UN Switch From Fear to Greed to Promote New Green Tax
By Staff News & Analysis - February 23, 2011

Green economies for growth, urges UN … Investing $1.3 trillion (£800bn) each year in green sectors would deliver long-term stability in the global economy, a UN report has suggested. Spending about 2% of global GDP in 10 key areas would kick-start a "low carbon, resource efficient green economy", the authors observed. They also recommended following policies that decoupled economic growth from intensive consumption. The findings have been published at a meeting attended by 100 ministers. "Governments have a central role in changing laws and policies, and in investing public money in public wealth to make the transition possible," said Pavan Sukhdev, head of the UN Environment Programme's (Unep) Green Economy Initiative. – BBC

Dominant Social Theme: Go Green!

Free-Market Analysis: When the Anglo-America power elite launches a dominant social theme, not much can derail it. The global warming scam has been exposed over and over again. The UN itself was guilty of publishing grossly misleading figures and the leading global warming researchers conspired to publish only papers that were favorable to the alarmist forecasts they wanted to make.

Chief among the Anglosphere's goals is to obtain taxing authority for the UN. The global warming menace was to provide the justification for such a tax and now the UN (see article above) has come out and announced the need for one. A sizeable one too. What is interesting – almost humorous – about all this is that the whole issue has lost considerable traction. Poll after poll in the Western world shows that global warming is far from being perceived as a global threat, much less one that will demand that the UN administer a tax equivalent to 2% of worldwide income.

The UN perseveres nonetheless. A promotion of the Anglo-American elite itself, the UN has been positioned to assume massive new powers based on the crisis of "global warming" – or climate change as the made-up emergency is now called. Additionally, because the alarmism has been so entirely deflated, proponents are emphasizing other issues related to crisis. A "green" economy such as the one that the UN is set to administer will add new jobs to the world's economy and generally stimulate growth. So the argument goes.

Of course, the Anglosphere seldom does anything in a monotone when it comes to promotions. Thus, the UN's call for a two-percent tithing is to be matched – according to a recent Guardian article – by "statements of support for low-carbon investment from heads of state including President Barack Obama of the US and Hu Jintao of China, and several chiefs of multinational companies."

The UN findings, the Guardian reports, are also being supported by a German government White Paper cautioning that Europe will continued on a low-growth trajectory without the boost a green economy would provide. According to German logic, the more punitive the regulatory environment, the better off the EU will be. Very punitive emissions targets will therefore raise European GDP by up to US$842 billion and create up to six millions new jobs. It is loony-tunes – a variant of the broken-window fallacy. The more one destroys the vitality of an economy with useless regulations designed to capture "carbon dioxide" (of all things) the better the world's economies are supposed to do.

One would actually expect world leaders to speak out AGAINST such economic illiteracy. But no! India already has a "national action plan," that the Guardian projects as stimulating up to US$1 trillion of investment in the next decade. China too is pushing ahead with a five-year plan for a "clean revolution" featuring wind and solar power.

The US is thankfully behind the curve – investment in renewable energy has "stalled," the Guardian writes. In fact, Republicans in the House have developed legislation that would reduce federal spending on low-carbon projects by up to half. Cuts include the high-speed rail program favored by Barack Obama along with carbon regulation and "contributions to international climate funds."

The EU apparently is not doing so well either, with a good deal of controversy swirling about the adoption of more stringent emission cuts. For some reason, however, the UK, wants to increase cuts from 20% to 30%. What's the reason? "A more stringent target will create new jobs and allow the EU to keep up with China in the race to dominate the green economy."

In this topsy-turvy world, Draconian legislation that increases all sorts of capital costs for businesses who are then forced to cut "carbon emissions" is seen as a beneficent discipline. Not only that, but the additional authoritarian legislation is being urged on by its proponents as a necessary part of keeping up with the job creation that is sure to come from Chinas own authoritarian actions regarding a Green economy.

Why isn't 20% good enough? According to the German report, the target "has become too weak to mobilize innovations". Only 30% will do – a "target that is not only achievable but economically beneficial." The UK seems to agree. The "conservative" Cameron administration, reports the Guardian, is paying heed to a group of business leaders that have for some reason come together to urge measures to "stimulate low carbon development."

Peter Young, chairman of the Aldersgate Group, is quoted as saying, "The chancellor has promised a budget for growth but we believe this must be a budget for green growth. The UK needs an explicit strategy to take advantage of the global shift to a green economy, driving jobs and exports. Cuts alone will not deliver a competitive economy."

So what is a Green economy? The UN's UNEP defines it as one that results in "improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities". A number of "investments" are recommended in UNEP's presentation:

• $108bn greening agriculture, such as encouraging and supporting smallholder farms

• $134bn on the building sector, including improving energy efficiency

• $110bn improving fisheries, including reducing the capacity of the world's fishing fleet

• $15bn on forestry, with "important knock-on benefits for combating climate change"

• $110bn on both water and waste, including sanitation and recycling

All this investment, of course, is supposed to simulate tremendous growth. The report, "produced by experts from developed and developing nations," claims such actions will produce higher annual growth rates within 5-10 years than a business-as-usual scenario.

It really is incredible what the UN can offer without substantive pushback from the mainstream press. Every part of this announcement is shot through with inaccuracies and outright lies. Regulation does not cause economic growth. It never has and it never will. It defies the laws of rational thinking to expect such foolishness. Taxes do not produce additional wealth but merely redistribute resources from those who making proper use of them to those who won't.

There is no need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide because this is a gas that constitutes one of the building blocks of human life. In any event, there is no such thing as global warming – or so increasing amounts of trustworthy research seems to indicate – and reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change is merely a logical fallacy even within the asylum constructed by the power elite to contain such arguments.

What is more fascinating to us, as power-elite meme watchers, is how the promotion has shifted, given the level of disarray it faces. The argument has moved from outright fear mongering to wealth creation. This is in keeping with such promotions of course, as if one cannot appeal to fear (the preferred manipulation) then one appeals to wealth.

The difference however is that fear is an individual experience; one internalizes fear and takes action based on a potential outcome. Greed-based promotions are far less effective because the wealth effect being promised is by its nature many years away and may not affect a given individual anyway. In other words, fear-based promotions are personal and greed-based promotions (at this grandiose level) are hypothetical.

That the elite feels the need to promote climate change with a wealth-based meme instead of a fear-based one shows how much trouble the theme is in. This is therefore another sign that the global warming dominant social theme continues to unravel with all its attendant ramifications in terms of business, resource allocation and even global governance.

After Thoughts

This is not to say that the meme is entirely ineffective, only that the elite must be scaling back expectations. By now, no doubt, the powers-that-be had expected to have a UN tax in place. They are playing out the scenario, but we would be surprised if the UN is granted taxing authority for "climate change" anytime soon.