Climate Report: $100-150 Trillion over 30 Years to Fix Global Warming

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Let me check, I’m sure I’ve got some spare change in my pocket somewhere…

Funding the fight against global warming

A report estimates that trillions will be needed to transform the global economy

By:  James Langton
December 4, 2020 15:41

Shifting the global economy to low-carbon mode will require an estimated US$100-trillion to US$150-trillion worth of investment over the next 30 years, according to a new report.

Industry trade group Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA) published a report, along with Boston Consulting Group, that examines the emerging climate finance market.

To generate this sort of investment, “the price of carbon must rise to fully price in emissions,” it suggested.

Given the scale of the challenge, the report called for coordinated action by the government and the private sector to significantly grow the climate finance market, with a view to developing the financial and risk management tools that are needed to catalyze investment.

“The unprecedented call to action aims to help mitigate substantial mis-pricing and potential financial stability risks which would undermine the long-run ability of the financial system to direct finance to fully support the Paris-aligned transition,” the GFMA said.

Read more:

The report is available here.

To put this fun new number into perspective, if you spent $130 million every day since the death of Jesus Christ, just about now you would be approaching $100 trillion.

More than $14,000 for every man woman and child on Earth.

You know what, thanks but no thanks. I think I prefer the global warming.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joe Houde
December 5, 2020 2:09 pm

Money or existential death. I choose life.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Joe Houde
December 5, 2020 3:33 pm

As CO2 has nothing to do with climate and no gas at any concentration can alter the climate, all of this is for nothing. We have no control over the climate and all claims otherwise are pure lies. It’s a political agenda in its pure form.

Money or existential death does not include life, because the spending and plans for altering our lives makes life nothing but slavery.

I say oppose the agenda and have a life.

Reply to  Charles Higley
December 5, 2020 5:04 pm

It’s not for nothing….I’m convinced the plan is to take over the world

notice…”Shifting the global economy”…..does not include China…the same China that’s almost solely responsible for all of global warming

Vincent Causey
Reply to  Latitude
December 6, 2020 12:43 am

Of course it is. Justin Trudeau said just the other week that we need to “reset” the global economy and tackle equity, injustice and of course, climate change. The Great Reset is the brainchild of Klaus Schwab.

Reply to  Vincent Causey
December 6, 2020 8:45 pm

It would be easier to just kick the UN out of the country, and force them to fend for themselves for a few years.

Where do you think all of these agendas come from?

Reply to  Charles Higley
December 5, 2020 5:27 pm

Even the IPCC doesn’t claim that we are all going to die if CO2 isn’t reduced.
What is it about these warmunists and their eagerness to believe absolute nonsense?

Bill Powers
Reply to  Joe Houde
December 5, 2020 3:59 pm

Why would anyone want to pick a “fight against Global Warming”. Global Warming never did anything to anybody. Damn intolerant bullies. Global Warming is our friend, it grows life sustaining plant life, melts nastyass snow and ice and works to counter the horrible prospects of the next Ice Age.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Bill Powers
December 5, 2020 4:30 pm

And makes Canada and Russia warmer, providing more arable land to feed the billions.

Reply to  Bill Powers
December 5, 2020 4:44 pm

Here in Michigan we want MORE warming.
I moved here in 1977 and where the $@$% is the warming?
It’s still too cold in the winter.
I’d like to retire my snow shovels.

I have reviewed my life savings, and would be willing to donate a large percentage for MORE warming. I am offering $14.95 per month. And i could go as high as $16.95, if we eat less peanut butter.

Joe Zeise
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 5, 2020 6:12 pm

RG, great response. From Wisconsin, I too appreciate the snow and cold implications.
But about the peanut butter, I say continue eating the peanut butter, especially the natural kind. I’d offer a contribution too your PB fund.


Reply to  Richard Greene
December 5, 2020 7:44 pm

If you lived somewhere else, somewhere really hot, would you still be just as happy for the good folks of Michigan to retire their snow shovels?

Reply to  Loydo
December 5, 2020 9:32 pm

Even if CO2 did cause any warming…..

(…which YOU have very convincingly proven that IT DOESN’T )

Hot places won’t get hotter.

Warming will only be in colder places

Don’t you know ANYTHING about your own cult memes !

