UNFCCC (IPCC) efforts to change the world

Christiana Figueres is Exec. Secretary of UNFCCC. You can read a quote (likely to become more famous) here:

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

Here I mean to disagree with the author, that Figueres' words clearly show intent to destroy capitalism. Also, with Figueres herself, that there has not been an intentional effort to change the economic development model.

For the latter I refer to human slavery. While obviously bad for victims, it led to large economic benefits for folks on the other end of the whips. Yet, somehow, over time, people decided that other people out not be treated like that. We changed paths in a major way. Economies did not crash down, although one could argue that fossil-E and mechanization made 'de-slaving' a manageable change.

Now, investors.com asserts the quote could only mean 'destroy capitalism' and I frankly do not agree. I think people who want to sell you attic insulation and high-mpg vehicles and solar panels and wind turbines are capitalists too. However, this transformation is is part of something larger which is not entirely about CO2

It is about externalities. This means industries (or individuals) get to make profits but not be held responsible for other damages they cause. I do not claim to establish a starting date for reining in externalities. For convenience we could start with labor unions, or industrial safety regulations. Later in US there began regulation of harmful water and air discharges.

This process is far from complete, even in US as example, and may take a step backwards by erasing Clean Power Plan emissions limits on particulate matter, mercury, etc.

But from my view efforts of UNFCCC are just a new example of monetizing externalities, and holding emitters responsible for damages caused. It started - whenever it started. It continues in this domain because burning causes lots of emissions. Thermal power plants deny water access to agriculture (the other major user) but perhaps that can not be as readily seen as an externality.

Anyway, major economic change #1 was 'you can't do that to human beings directly'. Change #2 is 'you can't do that to human beings indirectly, and at large'. #1 is pretty much a done deal (I realize there are still some slaves). #2 is very much a work in progress. Holding the world's largest industry responsible for its externalities is probably the largest transition towards environmental sanity that has ever been undertaken.

From my perspective, this does not mean it should not happen. I reckon capitalism is such a great thing that it can even thrive under realistic 'costing'. Perhaps investors.com does not share my confidence.