U.N. Official: Climate Issue is for Wealth Redistribution

by Raven Clabough

Assertions made by climate-change skeptics that there are ulterior motives behind climate-change legislation were confirmed by a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

During an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday, UN official Ottmar Edenhofer declared, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

The interview went as follows:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capital basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(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): 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 the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

The Media Research Center reports that Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Edenhofer confirmed what many Americans have asserted all along: cap and trade will penalize Americans and American industry. The American Chronicle article entitled “Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax will Cause Redistribution of Wealth Among States and Working Families” cites the Congressional Budget Office as stating that cap and trade would cost the average American household an extra $1,600 per year. It would increase the price for a gallon of gasoline between $0.61 to $2.53, and would increase electricity costs anywhere from 44 percent to 129 percent.

In 2009, Our Changing Globe wrote of cap and trade: “The intention is that the industrial world would pay the underdeveloped world huge sums of money for doing nothing at all, and you can easily imagine the bureaucracy and corruption that would occur if this nonsense were ever to come into being.”

It added, “The flawed idea behind Cap and Trade is that companies that were penalized would work hard to reduce their pollution, and even though the technology is presently not available and won’t be in the foreseeable future, Obama is promising that the U.S. will reduce its pollution by 80 percent, which would take it back to levels that existed before the industrial revolution.”

Evidence of this plot for the world’s wealth redistribution dates back as far as 1990, when Maurice Strong, head of the United Nations Environmental Program, suggested this scenario: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle [sic] risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?” Strong allegedly posed this scenario as a speculative plot for a novel that he considered writing, though he has never penned a novel in his life, either before or after 1990.

Today, progressives and Marxists have seized upon claims that the planet is in peril in order to negotiate cap-and-trade and climate change policies. Through the formation of the Chicago Climate Exchange, coupled with the potential passage of the cap-and-trade bill, innocuously named the “American Power Act,” industrialized “wealthy” nations, such as the U.S., are forced to pay for carbon credits. The process takes American wealth and redistributes it to the rest of the world.

Ironically, confirmation that cap and trade is in fact a scheme comes in the same week that “marks the one year anniversary since the ‘Climategate’ scandal erupted,” as noted by The Blaze.

Chicago Climate Exchange Closed

by Bob Adelmann

On Election Day 2010, Reuters noted briefly that Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE) was “shedding some 40 employees from its … Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) by the end of the year, with further cuts [expected] in 2011.” In its curt announcement, Reuters said that all trading on that exchange had virtually stopped in July “due to the lack of U.S. action on climate change.”

Steve Milloy expected much more fanfare from the media. Commenting on the news, Milloy said that over the last 15 years, “cap and trade has been one of the most stridently debated public policy controversies … but it is dying a quiet death.”

Incredibly (but not surprisingly), although thousands of news articles have been published about CCX by the lamestream media over the years, a Nexis search conducted a week after CCX’s announcement revealed no news articles published about its demise. [Emphasis added.]

Outside of a report in Crain’s Chicago Business and a soft-pedaled article in a small trade publication, the media has entirely ignored the demise of the … effort at carbon trading. Even Glenn Beck, who has dedicated quite a bit of Fox News airtime to exposing CCX, has yet to mention the news.

Founded in 2002 by Northwestern University professor Richard Sandor with $1.1 million of grant money from the left-wing Joyce Foundation, CCX was to be the jackpot winner for those planning to profit from the coming cap-and-trade bills pending in Congress. The exchange found investors ranging from Ford, DuPont, Motorola, the University of California, Tufts University, Michigan State University, and the National Farmers Union all the way to Goldman Sachs and Al Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management.

As Raven Clabough wrote, cap and trade “is a system that redistributes wealth from successful companies to less successful companies … by forcing companies that emit more gas [than allowed by the government] to give money to companies that emit less gas. It is Marxism at its best (sic).” The market has been estimated at between $500 billion and $10 trillion and the consequent profit potential is gigantic.

Congress was on a roll. When the Waxman-Markey bill (aka, the Owellian-named American Clean Energy and Security Act) passed the House in June, 2009, it was touted as a system “under which the [federal] government sets a limit (cap) on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally. The cap is [then] reduced over time [in order] to reduce total carbon emissions.” Producers of those greenhouse gases would be issued “allowances” that they could then sell to others, using the CCX to facilitate those trades. Those producing more than allowed would be required to purchase allowances from those under producing, thus the moniker “cap and trade.”

Critics included the Heritage Foundation, which concluded that such caps would

– reduce GDP by $7.4 trillion by the year 2035
– destroy 844,000 jobs
– raise electricity rates by 90 percent, and
– increase the federal debt by nearly 30 percent

The Competitive Enterprise Institute declared that the bill would be “the largest tax hike in world history.”

But momentum for the Waxman-Markey bill began to fade as the Great Recession continued, Climategate exposed the truth behind global-warming claims, and the Tea Party began to push back against big government. Investors in CCX began to bail out, leaving the founder, Professor Sandor with a nice $100 million profit, and the ICE holding the bag.

As Milloy put it,

With the demise of CCX carbon trading, only the still-pending Waxman-Markey bill is keeping cap and trade alive – technically at least – in the U.S…. Despite this good news, opponents of carbon regulation will need to remain vigilant. While radical greens and the…”clean energy” industry are down, they are not out.

A Royal Society: Aquecimento Global é Incerto

O órgão científico mais importante do Reino Unido deu um passo para trás e admitiu que é “desconhecido” quanto mais quente o planeta vai se tornar.

A Royal Society lançou um novo guia que apresenta um recuo de sua posição de vanguarda anterior sobre a ameaça das alterações climáticas e o aquecimento global que segundo eles era causado pelo homem . A decisão de atualizar seu guia científica veio após 43 dos seus membros se queixaram de que as versões anteriores não levavam em conta a opinião dos cépticos das alterações climáticas.

O novo guia, intitulado “Alterações climáticas: um resumo da ciência”, admite que existem hoje grandes “incertezas” sobre o outrora sagrado “consenso científico” por trás da teoria do aquecimento global antropogénico, admitindo que não só é impossível saber como o clima da Terra irá mudar no futuro, mas também dos efeitos que estas mudanças podem ser. O guia de 19 páginas claramente explica: “Não é possível determinar exatamente quanto a Terra vai aquecer ou exatamente como o clima vai mudar no futuro, mas estimativas das potenciais mudanças e incertezas associadas têm sido feitas cuidadosamente”.

O guia continua afirmando, “Não existe actualmente suficiente compreensão do derretimento maior e recuo dos lençóis de gelo na Groenlândia e na Antártica Ocidental para prever exatamente quanto o nível do mar vai aumentar acima do observado no século passado para uma dada temperatura”.

Em 20 de setembro de 2010 num artigo publicado no Daily Mail do Reino Unido, Professor Anthony Kelly, conselheiro acadêmico do Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), explica: “A orientação anterior desanimava o debate ao invés de fomentar o conhecimento entre as pessoas. A nova orientação é clara e um documento muito melhor “.

A decisão de rever e baixar o tom da sua posição alarmista sobre a mudança climática demonstra uma clara inversão da marcha no seu panfleto do clima de 2007, um que se diz ter causado uma rebelião interna de 43 companheiros da sociedade, provocando uma revisão e uma revisão posterior . A publicação de 2007, que repetiram informações enganosas do IPCC de que a “ciência estava clara” – abriu caminho para o novo guia, que aceita que questões importantes permanecem em aberto e incertezas não resolvidas. “A Royal Society agora também concorda (com nós) que a tendência do aquecimento da década de 1980 e 90, chegou a um impasse nos últimos 10 anos”, disse Benny Peiser, o director do GWPF.

A realidade econômica e uma mudança acentuada na opinião pública desde o escândalo Climategate do ano passado e do fracasso do tão apregoado Foro de Copenhague tem desencadeado uma série de dominós caindo dentro do tema da mudança climática e o aquecimento global antropogênico (AGA). A mudança da Royal Society também segue um outro golpe na semana passada depois que a Grã-Bretanha, resolveu reduzir seu orçamento para o Departamento de Assuntos Climáticos e unir a antiga burocracia com o Departamento do Tesouro.

Alguns analistas também acreditam que o novo guia da Sociedade não vai suficientemente longe. Dr. David Whitehouse, editor de ciência da GWPF disse: “A maior falha do novo guia é que ele descarta os dados de temperatura antes de 1850 como limitados. O aquecimento global teria uma nova luz se esta informação fosse incluída junto com o Período Quente Medieval, o Período Romano quente da Idade do Bronze e do Período Quente foram tão quente como hoje, pois mostraria informação que ajudaria a determinar se estes períodos foram mais quente que hoje. Uma discussão aprofundada da crescente evidência empírica para a existência global do Período Medieval Quente e suas implicações teria sido uma valiosa adição ao novo relatório. ”

Além disso, este recuo da Royal Society sinaliza uma tendência muito real que o ativismo politico na ciência do clima está sendo lentamente substituída por uma avaliação mais sóbria da evidência científica e mais debates científicos estão em curso.

As consequências políticas

Até à data, o ativismo político motor de “mudanças climáticas” é alimentado por uma elite de cientistas, fundações, jornalistas, financiadores e políticos à procura de uma boa causa. O combustível para este motor foi fornecido por oportunidades econômicas a curto prazo, a maioria das quais tem sido na forma de bolsas de investigação enorme, de subsídios que provocaram um aumento nos custos de energia para o consumidor. Em EUA, os problemas com produtos financeiros derivados do assunto da mudança climática sao mais crônicos, depois que o Chicago Climate Exchange (mercado de carbono ou CAP & Trade) teve uma queda quando o mercado da América do Norte reduziu os investimentos e o colapso foi quase total nos preços dos “produtos” de emissões de carbono.

Depois que cientistas do IPCC gradualmente rompem relações com o orgão e voltam ao bom senso, e fundações como a Royal Society revertem suas políticas sobre a natureza da ameaça do clima, os políticos podem perder a confiança e a tração, que uma vez ajudou na promoção das “agendas verdes”.

Isto é seguido, é claro, pela realidade econômica de qualquer democracia em que os contribuintes não podem realmente pagar os gastos de departamentos ou políticas que não entreguem um benefício de para o bem-estar público. Se a elite de cientistas do IPCC não podem ser confiáveis para medir objetivamente as temperaturas globais (dados reais conjuntos da ONU mostram que não houve aumento da temperatura desde 1998), então é evidente que os políticos não podem construir no mundo real uma política de restauração para uma crise que não está realmente acontecendo. A crescente onda de ceticismo e do ressurgimento da análise científica real certamente vai significar o fim das políticas baseadas na fé, previsão e adivinhação que tem afetado o movimento cientifico até hoje.

Em quanto a ciência torna gradualmente seu caminho de volta à realidade e observação do mundo real, muitas das burocracias construídas ao redor das supostas mudanças do clima desde 2000 tropeçaram, como resultado da volta do bom senso. A razão para este fenômeno é descrito com as leis básicas da “física política”, um colapso do chamado “consenso científico” entra em conflito direto com um dos principais dogmas da política de negação plausível. Quando os políticos não podem mais usar cientistas como bodes expiatórios, como em “não é culpa nossa, eles nos disseram que o CO2 era responsável pelo aquecimento do planeta …”, em seguida, a agenda política não funciona mais.

A curva de realidade esté certamente aproximando-se à realidade da mudança do clima.

The Royal Society: Planetary Warming Uncertain

UK’s leading scientific body steps back and admits that it is “not known” how much warmer the planet will become.

Patrick Henningsen

The Royal Society has released a new guide which outlines a retreat from its former vanguard stance on the threat of climate change and man-made global warming. The decision to update their scientific guide came after 43 of its members complained that the previous versions failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics.

