The global wealth redistributive politics of AGW - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

kramer · #1 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Some nuggets of text that I've found over time that show or suggest to me that AGW is a way for global wealth redistribution until a convergence of incomes and national GDP's is achieved:

Quote:

Working with a fifty year time horizon, Yohe and Van Engel (2004) have suggested that the trade off need not be quite so stark over the long term. They observe that the very transfers of international capital that would promote convergence over the near term between low and high income countries could also work to spread the incidence of achieving any sustainability-motivated climate target more evenly across both types of countries over the long term. However, Manne and Richels (1992 and 1997) added even more complication to the mix by showing that certain emissions and concentrations targets would be impossible to achieve in their modelling framework (which is calibrated to achieve significant convergence in terms of per capita income across regions with minimal contraction for the developed countries) even if enormously stringent mitigation were undertaken immediately. Other modelling frameworks, like the Nordhaus and Boyer (2001) RICE model, can achieve these targets more easily, but their baseline trajectories of economic growth worldwide are far less robust and their underlying rates of convergence are less compelling.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/FOD/Ch20_FOD.pdf

Quote:

" in the coming decades the world expects to see substantial economic development including, by 2030, some US$16 trillion investment in energy infrastructure (IEA 2003). Much ofthis will be in developing countries as they develop with a view to enjoying the standard of living of today’s industrialized countries."

http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/envis/sdev/...ay_forward.pdf

Quote:

Weyant concluded that the SRES scenarios are probably correct when climate change or its impacts are of interest, whether PPP or MER was used. However there could be significant differences for mitigation cost projections depending on the method of GDP convergence.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-ma...ng-2005-01.pdf

Quote:

Market mechanisms for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental goals provide additional revenue streams to developing countries, and contribute to the convergence of incomes between developing and industrialized regions.

http://www.tellus.org/documents/Great_Transition.pdf

Quote:

"Specifically, the CDM can contribute to a developing country’s sustainable development objectives through:
• Transfer of technology and financial resources;
• Sustainable ways of energy production;
• Increasing energy efficiency & conservation;
• Poverty alleviation through income and employment generation; and

http://uneprisoe.org/CDMCapacityDev/CDMintro.pdf

Here's a paper with Obama's John P. Holdren listed as a lead author:

Quote:

Box 1.1. Description of IPCC Scenario B2

The IPCC’s B2 scenario family is based on projections from 1990 to 2100 of moderate population growth (growing from 5.3 billion to 10.4 billion people), intermediate levels of economic development (world gross domestic product (GDP) grows by a factor of 11), and moderate, but relatively diverse, technological change. The B2 storyline is oriented toward environmental protection and social equity (that is, assuming a tendency to a more even distribution of per capita income, quantified by dropping the ratio of income in developed to developing countries from 16 to 3 over the 21st century), and emphasizes “local solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability” (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000)."

http://www.globalproblems-globalsolu...navoidable.pdf

We must not let any kind of cap-and-trade scheme pass. And I've got more related links I can post if anybody wants to read them.

Kramer

daddio · #2 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Yes, this has been the political goal from the start, it was the lone goal of Kyoto. Well except for the good old fashioned make a buck plans of Al GOre etal.

kramer · #3 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

Yes, this has been the political goal from the start, it was the lone goal of Kyoto. Well except for the good old fashioned make a buck plans of Al GOre etal.

Pretty frigging amazing that these environmentalists are calling for our economy and income to converge (lowered) with those of other nations. I know for a fact that these environmentalists have been saying that our current lifestyle is unsustainable and that we need to make sacrifices so the obvious message here is a reduction of our economy, wealth, and lifestyle.

Are we really going to let these watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) get away with this? I'm ready to do something vs just sitting here and watching them fundamentally change our way of life.

Kramer

daddio · #4 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer

Pretty frigging amazing that these environmentalists are calling for our economy and income to converge (lowered) with those of other nations. I know for a fact that these environmentalists have been saying that our current lifestyle is unsustainable and that we need to make sacrifices so the obvious message here is a reduction of our economy, wealth, and lifestyle.

Are we really going to let these watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) get away with this? I'm ready to do something vs just sitting here and watching them fundamentally change our way of life.

Kramer

I dont see anyone putting the current way of life genii back in the bottle as some wouild like. Clearly we face resource issues (food and water among the greatest) but calling for a simpler life just isnt going to happen. IMO.

