World Bank-IMF Pushes “Carbon Pricing” Global Tax-&-Spend Scheme

The New American
by William F. Jasper


Carbon budget. Carbon regime. Carbon pricing. Carbon trading. These are code words for the colossal UN grab for money and power at the upcoming global Climate Summit in December in Paris.

With the United Nations’ world summit on global warming now only weeks away, the propaganda war is ratcheting up — at a furious pace. One of the latest salvos aimed at convincing the peoples and national governments of the world to empower the UN with vast new tax and regulatory powers is an op-ed co-authored by World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde for Project Syndicate (founded and funded by George Soros). Entitled “The Path to Carbon Pricing,” the op-ed is the latest rendition of the “carbon budget” scheme that the WB-IMF elites have been promoting for a number of years as a means to provide the UN and their Wall Street bankster allies with, literally, trillions of dollars in carbon taxes, carbon trading permits, and “green” investments.

”In just six weeks, world leaders will meet in Paris to negotiate a new global climate-change agreement,” Lagarde and Kim wrote. “To date, 150 countries have submitted plans detailing how they will move their economies along a more resilient low-carbon trajectory. These plans represent the first generation of investments to be made in order to build a competitive future without the dangerous levels of carbon-dioxide emissions that are now driving global warming.”

“The transition to a cleaner future will require both government action and the right incentives for the private sector,” say the WB-IMF duo. “At the center should be a strong public policy that puts a price on carbon pollution. Placing a higher price on carbon-based fuels, electricity, and industrial activities will create incentives for the use of cleaner fuels, save energy, and promote a shift to greener investments.” The means they advocate for accomplishing this are “measures such as carbon taxes and fees, emissions-trading programs and other pricing mechanisms.”

“Carbon taxes should be applied comprehensively to emissions from fossil fuels,” say Lagarde and Kim, adding, “The price must be high enough to achieve ambitious environmental goals.” Translation: We’ll fix carbon taxes high enough to make use of hydrocarbon fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) prohibitively expensive, while subsidizing the inefficient, non-viable, “clean” wind and solar industries.

“Administering carbon taxes is straightforward and can build on existing road fuel taxes, which are well established in most countries,” say the globalist duo. So, if their vision is enacted at the UN’s Paris confab, get set for skyrocketing fuel taxes.

“Wealth Redistribution” Is the Goal

Unfortunately for Lagarde and Kim and their alarmist confederates at the UN, a number of their confreres have spilled the beans: They have publicly admitted that their real goal has nothing to do with saving the environment and is totally aimed at redistributing the wealth of the planet — from the middle classes to the ruling classes. One of the most important confessions in this regard comes from Ottmar Edenhofer, who, from 2008 to 2015 was a co-chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III on “Mitigation of Climate Change.” He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. As we have reported recently, the Potsdam Institute is one of the major tax-supported climate think tanks providing the World Bank with pseudo-scientific studies to justify confiscating the wealth of the planet in the name of saving Nature.

During an interview in 2010 with the Swiss NZZ on Sunday, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore.” And, he further explained, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Here’s what Edenhofer said:

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet — and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11,000 to 400 — there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil….

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Condensed takeaway: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy; This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore.” Which is another way of saying that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming, or AGW, is all about politics masquerading under a false label of science. As The New American has reported many times, thousands of top scientists have debunked the IPCC’s bogus claims that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a pollutant or that it is causing global warming. We also have repeatedly cited the overwhelming evidence that, contrary to the claims of the IPCC, World Bank, IMF, et. al., there has been no measurable rise of average global temperatures for more than 18 years.

Then there is an admission from one of Edenhofer’s colleagues, German physicist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute, a lead author for the UN and a top science advisor to the European Union, the German government, and the World Bank. In an interview with German newspaper Der SpiegeI, Schellnhuber admitted it is politics, not science, that is driving his agenda. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” he told Der Speigel. “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”

However, complications notwithstanding, the AGW propagandists are pushing full-speed ahead to force the UN’s cap-and-trade “carbon pricing” regime — its wealth redistribution scheme — on the entire world. It is worth remembering that Candidate Barack Obama, when running for the White House in 2008, stated: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses will have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost on to the consumers.”

Under the UN plan — which President Obama supports — electricity rates (along with prices for everything produced with electricity, i.e., food, shelter, clothing, etc.) will “necessarily skyrocket,” as companies either go out of business, off-shore more production to China (which is given a pollution pass by the UN), or pass the cost on to consumers.

In the closing paragraph of their op-ed, Lagarde and Kim used the usual emotional appeals. “We call on governments to seize the moment — for the sake of the planet and future generations — to put a price on carbon pollution that reflects the environmental damage it causes. We stand ready to support governments that act. The longer we wait, the costlier and more difficult it will be for us — and our children and grandchildren — to protect the planet.”

The truth, of course, is just the opposite; the more impetuously we act, by rushing in panic to adopt the oppressive regime proposed by the UN, the more costly it will be for us, our children, and grandchildren — in terms of money and liberty. And the more devastating it will be for our planet.

The New American