A high UN official has admitted the real reason for the climate hysteria: to transform the world economy, redistributing income between from rich nations to poorer ones. Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), warned that the fight against climate change is a process and that the sought-after transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
At a press conference in Brussels, Figueres stated:
This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.
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. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 — you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.
In 2011 speech in Madrid Figueres claimed that the recent unrest in Egypt was caused by rising food-prices which were in turn caused by global warming.
On a global level, increasingly unpredictable weather patterns will lead to falling agricultural production and higher food prices, leading to food insecurity. In Africa, crop yields could decline by as much as 50% by 2020. Recent experiences around the world clearly show how such situations can cause political instability and undermine the performance of already fragile states.
She added that if we took part of our defense spending and invested it in reducing carbon we could avoid the “horrors” associated with global warming.
Decisions on future defense spending are intricately linked to decisions on immediate climate investment through the different future risk assessments. What will be better?
Even under current trends, the rate of defence spending growth could account for a major part of the money needed to cut global emissions and to help the vulnerable, often in the most unstable areas of the world, to protect their societies from crumbling under climate
pressures.
In other words, we should cut defense spending and give that money to other countries so they can solve their carbon problems. A similar point was made in 2010 by United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer:
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore,with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
It is a rare occurrence when the supporters of the climate change hypothesis tell the truth about why they are pushing their plan.
Cross-posted at The Lid
