Free Markets, Free People


Paying “Ecological Debt” = Redistribution Of Wealth On A Global Level

Despite the mounting questions about the science involved with theory of AGW, the reason most nations, especially “developing” nations, support the theory lock, stock and barrel is because they stand to receive a great deal of money and they don’t have to do a thing.

Central American nations will demand 105 billion dollars from industrialized countries for damages caused by global warming, the region’s representatives said on Friday.

Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala to discuss the so-called “ecological debt” owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month.

Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate said the 105-billion-dollar price tag was “an estimate” of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.

This is all about looting the “industrialized” countries for every penny they can get and they don’t have to prove a thing since the industrialized countries have also ignored the dubiousness of the science and set themselves up to be looted.

The only thing I’d like to know is how they arrived at the price tag?

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

5 Responses to Paying “Ecological Debt” = Redistribution Of Wealth On A Global Level

  • Obama has been behind this “free lunch” starting with the “Global Poverty Act

  • Not exactly, caps place a high marginal cost on industrial production.

    The big losers under a global cap+trade would be “developing nations” that actually do some developing (China, India, Brazil, Malaysia), because they are both industrial and poor.  This is why agreement at Copenhagen is proving difficult.

    The other losers would be the developed nations that have ambitions to maintain an export production sector (USA, Canada, Japan, S. Korea and Australia).   

    The big winners would be the tin pot countries where the government can repress development and keep their population “carbon sustainable” (dirt poor & starving).  Mugabe & Kim through Chavez - any one of the myriad repressive anti-development regimes – would get paid $billions for doing what comes naturally.

    The other winners are the post industrial nations whose emissions are in decline and are actively moving to a service/asset management based economy (basically the EU).  These are best able to meet the requirements of caps and have the wealth available to finance what industrialising does occur (at the higher than current cost).   

  • As a native Central American, and now a U.S. citizen, I have an unusual perspective on the proceedings. Needless to say, the white man’s obsession with carbon is viewed as bizarre by Central Americans.
    However, if you have people begging you to take their money to assuage some weird guilt fetish, why fight it? They were probably suspicious at first, but once they realized that the developed countries take this crap seriously, they decided to milk the opportunity for all it’s worth.
    A large number of rich and corrupt government officials and politically-connected associates are about to reap a harvest of graft beyond their wildest dreams. You know: kinda like Congress…
     

  • This was supposed to happen under Kyoto.  Many nations (New Zealand comes to mind) thought that they would profit from emissions trading as developed countries struggled to meet the emissions limits.  Then, New Zealand’s ecxonomy began to grow and by about 2004, they realized the expected windfall from the sale of emission credits had turned into a liability as they were going to have trouble meeting their own limits.  Shockingly enough, they decided they no longer supported Kyoto.  Unfortunately, with the mis-management of the American economy by leftists in the Obama administration and the mis-management of latin American economies by the likes of Chavez , the nations who seek to profit from cap and trade may not experience enough economic growth of their own to render this system unprofitable.