Hannity asks if "the environmental agenda" is "an attack on capitalism itself?"

Hannity is an assault on the idea of evolution of man. He can deny it maybe because he is a living contradiction that there may be other factors at play.

Hannity asked, "Is it a conspiracy theory that is based in reality, those that would like to see industrialized countries take their wealth and redistribute it to less prosperous countries in the world, and is this a mechanism or a means by which that goal can be achieved?"

Daniel Hannan responded (in part), "Definitely some people have jumped onto this agenda in order to advance a different one. I mean the language is green but the motives are red...So we don't need to go down this road towards bossy, global eco-technocracies in order to clean our environment. We should be doing the opposite. We should be encouraging ownership and we should be encouraging individual local action."

Despite protests to the contrary here, they are both right on target as can be proven by the contents of the negotiating text of the Copenhagen Treaty, though I would argue that some of the language itself is indeed red.

Rather than beat around the bush and feed into the possible "conspiracy theory," they would have been better served simply reading some excerpts from that text. This would have illustrated that the transparent aims of the UN/IPCC go far beyond AGW mitigation and absolutely involve redistribution of wealth. There is no need to discuss conspiracies when the socialist language used is so straightforward. An example:

Page 122: 17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:] (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees; (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

There are plenty more examples of this agenda throughout the document. Had Hannity used excerpts such as that one, there would have been no need to even utter the word "conspiracy" and there would have been less of a valid reason to make comments such as yours here and below (as well as some of the other comments saying largely the same thing in this thread).

Denial pays well.

I do commend you for your concerns for the environment, and I am happy to report that I share those concerns. I have considered myself an environmentalist for about 20 years, but unfortunately, in my opinion many environmental movements have been largely commandeered by those with chiefly political aims. This can be proven in countering the assertions you made in your comment. While your heart is in the right place you are incorrect on several major counts, and despite your good intentions, jumping on board the AGW bandwagon is actually detrimental to environmental causes.

You seem convinced that "almost the entire scientific community is correct and [anthropogenic] global warming is real" and "must be addressed." The AGW "consensus" you appear to believe in is anything but despite the enormous propaganda machine that makes the claim that man-made CO2 is causing global warming.

You, like so many others, have apparently bought into that claim, but in my opinion, were you to independently investigate the issue fully (something I would highly recommend rather than listening to skeptics like me or fanatical believers like DellDolly) you might realize that not only is the debate not over, but many of the cornerstones of the AGW theory are constructed from weak evidence and models that continue to lose whatever little strength they may have once had (start by researching the Mann hockey stick and its relation to the IPCC to get you started). I understand that this is quite a contentious claim and that is why I suggest doing your own independent investigations.

You ask, "And how is global warming a redistribution of wealth exactly? I don't quite get the connection. We are the biggest polluters but we are not paying other nations to improve them, we are just forced to improve our own." This simply is not true. If we do eventually sign onto a legally-binding treaty like the one being proposed for the meeting in Copenhagen in December, we absolutely will be "paying other nations to improve them." Here again is the negotiating text of the Copenhagen Treaty. It is in fact a work-in-progress, but give it a read if you have the opportunity and I am confident you will conclude that your statements are false.

The fact that you "don't quite get the connection" to the redistributionist agenda, and in your comment below state "[t]here is no way at all that combatting global warming is a socialist policy" is no surprise because, like you, most people do not have the time or inclination to investigate the agenda in full. Instead, you rely on what you are told and lead with your heart and think things like "there is no real reason to be staunchly opposed to cleaning up the environment no matter which side is taken" because you genuinely believe that that is what will come out of such measures.

To have you think that way is the intent and is predictable, but it is also quite unfortunate because as I mentioned before, following this path will actually set back many of the environmental causes you care about. Here is a good story hot off the presses that illustrates that point. It discusses a paper out of Oxford published in Science on November 6. The money quote from the article (for me at least) comes from the IUCN that supports the paper's conclusions: "There are so many other immediate threats that, by the time climate change really kicks in, many species will not exist any more."

And that in part has been a message I have echoed since I started posting here, though I go further by stating that the proposed climate change mitigation will have negligible effects and whatever positive effects that come from such measures will be heavily outweighed by the negative effects and unintended consequences.

To repeat myself from previous threads, our eyes are completely off the ball, and prioritizing AGW diverts our attention and our finite resources from what I consider to be the real environmental issues of the day. Adding insult to that injury, these other issues such as habitat destruction and over-harvesting of the oceans, if prioritized, could be impacted upon almost immediately versus the barely perceptible effects of what I consider to be mostly backwards AGW mitigation.

Those like me that do dig beyond the surface and draw a different conclusion are often met with hostility and derision here and elsewhere. I am not sure if you will be in that camp or not (I liken some of the bunch to modern-day Inquisitors), but have no worries if you do set up your tent there. I am used to it and my skin only gets thicker (others claim it is my skull that is thickening).

Sorry for the short novel. Brevity is not one of my strong suits. I will leave you with more examples of the proposed language of the UNFCCC from the aforementioned negotiating text. I have done this before, and more extensively, but it appears you and others here have not seen them. The excerpts should surely assist you in your attempts to "get the connection" between AGW and redistribution.

Page 38: 30. The provision of financial and technical support by developed country Parties for adaptation programmes in developing countries is a commitment under the Convention that must be urgently fulfilled. Commitments made by Annex I Parties to support implementation of the Adaptation Framework through financial and technology transfer shall be legally binding, with provisions for a [monitoring, reporting and verification] mechanism to ensure compliance. There should be regular reporting through national communications on the implementation by developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II of their commitment under Article 4.4 of the Convention to assist vulnerable developing countries in meeting the costs of adaptation.

Page 41: 36. [Access to adaptation funds by Parties shall be inversely proportional to their contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.] [Access to funds to implement priority adaptation activities identified by Parties shall not be conditional on the completion of national adaptation plans.] Development of an adaptation strategy and programme should be enabled if one is not available at country level. Means should be provided, on a continuous basis, to enable, support and enhance national capacity to incorporate adaptation into planning and designing adaptation activities. Funding should go beyond integration of adaptation to sustainable development plans, and to include stand-alone adaptation.

Page 43: 41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries' ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the "Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include:
(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]
(b) [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties];]
(c) [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]
(d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]
(e) [[Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;]
(f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;
(g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]
(h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);]
(i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the Convention).]]

Page 109: 112. Developed country Parties shall undertake policies and measures to ensure that the import of forest products and other commodities from developing country Parties does not contribute to emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

Page 133: Alternative 1:
An assessed contribution from developed country Parties based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, GDP, GDP per capita, the polluter pays principle historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, historical climate debt, including adaptation debt, amounting to [[0.5-1][0.8][2] per cent of gross national product] at least [0.5-1 per cent of GDP]].

Page 134: Option 3 Alternative 1: A uniform global levy of USD 2 per tonne of CO2 for all countries with per capita emissions higher than [1.5][2.0] tonnes of CO2; the LDCs shall be exempt. Alternative 2: Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties

Page 135: Option 7 A [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties. Option 8 Agreed penalties or fines on non-compliance of developed country Parties with their commitments to reduce emissions and provide support in the form of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity-building.

The problem is that global warming is hyped into hysteria by leftists; that's all.

Please see my response to you above as I believe it addresses much of what you say here, especially your statement that "[t]here is no way at all that combatting global warming is a socialist policy."

Good catch, SLTRX. As usual, it's difficult to tell for sure what Hannity's point is, but this can only be taken two ways; either he's trying to make a distinction between conservatives and Marxists (with Marxists representing the very capitalist line he's supposedly arguing, and suggesting that true conservatives should be environmentalists), or he's twisting Marx to support conservation through exploitation.

Either way, he's made a much more open connection between conservatism and Marxism than he's been able to make between Obama and Marxism (socialism/communism/Hitler/Mao, etc)despite trying desperately and daily for the past two years.

Besides that, his basic argument could be used to frame a lot of things as " an attack on capitalism itself". Peace, for example, which ratchets down the very profitable war industry. Military "Victory" has the same effect, assuming we're able to end a war here and there.

Why do you hate peace and our troops, Sean?

I am pretty sure you are well aware that Hannan was saying the exact opposite of what you implied and was in fact contrasting Marxist environmental exploitation with what he deems should be natural conservative environmental conservation.

Jesus paid taxes

This isn't to say that most professional environmentalists are communists

But; if they are "professional" then aren't they being paid for their services?
Doesn't that make them capitalists not communists/socialists?

What would USA health cost be today is none of the current enviromental laws existed???What would the USA life expectancy be with no environmental laws????How severe would USA birth defect rate be without enviromental laws????What would the infant mortility rate be without any enviromental laws?????.....?.....?....?.... Are you saying sick people with a high mortality rate,half their babies dying,and many of the living deformed,is freedom and liberty???This(was,is)the condition of the Soviet Union.GET REAL!!!!