A high UN official has admitted the real reason for the climate hysteria, to transform the world economy, in other words redistribution of income between rich and poor nations. Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
“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”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
“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. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
In 2011 Ms Figueres said something similar. In a speech given
in Madrid four hears ago, MS Figueres claimed that the recent unrest in Egypt was
caused by rising food-prices which were caused by global warming
take our poll - story continues below
a global level, increasingly unpredictable weather patterns will lead
to falling agricultural production and higher food prices, leading to
food insecurity. In Africa, crop yields could decline by as much as 50%
by 2020. Recent experiences around the world clearly show how such
situations can cause political instability and undermine the performance
of already fragile states.
She added that if we took part of
our defense spending and invested it in reducing carbon [while standing
on one foot and singing Kumbayah?] we could avoid the “horrors”
associated with global warming (I added the one foot-Kumbauah part).
Decisions on future defense spending are intricately linked
to decisions on immediate climate investment through the different
future risk assessments.
What will be better?
Even under current trends, the rate of defence spending growth
could account for a major part of the money needed to cut global
emissions and to help the vulnerable, often in the most unstable areas
of the world, to protect their societies from crumbling under climate
In other words we should cut defense
spending and give that money to other countries so they can solve their
carbon problems– world-wide
re-distribution of income, a point made in 2010 by United
Nations’ IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer:
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 environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
It is a rare occurance when the supporters of the Climate Change hypothesis tell the truth about why they are pushing their plan. Climate change enthusiasts tend to be liberal and or progressive because their ultimate goal is worldwide redistribution of income.