UNFCCC: Only Way To Save Planet from AGW Is to Reorganize Global Economy under UNFCCC

by Myron Ebell on February 7, 2015

in Blog, Features

Leading global warming alarmists often claim that saving the world from global warming will be easy.  Research reports from universities and environmental groups are regularly published that show the costs will be minimal and the costs of not doing it will be astronomical.  As former Vice President Al Gore, Nobel Prize and Oscar winner, puts it, how can it be costly to replace dirty, expensive energy from coal, oil, and natural gas with clean, free energy from wind and solar?

unfccc hqBut every year or two, a leading alarmist lets the cat out of the bag.  At a press conference in Brussels on 3rd February, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that completely transforming the global economy in a few decades “is probably the most difficult task we [the UN? Mankind?] have ever given ourselves.”

“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,” Figueres said.

Executive Secretary Figueres is apparently unaware that Communism in the Soviet Union beginning in 1917 and in Maoist China in 1949 intentionally tried to fundamentally transform their economies according to a new model.  The results were widely judged to be not altogether successful.  Perhaps the United Nations will do better.

jan freed February 8, 2015 at 8:43 pm

I rarely hear someone say producing 17 TW of energy from low carbon fuels would be easy.

But, it is essential we do it. We need the same energy and investment in resources as we poured into WW2.

Randall March 2, 2015 at 4:01 am

WHY is it essential we return to the low-yield energy sources we largely abandoned for a good reason over 100 years ago, so that we are utilizing hundreds of times more land area to achieve the same results as we are now?

Why do we want to install alternative energy facilities in geographically distant areas, necessitating the construction of needless extra hundreds of miles of power transmission cables and towers?

Why do we want to kill birds and bats on an exponentially increasing scale with wind turbine blades?

Why do we want to chop off the tops of mountains and many smaller peaks to erect wind turbine towers?

Why do we want to fry to death more avian wildlife with solar concentrators such as the ones on California?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: