The answer is simple: nuclear. Clean, reliable, dependable, plentiful nuclear. Build more nuclear plants, build them fast, build them now, build them everywhere. In the 1960's there was a push for all-electric homes because nuclear promised to make energy so cheap that we'd one day pay a flat rate for electric delivery. The only reason this hasn't happened is because the anti-energy communists (such as the kenyan muslim currently residing in the White House) continue to oppose all energy that does not raise taxes. We need nuclear. More nuclear, lots of nuclear, right now.
I don’t know, should idiot lying AGW Deniers be allowed to ask questions here?
Here is a little more context (i.e., honest, literate, informed, intelligent) of the interview (every part you reference is equally a deliberate distortion-lie):
----------
(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. 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.
---------
Edenhofer is saying “we” (as in those who live in the “developed countries”) are “de facto” (referring to the existing system/policy) redistributing the world’s wealth by extracting it from one place and using its energy in another place.
Deniers are either stupid as dirt or the biggest liars on earth. – or (most likely) both.
Raising cigarette taxes clearly reduce smoking.
On the other hand, the knowledge that fuel costs are increasing and will increase, due to demand, has helped to stimulate most major corporations to conserve energy.
I'd rather pay taxes on fossil fuels consumption, which I can somewhat control, than on income.
Did you happen to notice none of your quotes concern carbon taxes. You must be a tenderfoot DA denier NO All these bozo's crying about carbon tax don't understand the need to reduce carbons vs the Industry bottom line. A few corporations are sensitive to the climate, but spending money to capture carbon is tabled. Most of what I read is that the carbon tax would be offset by individual income tax reduction Industry however will face humongous taxes and they will then be motivated to capture carbon in order to save money.
The ignorant a**holes who say it is a socialist theory are totally missing the point and not worth listening to.
BTW Benedik doesn't know the difference between GW and the greenhouse effect read his quote
*****Gary NO Legitimate question s, YES but all these bullsh*t surveys and questions with BS quotes and Questions that are simply ranting or lecturing NO
The only people who think that a tax changes the climate are probably those who think that all of science of some gigantic hoax of Al Gore.
You can't laugh someone out of office. You must impeach them to remove them.
And Mr. Edenhoffer holds no political office.
People who mention global warming should be thrown out of office.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...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."
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
Global warming slowing: What does that mean?http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/0919/Global-warming-slowing-What-does-that-mean
