public.
Of course, even a cursory glance at the economics tells any rational person that the only way we can have a public sector is by having a vibrant private sector (and the reverse is also true). However, global warming and anti-capitalism isn’t based on rational thought.
Give me strength:
http://ourhorizon.org/
Proud member of Can-Rac (ket).Yeah, sure.
Here’s another one: “We [UNIPCC] redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…” “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…”
Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3, November 13, 2010 interview (source attributed to Dr. Charles Battig)(I would like a print or tape verification if anyone has one)
Since his presidential acceptance speech one of Obama’s a recurring themes is re distribution of wealth. In the US there’s been an MSM focus on demonizing the top “1%” earners in America. Pure Marxist/Socialist ideology and AGW fits right in by targeting successful industrial countries. So far the MSM has been successful in fending off all criticism by labeling it “conspiracy theory” and refusing to print any contrary views. AGW falls into this category as well. It all boils down to who owns the media and the propaganda machine. The UN has strayed far from its’ original intent and needs to be reeled in.
Yes Rick,above,it was from Feb.this year. As stated by Figueres,it will be required at COP21 to de-idustrialise the developed nations by having them sign up to binding agreements to outlaw fossil fuels.Shortly after her statement,Clegg,Milliband,and Cameron,egged on by Green lobbyists,signed a pledge to ensure that this will happen.You have to wonder why they they did not mention this when touting for votes at the time of the Gen.election.
Why also did not the local M.P.s in Redcar,Scunthorpe,and Sheffield explain this to their constituents;they must have known.
If not at this COP,but soon,it will also be demanded that international law be used to prevent any scepticism of the big Green Lie nonsense.As all genuine scientists are sceptics by nature and profession,we will soon witness the death of science,and truth.
Not only are we being attacked by terrorism on our streets,but our own Govt.taken in by another belief system,has decided to attack the people it is supposed to defend.
The first victims will be the poor,the old,and the cold this winter.Think on that all those who voted for the Climate Change Act.
This is confirmed by the BBC in a 60 second video to explain the purposes of COP21.
1. To limit CO2 emissions.
2. “To change the nature of how we do business on this plant. Which is how we produce, how we farm, how we make things and how we consume.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34572157
On the latter point the “we” is meant to include everyone, but it does not include 1400 million Chinese, 1250 million Indians, 140 million Russians etc. etc.
Correction to above post at 6.46pm.Just had confirmation(Tallbloke Nov20 post on U.S.Senate) the Paris Cop21 will include proposals to establish a World Supreme Court.
The ramifications of this will mean the total loss of sovereignty for the United Kingdom and of course other nations across the world.
Well done Mr.Cameron.
avro607 commented: “…..the Paris Cop21 will include proposals to establish a World Supreme Court….. loss of sovereignty..”
Despite Obama’s mad dash towards a “Carbon Free” world he doesn’t have the authority to enter into any such agreement. This is where the rubber meets the road with AGW and it’s nothing more than a not so disguised attempt by the UN to garner world control. There won’t be many developed countries willing to turn over their sovereignty to a bureaucratic body….especially a non elected one that has so far proved ineffectual in dealing with world problems. I’m sure there will be weasel wording typical of UN documents that promise otherwise but make no mistake that this is a direct attempt at central world government and the next logical step for them after the EU (and see how well that’s worked out!). Desperation is mounting with the Warmist Cult as their climate projections and alarmism pass due dates and temperatures. The last time something close to this was attempted in Kyoto the US congress…..both sides….overwhelmingly rejected it.
There won’t be many developed countries willing to turn over their sovereignty to a bureaucratic body….especially a non elected one that has so far proved ineffectual in dealing with world problems.
Unfortunately we in Europe have!!
To Markl,and Paul above:US congress passed bill for Trans Pacific Partnership.This means that 40 asian/pacific countries will lose their sovereignty.Details at Tallbloke above.
I also understand that the US is negotiating a similar deal with the EU.
The enforcement processes built into these deals will mean that they will not need an actual World Court at Paris:the existing International Court can deal with any considered breaches relating to these partnerships…..sneaky.
Goodnight for now.
avro607: “…US congress passed bill for Trans Pacific Partnership…”.
Not yet. Not going to congressional vote until 2016 and it’s getting pushback from both parties so it doesn’t look like it will pass.
More scary BS from the Useless Nonentity:
Replacement Migration:
Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?
United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.
Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm
Never mind migration — bring on the androids!
Paul
This is slightly off the topic of the thread but very relevant to the work you have been doing in relation to COP21.
Specifically you have been looking extensively at the INDC submissions. Clearly as far as policy goes they do little or nothing to affect emissions. Yet the UNIPCC claims that added together these proposals will constrain warming to 2.7C, compared with about 4.5C under the IPCC’s RCP8.5 BAU (non-policy) scenario. It would be nice to see the marginal contribution each country is making that global picture, to confirm the difference.
ClimateInteractive claims that the INDCs will just reduce the rise to 3.5C.
https://www.climateinteractive.org/project-news/press-release-offers-for-paris-climate-talks-would-reduce-warming-by-1c/
From their graph, 2100 emissions will be reduced from 140 GtCO2e BAU to about 80 for 3.5C warming, and 10 for 2C.
The interesting question I have been grappling with is how to reconcile the huge difference between the INDC’s and the Cilmate Interactive’s interpretation.
Having obtained the figures behind the BAU (which they claim are the RCP 8.5) I believe that the forecasts are wrong, or at least Climate Interactive’s version. (The IPCC’s is by implication much more in error). Looking at fossil fuel emissions (75% of total GHG emissions) per capita my preliminary conclusions are.
– In the OECD countries emissions are forecast to start increasing when then plateaued 30-40 years ago. If the OECD countries all said it would maintain emissions at 2010 levels (i.e. do nothing) global 2100 emissions would be cut by 15 GtCO2e.
– In Russia and China emissions will plateau in the next 10 to 20 years. China says it will do this (i.e. it will do nothing to affect emissions trends) by 2030. In a corrected forecast 2100 emissions would be about 3 and 17 GtCO2e lower.
– For India the current high levels of economic growth (6-8%) will crash, to around 4% this year and less than 2% by 2030. Emissions growth will similarly fail. India will never reach the emissions levels of OECD countries. A more realistic forecast would add 10-12 GtCO2e to 2100 emissions. India’s lack of policy is made into one of insignificant relevance.
– Africa will have huge population growth, but current low levels of economic growth (maybe 3% pa) are forecast to fall. Assuming that Africa in 2100 will have just a quarter of the emissions per capita of the USA in 2010 would add 17 15 GtCO2e. A lack of policy in most of Africa is downplayed, yet according to the population forecasts, in 2100 Africans will comprise 39% of the global population, compared with 15% in 2010.
The net impact in the global forecast is small, but the impact on policy reductions is huge. Errant forecasts mistakenly increase the emissions reductions by 35 GtCO2e in 2100, just over half of the claimed reduction due to policy. This is despite looking at just 75% of emissions for a small number of key countries. So rather than the press releases, UNFCCC should be getting independent auditors to examine and validate the figures.
The attachment at my own website (with a bit of explanation), showing emissions per capita, is this one.
I said it before and I will say it again: about 8 Billion humans live on Earth. Presumably between 10% and 20% has little for living, to eat, for health care, for education. UNICEF estimates half the world’s children (or 1.1 billion) live in poverty. COP21 wants more than 15 $ per head per annum, or about 15-20 Billion. Looks crazy! Her is what I’m talking about: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/100-000-000-000-us-per-year-for-waste/.
Although $100bn is a lot of money for any one Government, in comparison to what they want to achieve the amount is tiny – about 0.13% of gross world product.
As an example, take a look at India’s INDC.
In particular this part.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb10.png?w=780&h=381
From 2012 to 2015 electricity production is projected to increase by 1724 TwH, mostly from coal. Let us assume that the we fund the extra costs of nuclear/ renewables are met by the fund, and like much foreign aid is spent at developed world costs. So the new nuclear power in Somerset will have a guaranteed price about conventional of about £45 or $60 Mwh above the wholesale price of electricity. That is $60k per gigawatt hour or $60 million per TwH.
Multiply that by 1724 gives $103bn.
Try applying this to China and you are talking really serious money.
To quote M4GW: “It’s all a fake, No doubt in my mind!” Contemptible, infuriating, fake.