Hannity: The "true agenda" behind global warming is to punish the U.S. and redistribute wealth

Wow!It's global warming time already?I thought they waited until winter to disprove it.Where I live it was ninety degrees at 6,000'in August no less.Next month it may snow which will disprove global warning.<snark>

Good morning Vietnam! Wow MMfA, it took you a month to weigh in on AGW and this is the best you can do? Don't get me wrong, I welcome your withering voice, but really? A whole month? I thought you guys had finally given up beating this dead theory so I stopped checking but here you are back from the dead. I had predicted that GW would be dropping off the MMfA radar, but heck, it's still sad to see it go I guess.

I do like your headline but I suggest replacing "Hannity" with "Reality." Then again, a lot of what goes on here takes place in some alternate dreamed-up Utopian universe and not the real world, so perhaps reality is too strong a word for ye faint of heart.

Now maybe one of you geniuses who chimed in on this post can actually tell me where Hannity got it wrong (perhaps you soez, I think I made it "TL and insane" enough for you). As per usual, all you guys have are your one-liners, and that ain't much. You aren't even trying very hard anymore. Heart not in it? I'm sure SLURTAX will dig this post if he stumbles upon it, seeing as how it is wholly political (in keeping with AGW political science) and he is trying to ban discussion of AGW politics. Since I wouldn't expect the AGW gullible to be able to actually dissect evidence, I'll go ahead and do it for you. Here's what Sean said:

But they did expose the true agenda of global warming hysteria: to punish the United States, redistribute wealth, and force developed nations to de-industrialize.

Absolutely true but he doesn't go far enough (I never thought I'd say that about him). I don't know what documents he is referring to since I didn't see the show (though the left one appears to be the negotiating text for COP15 that I have referred to many times here), but I can speak to "the true agenda of global warming hysteria." Before expanding on what he said though, let's parse his actual words.

Hannity: to punish the United States

Well, let's turn to that negotiating text of COP15 to see what they say about punishment:

Page 133: 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 15: 29. Annex I Parties have agreed to clearly delineate their historical responsibilities and their respective contribution to the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas emissions. All Parties agree that this was crucial in our collective effort to combat the adverse effects of climate change. All Parties have further agreed that assigned amount calculated must reflect this historical contribution of the Annex I Parties in order to determine an equitable allocation of global atmospheric resources between the developed and the developing countries.

Polluter pays, climate debt, historical responsibilities, whatever you call it, punishment seems a worthy enough word. Oh, and I think those quotes would fall under the "redistribute wealth" umbrella as well, but let's add to the pile. Next in Sean's list:

Hannity: redistribute wealth

Again, you can reread the quotes above or continue reading if you are a glutton for punishment.

Page 16: 33. In the light of a shared vision based on historic responsibility/emissions, debt/per-capita emissions convergence/an equitable allocation of a shared atmospheric resource, [and in accordance with the provisions of the Convention,] Annex I Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties [in complying with their obligations under Article 12, paragraph 1, and the full incremental costs of implementing measures that are covered by Article 4, paragraph 1] [, particularly the most vulnerable countries including LDCs and SIDs, of meeting their commitments, towards the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention]. They shall also provide new and additional funding to cover the full incremental costs incurred by developing countries in implementing nationally appropriate mitigation actions undertaken in the context of sustainable development. Annex I Parties commit the amount of [ ] billion [Euros/dollars] in order to enable mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries for the period now up to 2012. The [Conference of the] Parties shall periodically review the adequacy of levels of financing required to support mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries, including a comprehensive review not later than 2011.

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 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.

Wow. With all this proposed money floating around life will be very very good for those in power. For anti-capitalists, they sure seem to need a lot of capital. Swell.

Hannity: and force developed nations to de-industrialize

Page 14: 31. [To this end, [developed country Parties] [Parties included in Annex I to the Convention (Annex I Parties)] [developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex I to the Convention] [developed country Parties included in Annex II to the Convention (Annex II Parties)], as a group, [shall] [should] [reduce their [domestic] GHG emissions] [deeply cut their GHG emissions]: (a) [By at least 25–40] [By 25–40] [By more than 25–40] [In the order of 30] [By at least 40] [By 45] [By at least 45] per cent from 1990 levels by [2017] [2020], through domestic and international efforts [with further reductions to be achieved through policies and measures that promote sustainable lifestyles]; (b) [And [in the range of 75–85] [by at least 85] [by at least 90] [by more than 95] per cent by 2050.]]

