OFFLINE

Two years ago, UN researchers were claiming that it would cost "as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade" to go green. A new UN report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years.

That's $76 trillion, or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It's all part of a "technological overhaul" "on the scale of the first industrial revolution" called for in the annual report. Except the UN will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

The new 251-page report with the benign sounding name of the "World Economic and Social Survey 2011" is rife with goodies calling for "a radically new economic strategy" and "global governance." Throw in possible national energy use caps and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe. The report has the imprimatur of the UN, with the preface signed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon - all part of the "goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050."

Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate. The press release for the report discusses the need "to achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050." That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth's thermostat.

That's because it is. The report goes on and says "one half of the required investments would have to be realized in developing countries." In other words, $38 trillion would go to the developing world.

The Survey details where that money would go. "Survey estimates that incremental green investment of about 3 percent of world gross product (WGP) (about $1.9 trillion in 2010) would be required to overcome poverty, increase food production to eradicate hunger without degrading land and water resources, and avert the climate change catastrophe."

So eradicating hunger and overcoming poverty are now part of the climate debate.

It's also interesting to notice the escalating scale the UN is using for its costs. This is a 200 percent increase from the previous Stern Report, which called for 1 percent of global WGP. But that wasn't enough so Stern revised his claim in 2008, warning there were "many ways of acting to make it more costly" and said 2 percent was needed. Apparently so. Now it's 3 percent.

It wasn't that long ago - Nov. 11, 2009 to be exact - when lefty writer Naomi Klein, author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," told readers the cost of going green was going to be $600 billion a year. Eighteen months later, the price of our "one last chance to save the world" has increased $13 trillion - and that's just over the next decade.

The Klein piece was controversial because she admitted the left was looking for the first world to pay a "climate debt," what she described as "the idea that rich countries should pay reparations to poor countries for the climate crisis." The new UN report doesn't use those terms, but they are there in spirit.

The UN calls for a push toward the "green economy" even though "there is no unique definition of the green economy." The introduction rationalizes the massive cost by explaining "the green economy concept is based on the conviction that the benefits of investing in environmental sustainability outweigh the cost of not doing so." So, by that rationale, any cost is sustainable.

And, as in all things from the UN, government is the solution: "Governments will have to assume a much more central role" in making the change to a green economy. Where there's government, there must be control and "active industrial and educational policies aimed at inducing the necessary changes in infrastructure and production processes."

Educational policies? They are just a start. Try energy caps "if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation targets in a timely manner."

That would lead naturally to "the prospect of 'prosperity without growth,'" and even the UN admits that "may not be very appealing." No matter. We'll all have to accept that and the "major structural transformations of economies and societies."

Some of those "societal transformations" include living in more urban areas, as the report went on to discuss the wonders of "Japan's compact urbanization" and bemoan the cost of individual homes filled with furniture.

The report noteds that all of this $76 trillion in spending in based on the "precautionary principle" decided at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. According to that principle, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs Sha Zukang wrote, "in the absence of scientific consensus that a particular action or policy is harmful to the public or to the environment, the burden of proof that the suspect action or policy is not harmful rests with the party or parties implementing it." In other words, even if the UN is wrong on climate change, we should still spend $76 trillion to fight it.

Ironically, the report came out just one day after climate scientists were complaining that Chinese coal use was driving a temporary bout of "global cooling." As the liberal Huffington Post explained, the cooling is from "all that sulfur pollution in the air from China's massive coal-burning, according to a new study."

and we're just conspiracy theorists for believing that there's a global push for a one-world socialist governance, or that climate change is being used to justify it?

OFFLINE

You need your tin foil hat.  As the title suggests this is an assessment of social and economic conditions, not a plan facing ratification.  I'm assuming the actions being proposed are then just the authors recommendations (something that is common at the end of most technical assessments).

As for climate change being linked to third world development, many areas that are dirt poor will be hit the hardest and have increased difficulty cultivating crops for food.  Additionally, many agricultural practices in the third world are very bad for the environment (like burning swaths of jungle to plant crops, releasing a quick burst of CO2 and particulate filled gas and reducing the long term CO2 cycling the trees naturally performed).

A general question.  Why does any discussion of joint international effort to address any humanitarian concerns almost invariably lead to allegations of "one world socialism," even if the proposed action would lead to something that has nothing to do with Marx's political philosophy?  Is a multinational effort to do something that benefits not only the US, but other nations as well such a grave threat to the myth of rugged individualism being the strength of America?  Global issues require global action, what we do here can have grievous impact on Germany and what the Chinese do in China can likewise cause serious harm in the USA.

