Hans Schellnhuber’s Master Plan for the “Great Transformation” of society announced in a Spiegel interview is now out. h/t: DirkH
If there was ever a document out there certifying someone has no clue about economics and democratic principles, this is it! And it’s as remote from reality that anything can get. Only reality-isolated, pointy-headed academics could come up with such a thing.
It even tops my wildest expectations. You can now read it here: A World In Transition – A Social Contract For Sustainability. This is what these world-rescuer academics, who never worked a day in their lives in private industry, recommend for changing society – to save us from junk science-based global warming.
To accomplish this so-called Great Transformation of society, the authors of the master plan advocate 10 bundles of measures to take.
Bundle No. 1: Improve the Proactive State with Extended Participation Opportunities
In the German they call it the “Designing State”. Here they call for a strengthening of the state and advocates “bonus-malus” solutions. That means: let’s make the state even more powerful, and if you don’t do what it tells you, then you get whacked.
Bundle No. 2. Advance Global Carbon Pricing.
The WBGU believes that carbon pricing is the most important political measure for decarbonisation, and a necessary element of any regulatory framework for the transformation into a climate-friendly society. However, the price of carbon has to be set at a level that is high enough to achieve the transformative impact called for, i. e. it must be substantially higher than the current European emissions trading price level.”
Here we see this is remote of free market economy and it is all about state control. In the German version they call for a carbon price that must be “many times higher”.
Bundle No. 3. Expand and Deepen the Europeanisation of Energy Policy
That is what the title of the Bundle 3 is in the German version.
The goal of a common European energy policy should be the decarbonisation of the energy system by the middle of the century.
Here they propose the rapid expansion of renewable energies, energy storage systems and involving non-EU countries to help, such as Norway and Africa (i.e. $1 trillion solar plant in the Sahara called Desertec). That means becoming dependent on unstable North African countries like Libya. Forget that consumers can’t afford it.
Bundle No. 4. Accelerate promotion of renewable energies on a global level through feed-in tariffs
The transformation speed that needs to be reached to protect the climate and avoid the imminent risk of path dependencies on fossil energy technologies can only be achieved by accelerating and increasing the use of renewable energies.”
This is what they call for after a host of countries have just stopped subsidies because they are too expensive. But economics have never been a concern for reality-remote academics in ivory towers.
Bundle No. 5: Promote sustainable energy supply services in developing and newly industrialising countries
These countries need support with guaranteeing all of their people access to the basic essentials of a modern energy supply by 2030. They need support that allows them to establish a sustainable energy infrastructure.”
Like we don’t have enough to pay for already with our own huge deficits, demographic disaster, proposed super-expensive renewable energy supply system. Now we are also expected to pay for these systems in for the rest of the world. And then we should expect these poor folks to be able to pay for these pricey renewable energies. I’ve already read enugh to be convinced that these “wisemen” belong in group therapy of some sort. This is as remote from reality as it gets.
Bundle No. 6 Steering the World’s Rapid Urbanisation towards Sustainability
For currently rapidly growing urban structures, for example in Asia, high-carbon path dependencies must be prevented, as they would hinder low-carbon development for many decades.”
Hey Asia! (and the rest of the world), you’re going to build your cities the way we tell you to.
Bundle 7: Advance Climate-Friendly Land-Use
Priority of any globally sustainable land-use policy must be securing the food supply for just under a billion mal- and undernourished people. Furthermore, demand for agricultural produce is going to rise because of the growing share of animal products and the increase in biomass production for energy and industry.”
The modern agriculture that has done so much under the free market system is supposed to go back to failed Soviet style management. In their rush to rescue the planet from a hypothetical extreme climate change, they are proposing to rush a real destruction instead.
Bundle 8: Encourage and Accelerate Investments into a Low-Carbon Future
State policies must therefore aim to make investment into low-carbon technologies more attractive, and to abolish current disincentives and investment barriers.”
That means topple the free market system. Let the government run it. But which government?
Bundle 9: International Climate and Energy Policy
…a climate protection scheme that is limited to the more prosperous countries cannot solve the problem. Global cooperation is therefore necessary to ensure that the requisite funds for climate-friendly development are also available to poorer countries, and that all countries have access to climate protection technologies and the respective expert knowledge. International climate and energy policy is the forum for achieving a global consensus on transformation targets and ambitions.”
That means the rich countries are going to have to pay for the poor ones. Redistibution! The whole thing is a high risk economics experiment. Not to see if it’ll succeed, but to see how fast something can fail.
Bundle 10: Pursue a Revolution in International Cooperation
The world desperately needs a higher level of international cooperation if climate- and environmentally-friendly global development is to be achieved in the long-term.”
No. The world needs cooperation to tackle today’s real problems that are killing millions right now, and not fantasy problems 100 years from now. Pouring trillions into flakey energy systems while neglecting the poor is immoral.