Yet you still CHOSE to live in that warmer climate.

You still CHOSE to take full benefit of all the things that produce human CO2.

No wonder everyone just LAUGHS at you… poor sock-puppet.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Loydo
December 6, 2020 2:41 am

Most of the World’s populations live in warm climates. Those who live in the higher temps. will not be any worse off by a paltry <1C rise in a Global average statistical construct.
We are constantly told that it is the minimum temperatures that are rising. That can only be a good thing and benefit for all.

Reply to  Loydo
December 6, 2020 4:09 am


Yet another ridiculous comment from you.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a warmer planet is a worse planet for mankind, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

In the ‘unremarkable’ UK winter of 2017/2018 there were ~50,000 Excess Winter Deaths (ONS). The UK Population is ~60M with no one suffering Extreme Poverty as defined by the UN i.e. living on less than $1.95 per day.

During the ‘unprecedented Indian Heatwave of 2017 there were two hundred and fifty deaths attributed to Heat (Indian Disaster Database). India has a Population of 1Bn+ with 70M living in Extreme poverty.

The planet is currently at its coldest, whilst simultaneously having the lowest atmospheric CO2 content it has ever experienced. This has never happened before.

Mankind, and every other meaningful life form, including C3 vegetation (95% of all earths vegetation) dies around 150ppm CO2 atmospheric content. We are now only ~250ppm away from that.

We are between 600ppm – 800ppm atmospheric CO2 content away from optimum growing conditions for C3 plant life. Ever get the feeling Mother Nature is trying to tell you something?

I don’t know about you, but I would far rather face the uncertain prospect of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, than the certainty of extinction if the concept of artificial CO2 sequestration ever bears fruit.

You might want to tell me just what level of atmospheric CO2 is perfect for humans, being that we have only experienced the heights we have reached right now, under which humankind is, once again, flourishing, or hadn’t you noticed?

Reply to  Joe Houde
December 5, 2020 5:26 pm

Poverty, or allowing the earth to warm by one or two tenths of a degree.
Tell you what, I’d rather skip the poverty and enjoy the extra warmth.

Reply to  Joe Houde
December 5, 2020 5:28 pm

Who wants to bet on whether Joe expects to be paying any of that money?

Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2020 8:11 pm

Come on we all know Joe is a government employee, involved in a greentard business or unemployed … aka the usual supporters of greentard policies.

Reply to  Joe Houde
December 5, 2020 8:07 pm

Joe your death will come long before anything bad could happens so the life option was never on the table.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joe Houde
December 6, 2020 7:56 am

Could you be any more absurd?

Existential life—as opposed to non-existential life. Not to be confused with existing existence.

Or are you referring to life wherein the popular religion is constantly droning on about the “existential threat” of (whatever—varies periodically)?

CD in Wisconsin
December 5, 2020 2:13 pm

Like I and other keep saying, it’s not about the climate. It’s about money….

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 5, 2020 6:49 pm

I can’t stand Liza Minnelli, and this video is the worst yet.
She looks like a drag queen with too much makeup.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 6, 2020 2:48 am

Lol! Yeah, I think it was WC Fields that said,- ‘It’s not the principle, it’s the money’ 😉 Or maybe Groucho.

December 5, 2020 2:15 pm

The estimate is out by a factor of 3 or 4 but it begins to give an indication of the size of the task.

It also highlights the fundamental fact that so-called “renewables” are not. Their energy output for energy input is so low that all human endeavour would need to be directed at producing energy if this was the only energy source. Forget all other creative and leisure activities. People would be educated to make the energy harvesters to support the next generation of energy harvesters; that would be the lot of humans.

The best fusion reactor to date has shown a gain of 0.67. That looks good compared with weather dependent generators and the storage system needed for them to produce something useful.

And this is where the investment in wind turbines ends up:

December 5, 2020 2:18 pm

Perhaps we can finance it with bake sales?

michael hart
December 5, 2020 2:45 pm

“To generate this sort of investment, “the price of carbon must rise to fully price in emissions,” it suggested.”

And therein lies the nub of the argument. It is not just cash that is needed for their so called “investment”, it also requires an even larger loss of income that arises from higher energy costs.