Andrewl · #5 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer

Pretty frigging amazing that these environmentalists are calling for our economy and income to converge (lowered) with those of other nations. I know for a fact that these environmentalists have been saying that our current lifestyle is unsustainable and that we need to make sacrifices so the obvious message here is a reduction of our economy, wealth, and lifestyle.

Are we really going to let these watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) get away with this? I'm ready to do something vs just sitting here and watching them fundamentally change our way of life.

Kramer

Do you realize that environmentalists are some of the most outspoken critics of cap & trade?

Cap & trade is a political invention. Its not coming from environmentalists, although some mainstream environmentalists support it.

This reminds me of the whole bio-fuel boon-doggle. This was mainly supported by politicians and agricultural lobby groups in order to get subsidies for so called 'green technologies'. They did this against and despite the warnings of environmentalists.

Andrew

kramer · #6 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

I dont see anyone putting the current way of life genii back in the bottle as some wouild like. Clearly we face resource issues (food and water among the greatest) but calling for a simpler life just isnt going to happen. IMO.

Well, I hope your right and I'm wrong. However, if they turn down the oil spigot to practically nothing, I don't see how this is going to do anything but reduce our economy. There are over 400 things that we make and use that require oil as I listed here.

kramer · #7 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Do you realize that environmentalists are some of the most outspoken critics of cap & trade?

Cap & trade is a political invention. Its not coming from environmentalists, although some mainstream environmentalists support it.

This reminds me of the whole bio-fuel boon-doggle. This was mainly supported by politicians and agricultural lobby groups in order to get subsidies for so called 'green technologies'. They did this against and despite the warnings of environmentalists.

Andrew

Yeah but it's not just cap-and-trade that has redistributive aspects to it. Just All of the schemes I've come across so far have tech and wealth transfers in them. The reason I singled out cap-and-trade is that we are on the verge of a vote on it.

Kramer

daddio · #8 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Do you realize that environmentalists are some of the most outspoken critics of cap & trade?

Cap & trade is a political invention. Its not coming from environmentalists, although some mainstream environmentalists support it.

This reminds me of the whole bio-fuel boon-doggle. This was mainly supported by politicians and agricultural lobby groups in order to get subsidies for so called 'green technologies'. They did this against and despite the warnings of environmentalists.

Andrew

Yes C&T is as useless as Kyoto. And biofuel ? What has that done but make corn scarce and that much more expensive for HUMANS to eat ?

Thee may be enough algae to be a reliable source (If it even works) but the harvesting seems daubting and SOMETHING eats that stuff. ITs GOT to hurt the food chain and we can ill afford to screw with the sea critter food chain, its lialable to be the death of us all as it is.

ViPER · #9 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer

Yeah but it's not just cap-and-trade that has redistributive aspects to it. Just All of the schemes I've come across so far have tech and wealth transfers in them. The reason I singled out cap-and-trade is that we are on the verge of a vote on it.

Kramer

I am undecided on cap-n-trade, but I am opposed to those who choose to be ignorant of the problems that are presented by GW.

Big Oil needs to put it's massive and costly effort designed solely to deny facts regarding GW in order to protect it's own century long redistributive hegemony.

Big Oil needs to accept the new market need and address the problem rather then deny the facts about it. Let's see some alternatives that compete with cap-n-trade so we can get away from the ignorant based discussions of the existence of GW.

Andrewl · #10 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer

Yeah but it's not just cap-and-trade that has redistributive aspects to it. Just All of the schemes I've come across so far have tech and wealth transfers in them. The reason I singled out cap-and-trade is that we are on the verge of a vote on it.

Kramer

I don't really have any issues with tech or wealth transfers.

Andrew

Andrewl · #11 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

Yes C&T is as useless as Kyoto. And biofuel ? What has that done but make corn scarce and that much more expensive for HUMANS to eat ?

Thee may be enough algae to be a reliable source (If it even works) but the harvesting seems daubting and SOMETHING eats that stuff. ITs GOT to hurt the food chain and we can ill afford to screw with the sea critter food chain, its lialable to be the death of us all as it is.

Agreed.

Andrew

kramer · #12 (**permalink**) 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViPER

I am undecided on cap-n-trade, but I am opposed to those who choose to be ignorant of the problems that are presented by GW.

Big Oil needs to put it's massive and costly effort designed solely to deny facts regarding GW in order to protect it's own century long redistributive hegemony.

Big Oil needs to accept the new market need and address the problem rather then deny the facts about it. Let's see some alternatives that compete with cap-n-trade so we can get away from the ignorant based discussions of the existence of GW.

Did you see "An Inconvenient Truth?"

Kramer