5/18/14, "The brazen report falsification of climate trickster," Die Welt, by Daniel Wetzel, Microsoft translation from German
"The UN climate protection report debunks the German promotion of green electricity as useless. It has noted no one. Because the Government has distorted the statements in the official summary gross."
One
of the reasons for this is quite simple: the Federal Government has
simply embezzled the findings of UN scientists in the official German
summary ("core messages"). More embarrassing passages from the UN document were wrong in the summary almost into its opposite.
Action on climate change
But
in turn: on April 14, the World Climate Council of the United Nations
had presented recent and up to date major report to the global climate
protection of the public his. While in the
previous reports of the "Intergovernmental Panel on climate change"
(IPCC) went to causes and effects of climate change, the "third part
report on the IPCC's fifth assessment report" dealt with the possible
countermeasures.
.
.
The advice of the UN IPCC panel of utmost importance are for policy makers. Should you tackle climate change with the introduction of CO2 taxes? Advisable are subsidies for renewables or nuclear power? Or
it takes in the fight against the greenhouse effect, if one builds a
trading, forcing the industry and power plant operators to purchase
so-called emission rights, for every tonne of carbon dioxide, that want
to blow them into the air?
On these and similar issues 235 leading scientists from 58 countries had thought four years intensively. Economics
Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) listen as carefully as IPCC Chief
Rajendra Pachauri and the co-Chairman of the relevant IPCC Working Group
III, Ottmar Edenhofer, the results presented on April 14 in the
Auditorium maximum of the Technical University of Berlin.
Clear sides
Only: For a deeper analysis of the several thousand pages of strong UN report wasn't enough at the presentation of course. The "technical summary" alone includes 99 pages of complicated science poetry in English. And
also the English-language "summary supplied by the IPCC for decision
makers" with a circumference of 33 pages for politicians with a closely
synchronised schedule remained a challenge.
Even
greater journalists, lecturers, and environmental groups took it there,
that that provided a pretty clear with four pages summary of "Key
messages" of the IPCC report German Federal ministries and authorities
for climate protection.
Responsible
for the German summary four highly influential institutions: leading
the Ministry of the environment, the Federal Environmental Agency in
Dessau and the Federal Ministry for research and education are involved
also the German IPCC Coordination Office in Bonn. The paper, you should think is a reputable source for the interpretation of the findings of the IPCC. That the Ministerial summary does not match the original text in important ways, no one knew.
Eco-electricity pointless - if there are Finance
So the IPCC highlights the futility of political climate
of eco-electricity subsidies within an emissions trading system in his
report: "The add-add a CO2 reduction policy to a second do not
necessarily lead to a greater CO2 emissions", it means in literal
translation in the "technical summary" of the United Nations: "In an
emissions trading scheme with a sufficiently strict caps, other measures
such as subsidizing renewable energy have no further influence on the
entire CO2 emissions."
So
now the IPCC confirmed that say the Scientific Advisory Council of the
Federal Ministry of Economics, the monopolies Commission, or the
President of the Ifo Institute, Hans-Werner Sinn for years: under a
solid cover of the European emissions trading scheme with its precisely
counted number of pollution rights, eco-electricity subsidies lead only
to a shift of CO2 emissions,
but not to their reduction.
Wind
farms displace as a coal power station, the total CO2 emissions of the
plant in the form of emission rights is the market again available. The range is larger, other European power plant operators can operate accordingly cheaper from this free coupon quota. The CO2 emissions avoided in Germany are blown then beyond the confines of someone different in the air. Key
to climate protection is only that the total amount of pollution rights
distributed in Europe in any case cannot be exceeded.
Lacking clear verdict in summary
But
this clear verdict of the IPCC about the climate policy futility of
eco-electricity subsidies for simultaneous trading does not appear in
the German summary. The only comment to this
complex reads completely differently here: "emissions trading will
reduce the effectiveness of other measures, unless the number of
acceptable certificates will be flexibly adapted."
The
difference is clear: the United Nations explain emissions trading to a
suitable instrument, which eliminates the need for subsidies for
renewable energy. The German translation
turns the tables and makes the emissions trading scheme to the culprit
who supposedly "will reduce the effectiveness of other measures".
Is
questionable, what the United Nations - supposedly - to the design of
emissions trading even say: "For the success of emissions trading rights
it is necessary to achieve high enough prices for emission allowances
to provide incentives for a low-carbon energy sources," it says in the
summary of the Federal Government. Why must the number of tradable emission rights also "flexible"be adapted.
Ministry: "first explained in an understandable form"
With this representation, the German authorities turn the statements of the IPCC report into its opposite. As
emissions trading is by definition a system that provided a number of
freely tradeable emission coupons allowing free market prices may arise
for these pollution rights. From this
system of fixed amounts and flexible prices, the German translation
makes a system of flexible volumes,
to enforce as high prices of
emission rights.
Straight
run contrary to the principle of emissions trading: because the demand
is "flexible" adaptation of the tradable amounts of emission
certificates in direct contradiction to the statement of the IPCC
report, according to which the maximum number of emission certificates
should be "binding".
The
statement that high CO2 prices for the success of emissions trading
would be "necessary", as the German translation will have us believe, is
nowhere found in the original. In principle, and
that is precisely the great advantage of emissions trading, the CO2
targets are achieved even if resulting low prices for emission
allowances on the market. Climate protection can be also cheap, market mechanisms prevail. That
the EU has set itself from the outset only relatively modest CO2
reduction targets, is not to be blamed on emissions trading: the
instrument itself therefore does not work equally well.
