IMF head says world must come to grips with climate change costs

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
IMF head says world must come to grips with climate change costs

While Stephen Harper was congratulating Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott yesterday for ending a carbon tax, the head of the IMF was in Montreal urging energy powerhouses like Canada to come to grips with the economics of climate change.

International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde urged economists and central bankers from around the world not to wait for the next round of climate change talks to take action to protect the environment.

All countries need to put mechanisms in place – whether a carbon tax or a cap and trade system – to pay for the effects of pollution, she said at the conference of the International Economic Forum of the Americas in Montreal. She urged countries not to wait for a new round of talks on global warming, but to start building these costs into their economic systems now.

Harper used his meeting with Abbott to say that Canada would not take action to limit emissions if it meant trading off economic growth or jobs.

In an interview with CBC’s The Current on Tuesday, Lagarde said there are clear costs to development of any energy source that policymakers must factor into the price.

She said “externalities such as wastage of water, congestion on the roads, additional risks to mortality and so on, need to be included in the thinking process that applies to policies encouraging the use of one or another form of energy.”

“It cannot be about setting prices without including those externalities — whether it takes the form of a good, solid intelligent carbon tax, whether it’s a good, solid intelligent cap and trade system, or whether it is any other device that can be put in place in order to resist those externalities by including them in the price-setting,” she added.

Lagarde told reporters Monday that most economists agree that some price has to be attached to carbon and she hopes that experiments such as the carbon tax system in British Columbia and carbon exchange system in California will continue.

“I don’t think lip service is going to pay back very much and I think coming generations will be the first ones to come back and remind us about it,” she told The Current.

She agreed that there is resistance to action to combat global warming, but said it is her role as head of the IMF to promote responsible policies.

“It’s not going to stop me from raising my voice when I know that the facts are right and the analysis is correct,” she said.

Trust damaged
Lagarde applauded Canada's efforts to unleash its energy sector, supporting efforts to expand infrastructure that will boost exports to Asia and Europe.

She said she believes world economies are recovering from the long recession, but that trust in governments and institutions has been damaged by the economic pain.

“What we are saying at the IMF is that rising inequality is not conducive to sustainable growth and from that, policymakers have to draw their conclusion as to how they want to reduce those rising inequalities,” Lagarde said.

She said the IMF has been very involved in reforming bank regulations.

“The fact that the financial sector was really at the origin of the overall crisis has had something to do with it. I’m not certain that it’s a complete failure of capitalism as it is, but it is certainly a very strong incentive to capitalism as a system to reinvent itself in order to be much more inclusive and in order to make sure that growth is much more sustainable in the long term,” Lagarde said.

“What does that mean in practical terms? It certainly means the financial sector which was at the root of the problem continues to be reformed, not only in appropriate ratios, but also in its culture,” she said.

IMF head says world must come to grips with climate change costs
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
“What we are saying at the IMF is that rising inequality is not conducive to sustainable growth and from that, policymakers have to draw their conclusion as to how they want to reduce those rising inequalities,” Lagarde said.

That's what it was all about baby!

It was never about the environment and climate change... it was about $$$ and wealth distribution.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
You're looking at just one symptom of the problem.

That is what it was always about MF. You drank the Kool-Aid deeply... you still do.

At the end of every conference it is always... ALWAYS... about money and how much the so called "developing nations" are going to get.

The climate will still change no matter how much money is changed hands.

And you won't see a dime... and you will not see the climate change to the way you think it should be. Nor will your kids and grandkids, etc.

The IMF Head said it all... inequality.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Putting aside the fact that you have an unhealthy obsession with the redistribution of wealth, do you disagree with the IMF recommendations?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Putting aside the fact that you have an unhealthy obsession with the redistribution of wealth, do you disagree with the IMF recommendations?


The question that has been ultimately put to you is;

Is this about the notion that climate change (aka AGW) has doomed us all OR about wealth distribution under the guise that if we don't pay some kind of tax, the Earth will burn in a fiery hell?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Putting aside the fact that you have an unhealthy obsession with the redistribution of wealth, do you disagree with the IMF recommendations?


I have an unhealthy obsession?! Now that is funny coming from you. The one who posts thread after thread after thread on this topic.


And yes I do disagree.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
The question that has been ultimately put to you is;

Is this about the notion that climate change (aka AGW) has doomed us all OR about wealth distribution under the guise that if we don't pay some kind of tax, the Earth will burn in a fiery hell?


And when we pay... the climate will still change as it always does. Then they'll want more.


I've never seen any group so hell bent on reducing their standard of living and paying higher energy costs.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
IMF report is starting to gain traction.

 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
So, income inequality will stop global warming in it's tracks, eh?

PS - get the UN and IMF to apply those environmental responsibilities equally across all nations (it's all about equality, right?)... Canada and most (if not all) of the West will be in excellent shape... It'll be the developing countries that have been receiving hundreds of billions annually that will be sucking hind teat on this.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
As I stated before, the wealth gap is just one piece of the puzzle but it is a symptom, not the main problem.

If environmental costs start hitting the bottom line for businesses, it won't matter what the distribution of wealth looks like. They would be fukked either way.

IMF leader urges countries like Canada to set a price on carbon emissions - National Business - Mobile

Environmental costs hit the bottom line for business a long time ago. Why do you think there is almost no heavy industry left in North America? Those that could moved to places where the cost of compliance is low or nonexistant.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
You can reduce emissions without redistributing wealth.


That has been going on for ages.

The better question is, why has the IMF pegged income inequality directly with global warming?

You know that global warming (and/or climate change) is - according to the UN/IPCC, East Anglia, etc - a direct cause of emissions.... And the critical factor in the equation is the actual number of, 'emitters' in the system.

So then, why is the IMF, UN, et al not coming right out and stating this obvious relationship (cause)?

Thoughts?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
You can reduce emissions without redistributing wealth.

The IMF and IPCC et al are not interested in reducing emissions. They are interested in syphoning money out of rich countries and turning us into third world countries.
The new smelter we are building in Kitamat is best available technology and there are still leftards protesting it.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The IMF and IPCC et al are not interested in reducing emissions. They are interested in syphoning money out of rich countries and turning us into third world countries.
The new smelter we are building in Kitamat is best available technology and there are still leftards protesting it.


Remember how effective the global authority was in dealing with Iraq and the 'Food for Oil Program'?

Lots of insiders at these venerable institutions made a ton of cash on that one