Is this a fair summary of Ottmar Edenhoffer’s view?
Floating around the web and frequently repeated here, is a mis-quote by Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC. Out of context it makes it look like the IPCC’s objective is global wealth redistribution, and that climate change is a good excuse to justify it. The actual oringinal quote came from a German article that was then translated and misrepresented by a British climate denier with dodgy financial backing. The original German can be found on line, and the meaning has been twisted.
My overview of Edenhoffer’s views, after reading more about him on Google and Wikipedia is:
The science of global warming is sound and not controversial among scientists whose job it is to estimate the truth. By adversely affecting the whole planet, the rich countries have already confiscated some of the wealth of the poorer nations. That is a transfer of wealth. And if some people must leave oil and coal in the ground, or get taxed to cause CO2 reduction, then that also is a transfer of wealth. This is defacto wealth redistribution. So the problem goes far beyond the science of global warming. The issue is not just the environment. It becomes an economic and political problem.
2016-01-28T16:14:12Z
Thanks Gringo and Hey Dook. in summary, it is a horse-cart issue. Clearly, Edenhoffer doesn't first want redistribution, with AGW a good excuse for it. On the contrary, he knows AGW is real, and it has already redistributed wealth, and more will happen, one way or another..
Hey Dook2016-01-27T10:29:42Z
Favorite Answer
The quote is accurate, but the abuse of it by science haters is a typical case of mass copy-pasting of deliberately misleading out-of-context cherry-picking. Of course, like most of what those deniers shovel, whether one agrees with the views expressed in the quote has zero bearing on what is scientific reality and what is pseudo science trickery peddled by the fossil fuel industry's tools in the blogosphere and Congress.
As for the quote itself, it was originally made in German in a 2010 interview: http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227
The context was the well-known (though oft-denied by the anti-science herd) free-rider or commons problem: that if no one owns a resource enjoyed by all, then no one has any personal incentive to protect or manage it wisely, with the result that the resource can be squandered, to the general detriment of all. Overfishing is an example.
Edenhofer's logic is: If the global atmosphere and climate is deemed to be commonly owned by all humans, then richer countries have in essence [though until recent decades not knowingly] expropriated part of that common ownership by burning fossil fuels, because doing so alters the atmosphere and climate (in ways which have mostly negative implications for the global economy generally, and poorer non-temperate countries in particular). If common ownership were somehow activated, for example on the basis of population, then poorer countries could claim compensation for having part of their share taken from them by richer countries.
So, Edenhofer is indeed talking about a kind of Robin Hood redistribution, except that it is not some kind of wholesale wealth transfer regardless of the source of the wealth, but rather a transfer back to the poor of what the rich took from them in the past by emitting long-lived greenhouse gases. Committed liars about climate science will typically construe this sort of remark as something quite different from what it is, but that only works reliably if people remain unaware or in denial of the actual context.
Ottmar's translated words by Dictionary.com. The same quote as Graph quoted, which seems to be universally accurate.
"But it must be clearly said: we climate policy de facto the world's wealth redistribution."
So in finality, don't attempt to twist his meaning. It is clear in two languages and probably more. "This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore," is as clear as you can get.
From a person who adores someone who doesn't know what 'is' means, is in of itself, laughable.
You realize he is an economist, right? Frankly, his view on GW or economics doesn't concern me except when he thinks he has a right to take money from me due to his misconceptions of what science is or isn't. Just because he believes it is a transfer of wealth doesn't mean he knows the first thing about it. Just another political hack as far as I'm concerned or he is simply misguided.
Completely missing from the much used misquote is what exactly Edenhofer and his interviewer are talking about (which is exactly the reason why it is used so much).
At this stage of the interview, the issue is about the remaining amounts of fossil fuels to be discovered and used and the associated warming. Those are 'the assets' Edenhofer refers to.