Does the UN want a carbon tax?

Question

I just read a question asking why the UN wants a carbon tax and there were a surprising number of answers that said the UN does NOT want a carbon tax or that claiming the UN wants a carbon tax is a lie.

This was confusing to me because there was a very recent report released by the UN called: "World Economic and Social Survey 2012: In Search of New Development Finance". You can read the overview of the report or the whole thing here: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/index.shtml

And in their press release for that report, "the United Nations today proposed a series of financial mechanisms to raise $400 billion annually for development needs" and “Some of the new mechanisms to raise funds which were identified in the report include a tax on carbon dioxide emissions in developed countries...” http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42401&Cr=development&Cr1=#.UMZSz6ziWh4

And here is an example of a national carbon tax being paid to the UN: "The Gillard Government is party to a UN agreement which Climate Change Minister Greg Combet entered into in December at a meeting in Cancun, Mexico, under which about 10 per cent of carbon taxes in developed nations will go into a Green Climate Fund." http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-to-help-poor-nations/

It sounds to me that indeed the UN wants a carbon tax. So how can this be called a lie?

Answer 1

<>



Because you and the other asker make it appear as if all the UN wants is a carbon tax when this is not the case. The press release you linked to says quite clear "[w]e are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions.” The report's Overview lists many more ways to tap into resources.



Australia is indeed using 10% of its collected carbon taxes to pay into the Green Climate Fund. Yet the UN does not demand Australia nor any other nation that the monies paid must come from carbon taxes as you appear to understand. Nations are free to choose where the money comes from (ie, cutting fossil fuel subsidies).



<>



Now you are contradicting yourself: 'it doesn't care how' vs 'the UN wants a carbon tax'.



You are mixing two different issues here Mike. On the one hand there are the financial obligations (as in 'previously agreed assistance') regarding development finances. That is the one which the UN estimates requires $ 400 billion and for which they propose a series of financial mechanism given the current financial crisis. Among those options is a carbon tax but it is certainly not the only one proposed.



Then there is the Green Climate Fund whose goal is to assist developing countries in combatting climate change. Developing nations pay into that fund. How they pay it is their choice. Australia opted to use 10% of its collected carbon tax.



Please bear in mind that 'the UN' is not some kind of completely independent organization which can do as it likes. Quite the contrary. All UN decisions are voted upon by participating member nations and the mere suggestion that the UN can do what it likes, in this case demand carbon taxes to be paid into its accounts, is preposterous.



Edit @O Mike:



<>



Yet that is what you first implied with your question.



<>



Selective sorting of facts? LMAO. You were the one who, as usual, cherry-picked the suggested carbon-tax mechanism while ignoring the other options mentioned in both the press release as the report itself.



Unlike you and hard-core rightwingers who whine like a 7 y/o when they do not get what they want, I realize that while the UN is perhaps not the most effective global organization, it is the one we've got and its decisions are taken democratically with an up or down vote by each participating nation. If you do not like that, go criticize your national government which voted for it.



The establishment of a Green Fund was agreed upon during the so called 'Cancun Agreements' in 2010. While it was not the kind of agreement which climate realists had hoped for, it is nonetheless what we've got and have to work with. It is telling how much at that time the deniers celebrated the failure of the Cancun meeting (WUWT: "Green Agenda Kicked Into UN Black Hole").

Answer 2

Does the UN WANT a carbon tax? The UN proposes a carbon tax to help make up the shortfalls in several areas of the financing of different humanitarian needs. Does this mean they WANT a carbon tax? Not exactly. It only means that they are suggesting several means of financing several different prior agreed upon commitments by contributing nations. The UN report states that SOME of this money would be used for climate change mitigation AND adaptation.



The way you phrase everything and the quotes you make are suggestive that the UN wants $400 billion/year to fight climate change and they are going to force a tax on carbon to accomplish this. That is not true at all. That is not even a fair assessment of the UN report.



minti-boy is correct when stating that the UN can only propose plans of action and has zero authority to mandate anything. This is an adversary panel only. None of what they suggest has to be approved and the panel expects that little of what they propose will be approved. - "For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty." - (from the report)



What do you fear, Mike? Is it the "Pay as you go" plan? Do you only agree with this until it is time for you to pay? While only some of the proposed financial plans deals with climate change mitigation AND adaptation, the rest goes towards other humanitarian needs. Such as child vaccinations and the battle against HIV. Have you ever considered the cost to our future generations by the selfish desire of the older generations now to consume all we can and with no regards as to what may be left for our future generations? Burn all the limited fossil fuels now and deny future generations the ability to use any of these limited energy sources to develop sustainable energy sources later. Sustainable energy that WE should be putting in place now. Remember, Mike, ALL of the easily extracted fossil fuels have already been extracted. We are going after the fossil fuels that require greater risks, cost and lower net energy gains.. Just what do you say to your children and grandchildren, Mike? I am making mine now, sorry about your later abilities to do so! They must be so proud of you, Mike! ... You go, boy!



