UN appoints proud wealth redistributor to lead ‘green jobs’ effort

We’ve got a new entrant in the push to tie down the U.S. economy once and for all in the name of saving the environment, and skeptics of the green boondoggle could not have chosen a better advocate to make their case, however inadvertently.

More on this new entrant in a moment. First, a refresher of what it is they’re pushing. With the legislative death of cap-and-trade energy rationing, President Obama telegraphed his re-branding effort in that delightful “shellacking” press conference last November by saying “there are other ways to skin that cat.”

That cat is the long-held left-liberal goal of riding the global warming issue to a place that free people will never go if given an honest sales pitch. It is now to be skinned by something that also has a few names, just in case one becomes the punch-line that “global warming” has become.

As per a poll taken by Democrat pollster Stanley Greenberg, these labels are a “clean energy economy” and, with economic times being what they are, “green jobs.”

On Capitol Hill, this is called a clean energy standard or CES (read: windmill mandate). The latest proponent of this Plan B is our old friend, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And, with the Senate actually pondering a CES push before summer, this comes just in time.

That is, it comes just in time for those of us arguing for more individual liberty, less state control over our lives and the economy. Short of Al Gore making a movie about green jobs that, too, got all of its money claims tossed by the UK’s high court as unsupportable, a helpful assist from the IPCC is all a skeptic could hope for.

The IPCC is often touted as 2,500 of the world’s leading climate scientists (whose “chief scientist” is in fact a railway engineer, and whose ranks include anthropology T/As, transport policy teachers and instructors in group-huggy things like “the human dimension of climate change”). It was in defense of the IPCC’s “smoking gun” from its 2001 Third Assessment Report, the thoroughly debunked “Hockey Stick,” that scientists affiliated with the IPCC enterprise engaged in all of their perversion of science and transparency laws later exposed by an apparent whistleblower in ClimateGate.

In short, they’re the best friend anyone opposing this cat-skinning ruse could ask for. But it gets better.

Today the IPCC released a “Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.” Actually, it only released its summary because, as is always the case with these IPCC products, the “Summary for Policymakers” is produced before the actual work it purportedly summarizes. Here’s our answer, now let’s set about propping it up!

Right up front are the paper’s four “coordinating lead authors.” Representative of the world of global warming schemes, these include two Germans, an African, and a Cuban, as no economic plan is complete without an expert from Cuba.

First among them, however, just happens to be IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. You may remember him for his recent gem — also from last November, come to think of it — of admitting that “one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Instead, climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…” I couldn’t have said it better myself (though I have tried).

As Daily Caller readers already know, these efforts are to culminate with a “green jobs” treaty that the U.S. will have sprung on it next spring, three weeks before the confab of global leaders, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, takes place in Rio de Janeiro. There will be a great flood of media puffery about the supposed wonders of the state “creating jobs” (particularly with the encouragement of supranational entities, no doubt) by mandating economic inefficiencies.

  • Pingback: Energy and Environment News

  • libertyatstake

    The redistributionists (statists) disappoint me – it’s going on two years since Climate Gate and they haven’t come up with a new meme to spread as their excuse.

    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

  • Pingback: See, I told you…it’s all about the money | pindanpost

  • Pingback: The Right Opinion – May 10th « John R. Bolton

  • pyeatte

    Anything that comes out of the left is suspect for they are never honest about their true motives. While the rank and file may believe the AGW line, the true motive is social control and wealth redistribution where AGW is merely the tool. As for johno413 who thinks windmills are the soultion, I can only shake my head. The only meaningful sources of energy for base load (generate on demand) supply are fossil and nuclear. The rest depend on the whims of nature. The British almost froze to death in December because when it gets really cold, the wind does not blow and windmill power is not available when it is needed the most. Another think that is so frustrating is this so-called “renewable” scam. FYI, nuclear is definitely renewable because it is limitless. Natural gas, oil and coal to a lesser extent, is also renewable because the processes that created the vast supply are still at work and will continue so as long as there is plant life. (Natural gas has a non-biological component, abiogenic, in addition to the biological.)

  • johno413

    Mr. Horner, although I agree with your assertions about the political movement, I have come to decide you are also primarily a politician. And your words are mostly political/emotional. That you never give credit to any of the non-fossil energy production forms confirms that.

    I get it about those who drool over the ability to micromanage whole economies and wealth redistributions in the name of “green (fill in the blank)”. However, the one technology you have chosen to disparage in everything opinion you have written that I have read, wind turbines (windmills in your vernacular) is the closet to reaching parity, or nearing the cost to ratepayers of fossil plants. Of course, the climate catastrophists and the green-lords push the unrealistic goal of total elimination of “dirty” energy sources in a lifetime. That is utter nonsense. But, in the interest of preparing for the future and in the interest of hedging bets on other risks that usually encircle having to find newer resources and technology to access them (e.g. hydraulic fracturing to name one) there isn’t really a good argument for NOT including renewable sources to some degree. Although other people’s money has been a linchpin, wind has become a reasonably priced source in the right locations, on land. Solar, a real black hole for OPM, has also dropped a great deal in cost to the ratepayer. It still has quite a ways to go.

    Your positions and writings would be more credible if didn’t appear to take the opposite extreme and if you acknowledged some of these points. Instead you appear to point only to the do nothing solution, which is not the only valid option.

    • VanGrungy


      Combine cold temperatures that make steel brittle along with gusty winds, and you have a Titanic recipe for disaster. For those that will argue that I’m being unfair to the promise of wind power, I welcome you to provide photos of any power plant in the USA that has been collapsed due to weather. Downed power poles sure, but power sources?


      “wind has become a reasonably priced source in the right locations”

      yes, I agree.. lol

  • Pingback: All that’s required to save the planet is redistribution of [your] wealth | JunkScience Sidebar

  • Pingback: UN Appoints Proud Wealth Re-Distributor to Lead Green Jobs Effort | Suffolk County Liberty Report