“World Bank turns up the heat on global warming debate”
Bill Wilson, ALG:
A recent report by the World Bank has found that the world will warm by 4 degrees Celsius this century, and that the negative impacts of climate change will disproportionately hurt developing, poorer regions.
The report, “Turn Down the Heat,” warns of rising sea levels, less arable land, droughts, water contamination, more storms at greater strength and more, saying it was “likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today.”
Don’t forget women and children and the elderly. They’re always hardest hit. I know this because the major newspapers have spent years telling me so.
“We will never end poverty if we don’t tackle climate change,” World Bank President Jim Yong Kim recently told reporters in a conference call highlighting the piece.
The report itself is light on details of how exactly the world’s temperature will be reduced, other than through amorphous “international and regional agreements” to substantially reduce carbon emissions, particularly in developed regions like the U.S. and Europe.
But even if the U.S. and other nations were to voluntarily restrict carbon emissions — a questionable proposition in itself — other nations like China and India would certainly fill in the gap to meet the needs of their own growing populations.
From that perspective, the World Bank’s report makes perfect sense. Perhaps the real agenda of those who cling to a belief in man-made climate change has little to do with alleviating global poverty or combating climate change.
The fact is, without enforcement of agreements restricting carbon emissions, which would require a near totalitarian control over the global economy and sovereignty by some internationalist body, agreements will simply fail to reduce carbon emissions. It is not a realistic policy objective.
I hate to nitpick, but since when did the fact that a policy objective isn’t “realistic” stop transnational progressives from pushing for it anyway? Honestly. Don’t sell them short, nor dismiss the depths of their desire for complete and ironfisted control of everyone and everything.
So, maybe that is not the goal of such agreements. Examining their likely effects, however, reveals they will simply redirect the flow of the world’s energy trade, redistributing energy resources and wealth toward developing economies and away from the West.
That makes a whole lot more sense than these tortured “scientific” analyses amounting to little more than “the gods are angry”-type explanations for the state of the climate.[…]
Jim Yong Kim in the report’s foreword promises that “many opportunities exist to dramatically reduce the climate impact of development, without slowing down poverty alleviation and economic growth.” The report then subsequently fails to outline what those opportunities might be, of course.
Probably because they do not actually exist. Instead, it appears likely that a sudden, dramatic decline in energy output everywhere would wreck the global economy. Slower growth would lead to higher unemployment and less resources to go around. All of which would create more poverty, not less.
So let’s cut to the chase. This is about who controls the world’s energy supply. No more, no less. The questionable science of man-made climate change is merely the means to that redistributive end.
Of course. And any thinking person has known this all along, or at least, has already come to that conclusion, having finally worked through the “science.” Hell, when the former head of Greenpeace is onto the redistributionist game, exposing these new climate scientists for the frauds they are — and is then castigated as an ecological traitor for having watched true environmental concern hijacked by those wishing to exploit it for power, control, and wealth, using its emotional appeals without caring a whit about what they’re ostensibly aimed at — it’s at that point that you either succumb to blind ideology being peddled by those getting rich off of it, or admit that you’ve been wrong, and that your legitimate conservationist concerns enabled unscrupulous and self-serving con artists to take advantage of you.
Because here’s the truth the left doesn’t want you to internalize: if you aren’t on the side of reasoned skepticism, you aren’t really on the side of science, no matter how much the self-serving statists invert that equation and sneer at your failure to fall in line.
— When they aren’t looking to in fact criminalize that failure, which is what they’d like to do to all you climate deniers. Who are essentially committing a hate crime against earth and as a result should, like unwanted black babies and children with birth defects, be removed from the gene pool. For the greater global good.