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/u...s-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.

 

[Origanalist]

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

Found it.

 

[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?

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

 

[PRB]

Among other things, yes.



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

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?