The new guide, entitled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, concedes that there are now major ‘uncertainties’ regarding the once sacred ‘scientific consensus’ behind man-made global warming theory, admitting that not only is it impossible to know for sure how the Earth’s climate will change in the future but it cannot possibly know what the effects may be. The 19-page guide states clearly, ’It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made”.

The guide continues stating, “There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase”.

In a Sept 20, 2010 article published on the UK Daily Mail, Professor Anthony Kelly, academic advisor to  Britain’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) explains, ”The previous guidance was discouraging debate rather than encouraging it among knowledgeable people. The new guidance is clearer and a very much better document”.

The decision to revise and tone down its alarmist position on climate change demonstrates a clear u-turn on its previous 2007 climate pamphlet, one which is said to have caused an internal rebellion by the 43 fellows of the Society, triggering a review and subsequent revision. The 2007 publication, which parroted the IPCC’s popular, but misleading impression that the ‘science is settled’ – made way for the new guide which accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved. “The Royal Society now also agrees(with us) that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years,” said Dr Benny Peiser, the Director of GWPF.

Economic realities and a marked shift in public opinion since last year’s Climategate scandal and failure of the much-hyped UN Copenhagen Summit have triggered a series of falling dominos within the climate change and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) orthodoxy. The Royal Society’s shift also follows last week’s blow to the radical climatist agenda within Britain, where the new Coalition Government announced it will be slashing its Climate Change Department’s budget and folding the former free-standing bureaucracy into the Treasury department.

Some analysts also believe that the Society’s new guide does not go far enough. Dr David Whitehouse, the science editor of the GWPF said: “The biggest failing of the new guide is that it dismisses temperature data prior to 1850 as limited and leaves it at that. It would cast a whole new light on today’s warming if the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Bronze Age Warm Period were as warm as today, possibility even warmer than today. A thorough discussion of the growing empirical evidence for the global existence of the Medieval Warm Period and its implications would have been a valuable addition to the new report.”

In addition, this retreat by the Royal Society signals a very real trend in climate science circles where political activism is slowly being replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.

The Political Fallout

To date, the political activist engine powering climate change has been anchored by an elite circle of scientists, foundations, green journalists, carbon financiers- and politicians looking for a good cause. The fuel for this engine has been supplied by short-term economic opportunities, most of which has been in the form of massive research grants, subsidies and feed-in tariffs(triggering a rise in energy costs to the consumer) by the State and confederate bodies like the UN and the European Union. In the US, problems with climate change inspired instruments like Cap and Trade are more chronic, where North America’s sole carbon trading market, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), has recently been scaled down following a decline in investment and the near complete collapse in carbon emission prices.

As formerly obedient IPCC scientists and insiders gradually break ranks and defect over to the common sense camp, and foundations like the Royal Society reverse their policies on the nature of the climate threat, politicians may lose the once reliable traction they enjoyed when promoting their various green agendas.

This is followed, of course, by the economic reality of any democracy whereby taxpayers cannot really back departments, much less policies, that do not deliver a measured benefit to the public welfare. If the IPCC’s elite chamber of scientists cannot be trusted to objectively measure past global temperatures (actual UN data sets show that there has been no temperature increase since circa 1998), then it goes without saying that politicians cannot build real-world policy catering for a crisis that is not actually happening. The rising tide of scepticism and the reemergence of real scientific analysis will surely spell an end to the innumerable faith-based policies and guesswork forecasting that has plagued the climate change movement to date.

As science gradually makes its way back into line with reality and real world observation, it follows that many of the climate bureaucracies erected since 2000 will stumble as a result. The reason for this phenomenon is spelled out in the basic laws of ‘political physics’; a collapse of the so-called “scientific consensus” comes into direct conflict with one of the main tenets of politics- plausible deniability. When politicians can no longer use scientists as scapegoats, as in “it’s not our fault, they told us CO2 was heating up the planet…”, then the political agenda is all but dead.

The reality curve is certainly catching up to climate change now.