Page 145: (c) Define non-compliance parameters, penalties and fines, or a combination of the two or other as appropriate, and implement parameters and procedures defined by the COP to retrieve funds derived from fines and penalties; (d) Impose financial penalties, at a minimum of ten times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess of the level implied by the emissions reduction commitment.

Here are two more from COP15 to take us into round 2.

Page 6: PP.8 [Recognizing that] sustainable development is the first priority for developing countries. Therefore, [that] our commitment to a low carbon society would have to be linked to our development priorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

Page 38: 28. [The adverse effects of climate change [and response measures] [, due to the historical cumulative GHG emissions of developed countries,] constitute an additional burden on [all] developing country Parties [particularly low-lying and other small island countries, countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems] in reducing poverty [, developing strategies to address social vulnerabilities] and attaining sustainable development and [a threat to achieving] the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.] [Economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties, as stated in Article 4.7 of the Convention.]

Notice that term that keeps raising it's ugly head? Sustainable Development (B1 SD)? I know I've traveled most of these same roads before on MMfA, but since you guys never seem to actually dig into the reality of this abomination, it bears repeating, and often. Or if you care to, I just was privileged to have my commentary on SD elevated to a full article over at The Air Vent, you know, where Climategate was born (yes, it was another proud moment), so you can read all about it and more there as well. SD appears over 60 times in COP15 and nearly 300 times in the IPCC's AR4. So what does the UN have to say about its Golden Child B1 SD?

Massive income redistribution and presumably high taxation levels may adversely affect the economic efficiency and functioning of world markets.

Yeah, adversely affect to the tune of $200 trillion per year as of 2100 versus the A1 Golden Economic Age (A1 GEA) we have been embarking on for a century, though they didn't call it that in their final report.

Since I doubt any of you will read the article on The Air Vent, I will plagiarize myself here. When combining the figures used in that draft email and the final report, the economic damage wrought by SD is devastating. Here is how it breaks down for the world:

Global GDP by 2100
A1 Golden Economic Age = $550 trillion
B1 Sustainable Development = $350 trillion

Here's how the numbers break down for individuals in both Annex 1 countries (the 20% of the world with relative wealth) and Annex 2 countries (the 80% of the world that are relatively poor):

2100 A1 Golden Economic Age
Annex 1 per capita income = $100,000
Annex 2 per capita income = $70,000
Average global per capita income = $76,000

2100 B1 Sustainable Development
Annex 1 per capita income = $60,000
Annex 2 per capita income = $35,000
Average global per capita income = $40,000

So, let's have a progress report and revisit the original premise that Hannity's statement reflects reality and your responses reflect inanity. He starts with punish the United States. If your American great-grandson retires with 60% of what he would have had without SD implementation and has a shorter life expectancy, I'd call that punishment. If you don't agree, please promptly donate 40% of your income to the Environmental Defense Fund and let me know how that pans out (I don't expect you to alter your life expectancy as my hope is you live until at least 2100 to witness the pain you inflicted upon the world were we to go SD - that should stand for Sustainable Destruction).

Hannity then says redistribute wealth. I think that was well established in the COP15 agenda I quoted from, oh, and then there was that minor reference to MASSIVE INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. Knockety-knock-knock. What do you need, jazz hands to have it sink in? I would think this wouldn't be arguable though apparently using "Insannity" as the cornerstone of one's debate leaves the door open for some.

Finally, Sean says they purport to force developed nations to de-industrialize. Again, that shouldn't be debatable. Glance back at those numbers. If the rate of growth in GDP is limited to 60% of what it would have been, do you actually think the result is not de-industrialization? Go see how far you get with $60k vs. $100k and get back to me. Better yet, build two houses: one with a $60k budget, and the other with $100k. Then let me know which house you would rather live in. Do the same for your business. Here are a few more quotes about B1 SD from the IPCC report along with some commentary and translations for your enjoyment:

Economic development in B1 is balanced, [if by 'balanced' they mean their feet balanced on our throats] and efforts to achieve equitable income distribution are effective. [there's a political -ism term for this vision I just can't quite come up with, hmm]

A higher proportion of this income is spent on services [such as paying for an environmental impact study of your cat litter box - that will be on top of the luxury tax you pay for all pets, especially those wretched carnivores] rather than on material goods, [like undergarments] and on quality rather than quantity, because the emphasis on material goods is less and also resource prices are increased by environmental taxation. [translation: even if we fail to convert you to the Church of Climatology we will force you to support us through taxation]

Cities are compact and designed for public and non-motorized transport, with suburban developments tightly controlled. [translation: you suburbanites will be forced to live in crowded cities and will have your cars confiscated, Prius or not] Strong incentives for low-input, low-impact agriculture, along with maintenance of large areas of wilderness, [translation: cities will be surrounded by electric fences to keep us from spoiling the wilderness and mowing of grass will be a felony] contribute to high food prices [translation: your $60k will not go as far if a tofu stick runs a bill] with much lower levels of meat consumption than those in A1 [translation: consumption of meat will be outlawed and the streets are filled with sacred cows, pigs, goats, and chickens].

That was a little levity for you before you're eviscerated with these final barbs. You guys must be exceedingly proud to have sided with the CO2 mitigation SD bandwagon knowing that doing so will not only hurt the wealthy (we know that's high on the MMfA list), but will cut right in half the wealth of the world's poor over this century. It's not like some poor Krio soul wouldn't be able to use an extra $35k each year come 2100. Nah. That's just as good as $70k.

And what of all that massive income redistribution? Funny how the UN doesn't project the funds will trickle down to the poor much. So much for "equitable income distribution." So folks, how exactly does undeniably extending poverty for the most impoverished in the world another century mesh with your oh-so-progressive ideals? Please do tell.

While you're at it, please, for once, finally admit that the AGW movement is an activist movement based on political science and is rooted in a desire for power and control. Stop claiming it's settled science and preaching about your manufactured scientific consensus. We're not buying it.

I'd have more respect for you if you'd just admit that this is your vehicle for implementing your political ideology and inflicting it upon the world. Then we could at least have an honest debate. But you won't do that. Some Neo-Inquisitor like Dully will swoop in with some troll remark, someone else will drop a one-liner, and your flock of sheep will move on to greener pastures. Just know there are plenty of wolves like me out there. We wolves will be taking you down the A1 GEA path whether you like it or not. Good luck with your SD dreams.

I wasn't going to do this but why not? This is already a ridiculously long diatribe but I am making it longer by including the other quotes from The Air Vent article, because as I said there, the fastest way to true environmental stewardship is wealth. So here are more relevant quotes from the IPCC report. Cheers!

Discussing correlation of wealth to environmental stewardship:

Pollution abatement efforts appear to increase with income, growing willingness to pay for a clean environment, and progress in the development of clean technology. Thus, as incomes rise, pollution should increase initially and later decline, a relationship often referred to as the "environmental Kuznets curve."

Discussing A1 Golden Economic Age:

The global economy expands at an average annual rate of about 3% to 2100, reaching around US$550 trillion (all dollar amounts herein are expressed in 1990 dollars, unless stated otherwise). This is approximately the same as average global growth since 1850, although the conditions that lead to this global growth in productivity and per capita incomes in the scenario are unparalleled in history.

Discussing impact of wealth on fertility rates, life expectancy and infant and child (and mother) mortality:

[There is a] long-established negative correlation between fertility rates and per capita income. Clearly, richer countries uniformly have a relatively low fertility rate. Poorer countries, on average, have a higher fertility rate.

Barro (1997) reports a statistically significant correlation between per capita GDP growth and the variables life expectancy and fertility in his analysis of post-1960 growth performance of 100 countries. Other things being equal, growth rates correlate positively (higher) with increasing life expectancy and negatively (lower) with high fertility, which confirms the view that the affluent live longer and have fewer children.

From a demographic point of view, the primary effect seen in [the figure showing the 'negative correlation'] is interpreted as infant and child mortality decline with increasing affluence.

Enjoy your day.