That's completely ridiculous and a total mischaracterisation of what was said. What environmentalists are saying is that the negative externalities of fossil fuel burning are affecting everyone, and perhaps most of all the people in a lot of poor countries.
I'm really amazed at how climate skeptics try their best to twist and distort reality to rationalize their comfortable but unsustainable lifestyle. Why not pull out Occam's razor and realize that 99% of all environmentalists are worried about the future of human life on this planet, because a lot of data is pointing in that direction, and are not involved in any nefarious global conspiracy theory?
> The incentive isn't to cool the planet, but alter the world economic model.
This reads so clearly as a projection from climate deniers, heavily invested in protecting their stake in the current world economic model.
Maybe that is the UN's position but I think most people just want energy produced cleanly which helps the environment beyond just global warming which is important for long-term economic health. And it will likely reduce respiratory illness.
Re:What's Really Warming the World?
by emodendroket on Sunday February 26, 2017 @02:16PM
(#13739140)
I think the parent post is just confusing cause and effect. A UN official says that addressing climate change will require massive changes to the global economy and he hears that that's the goal all along.
Re:What's Really Warming the World?
by emodendroket on Sunday February 26, 2017 @02:09PM
(#13739082)
I do not see any will to abandon the current world order or really even take anything like adequate steps to address the problem.
Here's more on that theory -- with appropriate links to source material from the UN. https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/441rl6/un_...
This is not dissimilar to the Eugenics debates in the early 20th century: it was 'settled science' advocated by thought leaders and politicians at the time -- some with noble intentions but ultimately the core of the issue was the elimination of so-called undesirables in society using 'science' as a rationale. Look at documents and speeches by Eugenics proponents at the time -- strangly similar to the "settled science" arguments one hears today. The purpose of the Eugenics movements was far different than the climate movement today -- but no less nefarious depending on the side of the issue you may fall.