UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming

[Origanalist]

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”


Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/#ixzz2qxlTGaUp

[PRB]

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”



The quoted and bolded part was what she actually said, that's quite different than saying communism is best to fight global warming.

[muh_roads]

How can you be the top emitter but are "doing it right"?

[Neil Desmond]

This is the modern day version of offering the gods sacrifices to appease them.

[otherone]

“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”


uh huh.

http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2013-01-18/0118_chinasmog_630x420.jpg

[Origanalist]

Where is the picture of the sunrise on huge tv screens because it's too smoggy to see it?

Found it.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/0f398dd05a3d9b9167980d1028e9dcf8/tumblr_mzkf3crf9A1qedj2ho1_500.jpg

[mczerone]

If you believe that a place that has the WORST results in eco-friendly development should be a model for controlling climate change, you might be a communist.

[PRB]

How can you be the top emitter but are "doing it right"?

because CO2 doesn't cause global warming, don't you know that?

[bunklocoempire]

Ixchel told her about communism. I understand ixchel is a big fan of the IMF too.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL - The very worst of environmental issues are in current/former communist nations.

Not that that simple fact will mean anything in Bizarro World.

[gwax23]

Yeah because theres so many incentives to be green when no one owns anything....

[PRB]

Yeah because theres so many incentives to be green when no one owns anything....

No, it's not about being green as in to be nice to plants and animals. You don't need to own the air you breathe to want to breathe clean air. You certainly don't need to own the water you drink to want to keep it clean.

Ancap's answer to West Virginia chemical leak : it's the government's fault, if only Freedom Industries owned the water they polluted, this would NEVER happen!

[PRB]

deleted duplicate post

[Cutlerzzz]

Remember the Aral Sea?

[Occam's Banana]

Ancap's answer to West Virginia chemical leak : it's the government's fault, if only Freedom Industries owned the water they polluted, this would NEVER happen!

How much more full of fail can you get? Is it deliberate? Or are you just obtuse?

The "answer" is NOT that "Freedom Industries" will "NEVER" pollute if they "owned the water." The answer is that when and if "Freedom Industries" did pollute the water owned by other people, then "Freedom Industries" should and could be held fully accountable for having done so by any affected water-owners asserting their property rights under common law - instead of "Freedom Industries" being protected from such liability by "captured" government regulatory agencies that pretend to give a damn about such things (when in fact they are actually just revolving doors for government regulators and corporate lobbies).

[PRB]

How much more full of fail can you get? Is it deliberate? Or are you just obtuse?

The "answer" is NOT that "Freedom Industries" will "NEVER" pollute if they "owned the water." The answer is that when and if "Freedom Industries" did pollute the water owned by other people, then "Freedom Industries" should and could be held fully accountable for having done so by any affected water-owners asserting their property rights under common law - instead of "Freedom Industries" being protected from such liability by "captured" government regulatory agencies that pretend to give a damn about such things (when in fact they are actually just revolving doors for government regulators and corporate lobbies).

so what's the problem today? That the victims don't own the water? or that the government isn't mean enough to them?

[Occam's Banana]

so what's the problem today? That the victims don't own the water?

Among other things, yes.


or that the government isn't mean enough to them?

:confused: "Mean enough" to whom? The victims who don't own the water? :confused:

[PRB]

Among other things, yes.



:confused: "Mean enough" to whom? The victims who don't own the water? :confused:

mean enough to the polluters

[Occam's Banana]

mean enough to the polluters

The government has no reason to be "mean" to polluters. Just the opposite ...

The government interposes itself between the polluters and the polluted by:
(1) pretending to be a "steward" or "conserver" of air quality, "public" waterways, etc., and
(2) exclusively arrogating to itself the role of "proxy" in (allegedly) defending the rights of the victims of pollution.

In so doing, it protects polluters from the (potentially massive) liabilities they should and would face if property rights were allowed to figure in air & water quality issues (and if we had anything like a decent system of property rights enforcement in such matters).

In exchange for this protection - as well as for the protection from competition that comes with regulatory compliance costs - polluting industries pay bribes (in the form of regulatory "fees" or "fines") to the government. Government is happy. Polluters are happy. Everybody else gets screwed - especially the owners of polluted properties & the direct victims of pollution.

Drug addiction is a bad thing. But the DEA doesn't give a damn that. It just uses drug addiction as a public relations "scare tactic" to increase its power & authority (and, less directly, to protect the interests & profits of the pharmaceutical industry). Exactly the same thing goes for the government with respect to pollution. (Hence, the EPA has no more interest in winning any "war on pollution" than the DEA has in winning the "war on drugs" - and for the same kinds of reasons.)

[PRB]

The government has no reason to be "mean" to polluters. Just the opposite ...



Who does the government have a reason to be mean to then?

[Occam's Banana]

Who does the government have a reason to be mean to then?

Edward Snowden. And Iran. And people who make mistakes on their tax forms.

[Ronin Truth]

Yeah, let Cuba and North Korea handle it. :p

[jmdrake]

No, it's not about being green as in to be nice to plants and animals. You don't need to own the air you breathe to want to breathe clean air. You certainly don't need to own the water you drink to want to keep it clean.

Ancap's answer to West Virginia chemical leak : it's the government's fault, if only Freedom Industries owned the water they polluted, this would NEVER happen!

Ummmm....okay. And communist China's answer is.......? Encourage mothers to kill their baby girls through a one child policy? :confused: FTR the libertarian answer (which isn't quite the ancap answer) is that whoever is affected by the pollution should be able to sue the polluters. Now...what happens with the polluting industry is government owned? The biggest pollution problem we have in Tennessee is a coal ash spill caused by the government owned TVA. In fact it may be the worst environmental disaster in American history (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/photos/americas-10-worst-man-made-environmental-disasters-0).

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/styles/node-gallery-display/public/coalash_0.jpg

Okay. The victims were able to sue, but only after getting "permission" from the state of Tennessee to sue itself. And ultimately who pays for the damages? Why the taxpayers of course. So the government screws up your environment and you have to pay for the cleanup and the damages. Oh, and since TVA is government owned, it gets an automagic bailout. If this had been a private actor it might have been forced out of business. So....how well is this model working?

[jmdrake]

mean enough to the polluters

The worst polluter of water in U.S. history is a government owned agency. Do you expect the government to be "mean" to itself? If so, let me know when James Clapper gets prosecuted.

[Seraphim]

Hi Mr. UN Climate Chief, a view of Communist China:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-02/guest-post-pollution-threatens-chinas-food-security

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-06/peak-smog-shanghai-orders-cars-roads-pollution-literally-charts

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2013/12/20131206_china.jpg

NOW KINDLY GO FUCK YOURSELF.

[jmdrake]

The quoted and bolded part was what she actually said, that's quite different than saying communism is best to fight global warming.

Umm...."doing it right" is also quoted, although you didn't bold it. And the DailyCaller copied/pasted the article from Bloomberg who actually interviewed Ms. Figueres. So if she didn't say "doing it right" with respect to China then she should sue Bloomberg for libel. I doubt that will happen because "doing it right" is most likely an accurate quote.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-13/top-global-emitter-china-best-on-climate-change-figueres-says.html
China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said.

The nation has some of the toughest energy-efficiency standards for buildings and transportation and its support for photovoltaic technology helped reduce solar-panel costs by 80 percent since 2008, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said yesterday in an interview at Bloomberg News headquarters in New York.

The country is facing growing public pressure from citizens to reduce air pollution, due in large part to burning coal. Its efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable power stem from the realization that doing so will pay off in the long term, Figueres said.

[PRB]

Umm...."doing it right" is also quoted, although you didn't bold it. And the DailyCaller copied/pasted the article from Bloomberg who actually interviewed Ms. Figueres. So if she didn't say "doing it right" with respect to China then she should sue Bloomberg for libel. I doubt that will happen because "doing it right" is most likely an accurate quote.

I don't doubt she said doing it right, I apologize for not highlighting that part. But that's still my point, it's quite different than saying communism is best to fight global warming.

Saying America is best at bullying other countries is not the same as saying "black Presidents/capitalism/crony capitalism" is best for bullying other countries. Do you get the difference? Best at (a country) vs best for (policy they allegedly adopt).

[PRB]

is that whoever is affected by the pollution should be able to sue the polluters.

and the status quo is stopping people from doing that? Erin Brocovich is just fiction?

[Grubb556]

Believe it or not central planning actually caused some of the greatest environmental disasters ever.

Aral Sea

http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-water2/0280-aralsea-chrono-EN-7d2e8.jpg

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

That may be the stupidest thing I've read this month.

[Philhelm]

The funny thing about Commies, hipsters, beatniks, and assorted scum, is how much they love concrete jungles yet jerk off to Gaia.

[jmdrake]

and the status quo is stopping people from doing that? Erin Brocovich is just fiction?

She's no more fictional than the TVA. And you bringing her up actually strengthens my point. An Erin Brocovich could only sue an entity like TVA if the government in question gave her permission to sue TVA. It's called "sovereign immunity." The more government owns industry the less accountability there is.

Edit: And we aren't just talking about the "status quo". Thankfully there is still some freedom left in this country. But if people get the idea that communist China is "doing it right" and decide to follow that model in order to "stop pollution", then what kind of an effect with the Erin Brocovich's of the world have?

[Dr.3D]

It's all a moot subject anyway. These is no global warming.