OFFLINE

your response to this is frighteningly cavalier. let's save the world! now sign over your checks and your sovereignty. just what we need.

OFFLINE

False dilemma.  We are not forced to choose between national sovereignty and inaction.  What we do is based on the government that  we the people elect.  We are no less sovereign if congress passes a bill or ratifies a treaty with language in accordance with an effort in other nations.  Also, actions to reduce global poverty or mitigate climate change are beneficial to the United States as well.  Why do you think we have so much illegal immigration?  Because there is such a low standard of living in not only Mexico, but most of South and Central America.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
False dilemma.  We are not forced to choose between national sovereignty and inaction.  What we do is based on the government that  we the people elect.  We are no less sovereign if congress passes a bill or ratifies a treaty with language in accordance with an effort in other nations.  Also, actions to reduce global poverty or mitigate climate change are beneficial to the United States as well.  Why do you think we have so much illegal immigration?  Because there is such a low standard of living in not only Mexico, but most of South and Central America.  

it would precisely be signing over our sovereignty and our wealth, if the UN were to be the ones capping our energy consumption, determining what kinds of energy we could use, and doling out our money to the third world.

and because the living conditions of mexico and south and central america are below ours, it's our responsbility to try to somehow pay for them to be brought up to our standards? not only is that impossible, but it's not our place. to me, this represents the "we're all in this together" attitude. just one big freakin happy family. how about mexicans making mexico prosperous? you think america started out as a wealthy nation?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
False dilemma.  We are not forced to choose between national sovereignty and inaction.  What we do is based on the government that  we the people elect.  We are no less sovereign if congress passes a bill or ratifies a treaty with language in accordance with an effort in other nations.  Also, actions to reduce global poverty or mitigate climate change are beneficial to the United States as well.  Why do you think we have so much illegal immigration?  Because there is such a low standard of living in not only Mexico, but most of South and Central America.  

it would precisely be signing over our sovereignty and our wealth, if the UN were to be the ones capping our energy consumption, determining what kinds of energy we could use, and doling out our money to the third world.

and because the living conditions of mexico and south and central america are below ours, it's our responsbility to try to somehow pay for them to be brought up to our standards? not only is that impossible, but it's not our place. to me, this represents the "we're all in this together" attitude. just one big freakin happy family. how about mexicans making mexico prosperous? you think america started out as a wealthy nation?

No it isn't.  As exemplified with the recent execution it Texas, international law and treaties hold no weight in a US court of law.  Further, no action of the United Nations can control or otherwise direct the United States, the UN policies only gain weight if our elected legislatures pass bills or approve treaties in compliance with the UN.  At that point, the action is under control of the United States, not the UN.

For the second point, compare how much we have spent on border patrol, fighting a war on drugs, and propping up brutal dictators in central and south America to how much it could have cost to make some level of investment.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
, the UN policies only gain weight if our elected legislatures pass bills or approve treaties in compliance with the UN.  At that point, the action is under control of the United States, not the UN.

only if our elected representatives then pass legislation backing out of the international accord.

oh, and back to your first post, don't even get me started on marxism. there's marxist socialism, and then there's the modern "liberal socialism" which is already widely adopted throughout the west.

marx saw socialism as a necessary stepping stone toward true communism. in fact, all of the "communist" societies throughout history, have never made it past a strict form of socialism.

the modern "liberal socialism" is precisely what this paper advocates. basically you keep all the machinations of capitalism, only under a crony-capitalist system, with heavy redistribution. it is the same redistributionist attitude we see adopted now, only instead of redistributing from wealthy people to poor people, they want to redistribute from wealthy countries to poor countries.

and while it may not be up for any kind of vote, this is a perfect example of the philosophies of the UN climate change clowns. and the fact that there is a wide segment of society that entertains such ideas is quite disturbing to me.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
What we do is based on the government that  we the people elect.    

So we're all ****, is what you're saying?

OFFLINE

Well....sorta, bot not really.  We're stuck with what we got for a few years, but we have the power (in our types of govt) to elect new leadership.  There's always hope.  

OFFLINE

Pah, government is a big circus, they just change the clowns around every few years.

OFFLINE

True enough.  But isnt it our fault that we put those same clowns in office every time?

OFFLINE

it seems like it's washington (or whatever capital) itself. what's that saying about power corrupting?

OFFLINE

I watched Jimmy Stewart's film Mr smith Goes to Washington yesterday.  Terrific film about politics in Washington.  We could use a few more Mr. Smiths in Washington.

(We could also use term limits imo).

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:


(We could also use term limits imo).

that would go the longest way toward limiting the influence of power in DC.