Thursday, January 26, 2017

UN Climate Chief Candidly Admits True Goal Of 'Global Warming' Scare: End Capitalism




UN climate chief candidly admits goal is not to help environment but to end capitalism | Poor Richard's News

[DUH...who didn't know this?]




Anybody reading this website for any significant period of time could have told you this long ago, but it’s refreshing that they’re finally admitting it out in the open.
from Investor’s Business Daily:


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.

The giveaway, of course, has always been that the proposed “solutions” to climate change without fail are some form of taxation or redistribution of wealth. 









 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.



A Tale Of Two Cities... Paris & Washington D.C.


In Washington, President Trump announced that environmental regulations are “out of control” – and promised to get them back under control.

In Paris, Mayor Anne Hidalgo (which sounds about as French as fries) has issued a fatwabanning diesel-powered cars built before model year 2001 – and is hoping to ban them all the way through model year 2005.

That’s 32 million cars (14 percent of the vehicle fleet) rendered economically obsolete by legislative edict. Imagine if you owned one of those 32 million. Your car now worthless to you.
Or to anyone else.
A similar thing would no doubt have occurred in Washington had the election gone a different way. It turns out they do have consequences; your vote does matter.
Libertarians (I am one) need to grok this.
We do not live in a perfect world and are likely never to experience such. Even if we could Jesus Hoover all the Clovers off the surface of the Earth and deposit them on Planet Clover. Because some of us would have kids and some of those kids would inevitably turn out to be Clovers, too. Plus, we Libertarians are far from unanimous on things.
The point is, who can doubt that we would not be hearing the words, “out of control” and “environmentalism” coming out of the mouth of a President Clinton?
I took flak before the election for urging that Libertarians vote for Trump, arguing that the alternative was far worse. The contrast between Washington and Paris at this moment bears this judgment out.

Trump has issued a regulatory freeze – just days after his inauguration. Had someone else been inaugurated, the likelihood is there would have been a slew of new regulations – to combat “climate change.” Trump has appointed a skeptic of “climate change” to head the EPA. That is, a person who does not believe in a static climate. He perhaps has noticed there are sometimes hot days and sometimes cold days. And that perhaps this occurred before the first Otto Cycle engine burped C02 into the ether.

He may have opened a book and learned that the air we breath is mostly – overwhelmingly – nitrogen. 78 percent, in fact. With the next largest slice of the pie being oxygen (21 percent) and then a very thin slice being C02 (about  .03 percent) and the rest traces of other gases.
Now consider the fraction added to the mix by “human activity.”
It’s enough to make one. . . skeptical.
And now we have a president who appears to be.
This is good news.

If Lame Duck Barry or his anointed (but not elected) successor truly did believe in “climate change” then why don’t they change their habits? How large is the home Barry The Ex has moved into? How large is Hillary’s “carbon footprint”? Why does Al Gore drive a Cadillac Escalade? It is a thread of indecency running through them all that the “change” they insist is necessary doesn’t begin at home.
It begins – and ends – in our homes.
Trump appears to be a heretic; he does not believe. And much more encouraging, he is not insisting that “change” be imposed on usThis also makes him dangerous. Not to us. To the regulatory apparat as well as the power apparat.


1 comment:

George Baker said...

Gen 8: 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

God promise