Added***

You are too easily confused, Mike. What the UN is doing is proposing several different ways to raise the financing that was already promised through prior commitments of contributing nations and was not delivered as promised. I seriously doubt that the UN WANTS to have to PROPOSE other methods of raising the capital that the contributing countries said they would make and did not fully do so. What the UN would really WANT is for these countries to honor their prior commitments. Still confused by this, Mike? Let us say that you were promised money by some individuals to build a children's health clinic. These contributors have only paid you part of what they said they would, but the clinic still needs to be finished. You make other proposals for financing the remainder of the money you had previously been promised. Is this something you WANT to do, Mike? No, it is something you feel a need to do. What you really WANT is for the prior agreements to be honored, but you have no means available to you to force the issue. Is this ANY clearer to you, Mike??????? Any at all?!?!?!??! I know of no easier way to explain this to you. You already have me at level1 of my communications skills! My 10 year old grandson would not still be scratching his head over this. He would understand by now!



Added Part2*******

I am fighting this simply because you are trying to make something to appear different than what it actually is. You are more than capable of understanding this. You refuse to do so because as soon as you admit this then you have lost the ability to try to turn this into an issue. Again, the UN has NO legal authority to impose any taxes. None, nada, zilch. The UN panel does not operate on wants. The UN panel sees a need and then offer proposals to meet these needs. That is the extent of their power. You simply refuse to admit this because then you cannot complain about it!

Answer 3

The UN offers strategies to mitigate and manage climate change (and reduce their greenhouse emissions). How an individual country achieves reductions, or what measures they implement is an choice each nation must make. The UN and IPCC are advisory boards, they present options for individual countries to decide which option is best for them.



As your quote states, this one of the mechanisms developed nations can use to raise funds (note that this report is from the Department of Economics and Social Affairs). There is no mention that the UN is mandating (wanting) a carbon tax, they merely present it as a mechanism to raise funds.

Answer 4

The UN wants to stop global warming. It doesn't care how. Come up with a better idea than a tax and the UN will cheer.



Edit



A carbon tax is one option. Would the UN consider other alternatives? Get on the phone and ask them, not YA. However, they will have more credibility if the answer is, "Yes." And the threat from global warming is the answer for the other question. Submit it and get an easy 10 points.







No. Then where is that carbon tax?

Answer 5

“He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky



We have played this word game before. What is a tax? The following article show how Australia is being conned with word games.



http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/full-coverage/carbon-tax/a/-/article/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-to-help-poor-nations/



Quote:

“Billions of dollars raised by Australia's carbon tax will end up overseas, helping poor countries battle climate change.

“Prime Minister Julia Gillard's new tax will be used to allow Australia to meet its share of a $100 billion-a-year United Nations fund to transfer wealth from rich countries to help undeveloped nations adapt to global warming.

“Even when Ms Gillard was denying there would be a carbon tax last August, her government had committed to spend $599 million on climate change handouts over the current three-year Budget period, mainly in the Pacific and South-East Asia. About $470 million has already been allocated.”



Ms Gillard skated on the claim that the total amount carbon tax would stay in Australia by saying the amount given to the other countries via the UN was taken out of other funds. The unmistakable fact is that the Australian people are out money anyway you look at it." Unquote.



They might say it is not a tax but it is a fee or a tribute or a gift or a contribution. As the old saying goes, "A rose by any other name is still a rose."



The first line of the article says it all, "Billions of dollars raised by Australia's carbon tax will end up overseas, helping poor countries battle climate change."



It is a tax and the UN wants a carbon tax. It was planned a long time ago to tax CO2, through the Ice Age, Global Warming, and now Climate Change.

Answer 6

I found some of their responses to be mind boggling and frankly my face was so scrunched up in disbelief, I might have pulled something. I must confess that I am not a fan of the UN at all. I think we should send them packing, half of them can swim home, and maybe replace it with a union of decent countries (e.g. most of those that have a reasonable representation of their people) but I digress. Clearly suggesting the UN doesn't want a carbon tax is like suggesting a heroin addict doesn't want heroin. You hear it and then you think you must not have heard what you thought you heard. Really? Somebody is arguing that? Wow.



Note: Climate Realists thinks the UN is like a Miss America contestant, and all they want is world peace and the good of everybody and to keep all puppies safe. It must be nice to have such confidence in our other wordly body.

Answer 7

Ignorance is bliss.

Answer 8

Yes but it is unconstitutional to pay taxes to those degenerates and crooks .



But that wont stop Obama .