The Environment Ministry referred a request on the German IPCC Coordination Office. There is incitement to off. The
"key messages" are not actually "to a literal or even official
translation of the IPCC report", says a spokeswoman about the paper on
which the logos of Ministry of environment, Ministry of research, and
federal environmental agency can be seen. It was "a first discussion of the report in an intelligible form". The statements made are various passages of the UN report "derived from" been. "Also
should be taken into account, that the core messages ', which were
developed in collaboration with authors of the IPCC report, statements
made in the report can reflect much condensed."
IPCC: "we have not written so that"
The
scientists of the IPCC but respond very perplexed, as they were
confronted with the German translation of its core messages of the "Welt
am Sonntag". "We have not written, so
that in the report of the IPCC" Ottmar Edenhofer determines which
leading participated in the formulation of the original reports of the
UN as co-Chair of working group III. "It is basically not the task of an emissions trading scheme, to generate high prices." "The
English original text is authoritative," says Edenhofer, who also
Deputy Director and Chief Economist of the Potsdam's Institute for
climate impact research (PIK). Then what "the ministries or other institutions that do, is not in my hands".
The
Federal Association of emissions trading and climate protection (BVEK)
the interpretation of the IPCC report considers a "scandal". "Major
statements of the UN Panel were wrong straight into its opposite",
criticized Association Chief Jürgen Hacker: "The demand for highest
possible CO2 prices have nothing to do with the statements in the UN
report at all, correspond to the interest of the Federal Ministry of the
environment but very good."
Actually, the recent decline of CO2 prices brings the Environment Ministry in trouble. Because
through the auctioning of emission certificates a billionaire was
supposed "Energy and climate fund" be fed from several environmental
programs of the Ministry of Barbara Hendricks should be funded. Because
the proceeds from the auctions are down less than expected, the
Ministry is forced to rely on taxpayers for the fulfilment of its
commitments.
The Ministry of environment should be of opinion that subsidies for renewable energy despite functioning emissions trading are meaningful or that emissions trading works only with artificially increased CO2 prices. "One can't do Ministry", finds Hacker: "It may the public not pretend that this is also the opinion of the IPCC, the United Nations."" image, dpa. via Free Rep.
===============================
===============================
5/19/14, "German Govt Falsifies Climate Report Translation To Hide Green Policy Failure," Breitbart London, M.E. Synon
"The German Ministry of Environment has falsified the conclusions of a UN climate change report in the German-language version released last week, in an attempt to hide the fact that the country's 'green policies' are useless.
The ministry’s four-page summary of the report contains
outright contradictions and falsifications of Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations, apparently made to hide UN
criticism of the way the German government has turned emissions-trading
into a cash cow for futile renewable energy projects.
.
.
Die Welt said
on Sunday that parts of the thousands of pages-long English-language
report which the ministry found embarrassing were mistranslated in the
government’s “core messages” version released to the German news media
and public.
“The UN declares emissions trading an effective instrument
that makes subsidies for renewable energy unnecessary. But the German
government reverses the conclusion and makes emissions trading the
culprit that supposedly ‘constricts the impact of other measures’,” Die Welt reported.
According to Pierre Gosselin, writing on the independent climate news website notrickszone.com,
this “brings us yet another spectacular scandal, one that shows how the
Environment Ministry of the German government is not really interested
in climate science after all, but in using the climate issue as an
instrument to generate hundreds of millions of euros for funding pet
environmental programmes.”
Die Welt said the UN report debunks German green energy as useless.
The newspaper called the Ministry of Environment version
“the brazen falsification of a climate trickster,” explaining that:
“Emissions trading is by definition a system in which a number of freely
tradable emission certificates is prescribed so that free market prices
can result for the emissions certificates. From this system of a fixed
certificate number and flexible prices, the German translation turns it
into a system of flexible certificate numbers to force the highest
possible price for emission rights.”
According to Gosselin’s interpretation of the Die Welt
article, the Ministry of Environment was banking on high CO2
certificate prices. The auctioning of emission certificates was supposed
“to feed a billion-euro energy and climate fund which in turn would
finance a number of environment programs of Ministry, led by Barbara
Hendricks. Now that certificate prices are so low, the German Ministry
has to go begging for money.”
Meanwhile the German Association for Emissions Trading and
Climate Protection (BVEK) views the misinterpretations of the IPCC
report as “a scandal".
Die Welt reports: “‘Essential statements of the
UN IPCC were simply reversed to say the opposite,’ criticised
association director Jürgen Hacker: ‘The demand for the highest possible
CO2 prices have nothing to do with that statements of the UN report,
but they do correspond very well to the interests of the German Federal
Ministry of Environment.’”
The original UN report included a 99-page Technical
Summary in English, and a 33-page Summary for Policymakers, also in
English. The government agencies responsible for helping the Ministry of
Environment with the dishonest translation were the German IPCC
Coordination Office in Bonn, the Federal Environmental Agency in Dessau
and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
Die Welt points out that with such ministries
behind the translation no one suspected that the summary did not match
the original in important ways."
.
.
====================
.
May 18, 2014, "Explosive scandal..."Climate tricksters" of German government "Brazenly falsify" UN IPCC recommendations," Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone
==========================
Ed. note: I'm not able to fix large gaps between paragraphs. Google dislikes free speech. It defaces posts in hopes that no one will read them.
==========================
Ed. note: I'm not able to fix large gaps between paragraphs. Google dislikes free speech. It defaces posts in hopes that no one will read them.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment