RE: About the cherry picked
and taken out of context quotes exploited by deniers;
Here something said by
Christiana Figueres about changing economic models;
Former head of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Christiana Figueres, made this controversial
statement that has been met with hysterical reactions on the parts of those who
fear a socialistic or communistic take over by environmentalists;
“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.”
Please examine the above
statement. Where do you see any endorsements of communism, or socialism or any
kind of anti-free enterprise system? What she advocates is the TRANSFORMATION,
of the economic development MODEL---not the destruction of free enterprise! I
couldn’t find an actual video dated from Jan 2015 that included her famous
statement, but the quote above is accurate. And “economic models” obviously
refers to the ways economies function, make, and distribute money—not socialism
or communism. And after examining all the videos I have watched, Ms Figueres,
merely discussed world economic cooperation via seeking agreements on setting
long range goals instead of thinking in the short term. Her statements are full
of affirmations that the participation of the world’s business sector will need
to be involved---not about seeking its destruction! So often denier accuse
those who accept AGW, of being hysterical alarmists about global warming and
the world’s economy---well, all the exaggerations of Ms Figueres’s intentions
are now met with hysteria and alarm from AGW deniers, for no real reasons!
Unfortunately, the very
well-funded denial industry has already crowded google with one propaganda
article after another, which have been posted by those who count on stirring up
hysteria and misconceptions about Figures’ comments. One actually has to go
quite deeply into google to find various articles that actually tell the truth,
which is;
When we changed our economic
basis from agriculture to industrial production, we transformed the economy.
When we switched from
kerosene to the incandescent lightbulb, the economic model was transformed.
When we developed mass
production technology the economic model transformed.
When we began an era of
businesses outsourcing labor, we became an economy largely dependent on
outsourcing.
And more recently, when we
changed from the analogue to the digital age, we also transformed the way our
economy grows and flourishes.
These facts do not disparage
business investments in renewable energy but, anti- AGW propagandists have been
hysterically grasping at statements like these, which have been made by
Figueres and others, to lend a fraudulent legitimacy to the issue of AGW which
are intended to bolsters their reactionary fears. That’s all!
Here is what Figueres said in
her controversial statements as recorded in the PDF at the beginning of this
post:
“We can’t have an inclusive
economic system unless we take the climate seriously. Integrating concern for
our shared planet into the concept of capitalism is instrumental for economic
prosperity in the face of climate change. At current rates of greenhouse gas
emissions, humanity is approaching dangerous global warming – the cost of which
will be borne disproportionately by the poor and the vulnerable. Limiting
warming requires substantial and sustained emissions reductions and the
development of more resilient societies. Capitalism must be part of the
solution. For humanity to survive and thrive.”
As for the Rural
Electrification Project during Roosevelt’s Presidency, which a forum debater
offered as an example of government take overs, this information was on many
websites which I examined;
A post from the link above:
“Although nearly 90 percent
of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural
dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of
the nation's consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric
lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too
poor to be able to afford electricity.
The Roosevelt Administration
believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the
people, then it was the duty of the government to do so. Most of the court
cases involving TVA during the 1930s concerned the government's involvement in
the public utilities industry.
In 1935 the Rural Electric
Administration (REA) was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley. In his 1935 article "Electrifying the Countryside," Morris Cooke, the head of the
REA, stated that:
“In addition to paying for
the energy he used, the farmer was expected to advance to the power company
most or all of the costs of construction. Since utility company ideas as to
what constituted sound rural lines have been rather fancy, such costs were
prohibitive for most farmers. [ footnote]”
This was a very successful
program that brought electric power to rural communities like the one which my
parents lived in. Of course big business fanatics of the time also claimed it
was beyond the scope of Presidential powers, and represented a plot to
establish socialism of communism?
Can anyone tell us though,
how businessmen were screwed by this program? Each farmer had to pay for the energy
he used, and he was also required to compensate power companies for the cost of
construction. And ya know what, we still have a wildly successful
capitalistic system today, despite the (dreaded) beneficent influence on the
government under Roosevelt!
My dad came from a family of
13 children and my Mother was one of 7 children. As a result of this and other
programs enacted by Roosevelt, their families were able to survive the long
hard years of the depression with dignity, since in addition, Roosevelt
also provided work projects under the WPA like the CCC. Unemployed men were
able to do useful infrastructure projects that helped society as whole, and
were provided food and shelter while working away from home. This enabled them
to send most of their paychecks back to their families at a time when literally
counting every penny they had, was absolutely necessary. Everyone involved won,
including the utility companies. Is that really anyone’s idea of some nefarious
communist or socialist plot?
Here are some more proposals
from the link above made by Ms Figueres in a supposedly
pro-communist—pro-socialist speech!
Summary:
Ms Figures began with some
upbeat observations about progress in several domains over the last 12 months
and then expressed her views that:
· An agreement to tackle
climate change would be nutted out over the next week, although it would be
tough;
· An agreement would probably
be made about the direction of change but not the speed;
· ˜a completely different
economic development model' is required to effect the changes necessary;
· Markets alone could achieve
the change required but not quickly enough;
· The science is clear that
carbon emissions must peak by 2020 “especially if we are to fulfil our moral
duty to protect the most vulnerable communities;
· We must focus our attention
and help on developing countries “they have increasing carbon emissions,
increasing populations and increasing needs for infrastructure;
· The energy needs of those
without current access to electricity must be met with renewables “but
different finance models will be needed in different situations, for example
for on-grid and off-grid communities;
· We must find ways of
working across not within silos, and for the long not the short term “not easy
for humans; The mantra is BAU: Business As Urgent.
Why did I find all that
concerning? Because while I am sure that we (the global we) understand the
problem adequately, and have sufficient technological solutions already
available to us to keep global warming under 2C, I'm not sure that we have the
social wherewithal (for instance common purpose and national and international
institutions) to achieve the policy and technical changes necessary in the very
short time we have left to prevent disaster. As others have observed---the laws
of physics don't negotiate."
No mention on how to do away
with capitalism here, only a call for each nation to pursue its own economic
interests by taking part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions!
But, perhaps among the
strangest of smears made against those concerned about AGW is this Dec. 15th
1998 commentary written by Peter Stockland, which appeared in the Calgary
Herald.
“Social engineers sniffed out
among greenhouse gases”
Calgary Herald
Tue Dec 15 1998
Page: A18
Section: Opinion
Byline: Peter Stockland, Calgary Herald
Column: Peter Stockland.”
Tue Dec 15 1998
Page: A18
Section: Opinion
Byline: Peter Stockland, Calgary Herald
Column: Peter Stockland.”
An excerpt from:
“But he [the Prime Minister]
was not there. As it turned out, it's probably just as well for it might have prevented Canada's
environment minister from making the following remarkable admission.”
Climate change (provides) “the greatest chance to bring about justice and
equality in the world," she said.
All this time you thought
the global-warming debate was simply about weird weather, melting ice caps,
rising sea levels and more atmospheric gas than a buffalo would generate
walking from Calgary to Winnipeg.
No. Turns out not to be so. By the minister's own emission, it's much more about the beloved liberal ideals of social engineering and government pocket-picking to redistribute your wealth as it sees fit.
As many who've raised their voices against the potted science behind global warming have long suspected, it's about cajoling (frightening) you into accepting very particular definitions of justice and equality.
Don't be surprised if that definition leaves you completely free to bang on dee drum awl day.”
No. Turns out not to be so. By the minister's own emission, it's much more about the beloved liberal ideals of social engineering and government pocket-picking to redistribute your wealth as it sees fit.
As many who've raised their voices against the potted science behind global warming have long suspected, it's about cajoling (frightening) you into accepting very particular definitions of justice and equality.
Don't be surprised if that definition leaves you completely free to bang on dee drum awl day.”
If Ms. Stewart had actually
used the words which appear to have been attributed to her above, it would have
made about as much sense as Richard Nixon defending himself by telling a
television audience that he personally ordered the Watergate break in---or if
All the C.E.Os. and big shots in our current “too big to fail” group of big
banks and wall street firms, came right out and said that they took the money
of others and invested it in money making schemes that they knew would
eventually collapse under their own weight, as part of their legal defense? But
In reality, there are no reasons to believe that any of these things were
really said by Ms. Stewart, or whether, after the initial two sentences, the
claims made against her amount to anything more than Stockland’s own speculations,
or just represent creative fiction from the pens of those trying to destroy the
efforts of climate scientists—if she had been working to promote the Kyoto
accords while openly vilifying and lying about the findings of climate science,
that would have been an extremely unbelievable set of admissions for any global
warming affirmer to make?—that’s why the author of this article in the Calgary
Herald may have made it all up—Did Mr. Stockland lie in order to spread more
lies about human caused climate change? For people who claim to be so motivated
by truth and ethical integrity, it’s very ironic to see how unethical deniers,
including the above article’s author, Peter Stockland, seem to have
fictionalized actual climate science, just to serve their own biases?
Sincerely, Peter W. Johnson