I believe economists already have a phrase to describe this kind of insanity. It is called “the broken window fallacy”. It asserts that economic activity and greater employment and wealth can be created by breaking what you already have, because it then creates employment and wealth by having to repair it.
I don’t think I need to say any more.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  michael hart
December 5, 2020 4:33 pm

People generating electricity by walking on treadmills will certainly lower the employment rate. But I thought we had abolished slavery.

December 5, 2020 2:48 pm

I am not willing to give even my worthy 2 cents of advice.

December 5, 2020 2:57 pm

‘way behind me is memories of people actually doing

Ron Long
Reply to  Enginer01
December 5, 2020 4:00 pm

Good comment, Enginer01, and I’m willing to bet that our brothers and sisters, the green plants that breath CO2, will come down heavy on the BENEFIT side.

Reply to  Ron Long
December 5, 2020 7:56 pm

There is actually NO COST associated with increasing atmospheric CO2

Its is BENEFIT, BENEFIT, BENEFIT.. all the way.

David Kamakaris
December 5, 2020 2:58 pm

And after $100 – 150 trillion has been pissed away, what are you hoping will be the resulting effect upon the climate? Griff, Loydo, Simon, Nyocli, feel free to weigh in. In fact, all of us anxiously await your response.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  David Kamakaris
December 5, 2020 3:50 pm

They are not responding as they are awaiting instructions
The Biden plan says it will cost 1.5 trillion for the USA to go Green, of that is actually just a down payment
Or more likely, it will be the daily interest charges on the actual amount of money the USA will have to borrow

Because no matter what the plan is, the USA doesn’t have the money
Nor does the world

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 6, 2020 4:15 am

Pat from kerbob

Nor the resources:

“If we replace all of the UK vehicle fleet with EVs, and assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries, we would need the following materials:

• 207,900 tonnes of cobalt – just under twice the annual global production;

• 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate – three quarters of the world’s production;

• at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium – nearly the entire world production of neodymium;

• 2,362,500 tonnes of copper – more than half the world’s production in 2018.
And this is just for the UK. It is estimated that the manufacturing capacity for EV batteries would have to increase more than 500-fold if we want the whole world to be transported by electric vehicles. The vast increases in the supply of the materials described above would go far beyond known reserves.”

This, of course, doesn’t include the vast amounts of these rare earth minerals required for all the battery storage for renewables farms Elon Musk wants to build.

Reply to  Hotscot
December 6, 2020 4:40 am

Except that lithium production is rising quickly in the world, fuelled by demand, including in the UK (in Cornwall). I haven’t checked the other resources, but as always, demand makes an increase in production economic and spurs prospecting and development. Doesn’t it?

Reply to  griff
December 6, 2020 8:15 am

Yep China will gladly sell it to you … I mean it already took all the UK manufacturing didn’t it 🙂

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
December 6, 2020 10:26 am

Griff, do you think the green machine would support a quintupling of mining activity necessary to provide the lithium, cobalt, aluminum, iron, molybdenum, REE’s, etc necessary to bring about your EV and unreliable energy resources pipe dream?

BTW, care to address my earlier comment?

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  David Kamakaris
December 5, 2020 4:34 pm

David, the only way this money will be pissed away is in the champagne parties of those receiving it.

Reply to  David Kamakaris
December 5, 2020 5:37 pm

Like Al Gore, those in charge of the spending are intending to get wealthy, a little insider trading when you know where and what the money will be spent on. When it makes absolutely no difference to the climate and the poor and the environment pay the price for their bad decisions at least they had really good intentions.

December 5, 2020 3:29 pm

Evolving judgments and labels, same apologies and outcomes. Redistributive and retributive change couched in aquasi-scientific prophecy and social justification. You may as well throw another baby… Fetal-American on the barbie and sequester her unprofitable carbon ashes. Surely, a wicked solution. Oh, wait, that’s what people… persons voted for: one step forward, two steps backward.

Chris Hanley
December 5, 2020 3:43 pm

There was a syndicated article published in 1954 by Dr Gerald Wendt for UNESCO on climate change and the supposed role of CO2.
Dr Wendt (1891-1973) was a renown scientist, humanist and nuclear power optimist.
The article includes: “… it is now quite certain that the average temperature of the inhabited parts of the earth has risen about 2 deg F (~1C) within the past 100 years with most of that change since 1890… Philadelphia, United States of America, the rise in temperature has been 4 deg. (~2C) in the past century. In Montreal, Canada, in Britain, and in Scandinavia, the increase has been about 2 deg. (~1C) since 1850 …”.
The global average increase 1890-1950 has since been ‘corrected’ from ~1c to ~0.4C (GISTEMP).
The long article is unapologetically optimistic ending: ” … time was when Greenland and Iceland supported a flourishing culture and grapes could be cultivated in England. Such times are likely to return, and vast areas of Canada, Alaska, and Siberia may become available for food production …”.
The current CO2 hysteria is a product solely of social framing through corrupted science, mass media propaganda and the environment movement aided and abetted by commercial opportunism.

December 5, 2020 3:43 pm

Someone has their head way up their ass and will never see daylight again.
The CO2 being put into the atmosphere at power plants and industrial sites needs to be turned into Good paying full time jobs and money. Carbon Capture Utilization ~ not Sequestration.

We want power plants to be profitable so our electricity costs stay low. We must help President Trump. America has to be Energy Wise and coal needs to be a big part of that. Coal can be combusted and put into the atmosphere less CO2 than what a natural gas power plant emits.

President Trump made a promise to the coal miners and their communities back in 2016 & 2017, but the swamp has kept him so busy that he has not been able to make time to fight the Sierra Club and others who have been getting utilities to shut down many coal power plants across the country.
Let’s rebuild it Bigger and Better.

Reply to  Sid Abma
December 5, 2020 5:32 pm

BIllions to Sid and his friends in order to solve a problem that never existed.
Why do we continue to permit Sid to peddle his scam here on this site?

David Elstrom
December 5, 2020 3:54 pm

No wonder the weather cultists push their scam calamity so hard when this is the amount they expect to loot from Normal people.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 5, 2020 8:09 pm

The Art of the Deal.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 6, 2020 3:15 am

How about…No!

December 5, 2020 3:59 pm

Forget if AGW is real or not. At some point the world should/must realize that no matter how much the West/developed countries reduce fossil fuel use it will still increase at the same rate and nothing will be accomplished. Even the so called redistribution of wealth won’t occur. It will just shift to different major countries. And that’s been the real plan all along.

December 5, 2020 4:01 pm

Now let’s see them prove that doing nothing would achieve the same thing. Recent science based on real science claims that adding carbon at this point would have little effect. Lets see them challenge that claim.Teah, right

December 5, 2020 4:07 pm

The world would have generated almost $3 quadrillion in GDP over those 30 years. $150 trillion is peanuts, but something tells me that almost all of it is expected to come from the USA.

Never vote Left, folks. Never vote Left.

Robert of Ottawa
December 5, 2020 4:27 pm

Of course that $150 trillion will not be burnt, that would create more evil CO2. We must entrust it into bank accounts … somewhere.

That’s $150 trillion going from our pockets to some other people’s pockets. I think this is not what is meant by “accumulation of capital”.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 5, 2020 5:57 pm

Just another wicked solution. The left’s ambition, always, is the minority management of capital and control motivated by a god complex that underlies their faith (i.e. Twilight), religion (i.e. Pro-Choice), and ideology (i.e. liberal/divergent, progressive/monotonic).

Peter W
December 5, 2020 5:18 pm

If they actually managed to succeed in what they believe should be done (fortunately they will not!) the result would be to bring on the next ice age even faster than it is approaching now.

December 5, 2020 5:42 pm

“Report: $100-150 Trillion over 30 Years to Fix Global Warming”

Then Global Warming isn’t going to be Fixed…

Joel O'Bryan
December 5, 2020 5:44 pm

Climate sacrifices paid to the climate witch doctors to appease the climate gods. Lack of falsifiability has turned politicized climate science fully into the realm of pseudoscience nonsense.

Izaak Walton
December 5, 2020 5:53 pm

To put that number into perspective the size of the global economy in 2019 was $133 trillion US dollars. So the cost of fixing global warming equates to slightly less than 4% per annum. Another way of looking at the cost is to compare it to the total value of the derivates market which is over $600 trillion.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 5, 2020 7:37 pm

Still, it’s a lot of money to waste on a problem that never existed in the first place.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 5, 2020 7:53 pm

Hey Izzy, are YOU prepared to donate the funds you are currently spending on internet access.

You do know that world-wide communications uses about 10% of all electricity, don’t you.

Yet NONE of the alarmist trolls would EVAH relinquish even that pittance. Would you Izzy.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 5, 2020 10:41 pm

WSJ crunched the numbers on a Biden presidency, whose proclamations and edicts will last for decades:

The Cost of Bidenomics
A new study on Biden’s tax, health-care, energy and regulation proposals predicts $6,500 less in median household income by 2030.

The Editorial Board, WSJ
Oct. 18, 2020 5:03 pm ET

Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 5, 2020 10:53 pm

Yeeesss…. please define “size of economy”. I believe the dictionary definition of ‘economy’ precludes any form of quantification, as ‘economy’ is a verb, and adjective even, but not a quantifiable noun. “Growing economy” makes as much grammatical sense as “growing hard work” or “growing courtesy”. Secondly, and I need you to be honest with yourself, what exactly does a ‘derivative’ add to the sum total of physical material wealth? 600 trillion in bets between very rich people may be sold off to venal fools as an ‘investment opportunity’ but it is still nothing else but a bet between very rich people. No-one can spend that money, only once some fool buys your surreal debt, can you go spend your Mark’s money on speedboats. The derivative itself adds not one single sent to your ‘economy’, it only extracts.
Therefor, friend, to a “global economy” of 133 trillion, you add 600 trillion in debt, and say you get 733? No wonder you believe in the global crisis nonsense…

Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 6, 2020 12:16 am

$5 trillion per annum would pay for a lot of clean water and sanitation allowing the 5000 children (almost 2,000,000 children) who die each and every day to grow into adults.

But I guess that’s something you don’t care about.,to%20a%20major%20new%20report.

And that doesn’t count the adults who die each and every day.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 6, 2020 8:21 am

That’s if you’re naive enough to think that 150 trillion would do it. What about all that infrastructure that won’t last even 30 years? I guess we’ll likely have to continually spend that kind of $ continually. People don’t have $1,000 + $ a month to heat and cool their homes, let alone pay for the huge increases in the cost of energy needy products.

December 5, 2020 6:29 pm

That was $100-150T /30Y to convert the world economy away from fossil fuels, not to fix global warming, as the title says. Since no one has actually done that conversion, and they leave out explaining how the conversion would actually accomplish any changes to the climate, the estimate is low in both time and money, and unlikely to produce any results except “coordinated action by the government and the private sector” which is sounding more like the definition of fascism.

December 5, 2020 6:40 pm

That comes to about $500 per person per year. No sweat. Let me know when the Chinese have ante-ed up for Year 1, and I’ll write my check.

willem post
December 5, 2020 6:52 pm


In this article is a graph of CO2 ppm vs years.

The CO2 graph shows increasing CO2 ppm versus years, despite various “fighting-climate-change” RE programs and $trillions of CAPEX for RE, during the past 10 years.

The annual up/down CO2 ppm values, having a range of about 6 – 7 ppm, are due to world’s biomass growth of winter/summer conditions, i.e., natural variations.

Mankind’s RE build-out efforts, PLUS efforts for scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere (which have not yet been developed for large-scale use), would have to remove from the atmosphere enough CO2 to reduce the ppm from about 410 ppm in 2019 to about 280 ppm in 1850; pre-industrial. See note.

Those efforts would be equivalent to about 6.5 x 20 = 130 ppm, i.e., 20 times the annual biomass effect!

Such an effort would be far beyond human capability.

The graph also shows, none of the very puny manmade RE efforts appear to have had NO EFFECT over the past 60 years.

NOTE: What would we do with all the CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  willem post
December 5, 2020 7:21 pm

Use it to repair damaged alien spacecraft

willem post
December 5, 2020 7:03 pm

“To generate this sort of investment, the price of carbon must rise to fully price in emissions, it suggested.”

Are these self-serving, financial services people NUTS?

The carbon tax would have to be at least 200% ON TOP OF present prices.
Can you imagine how much of that would disappear into the pockets of multi-millionaires?
The US would become totally UNCOMPETITIVE in world markets.
China and Russia would love it.

The below article on world energy assumes:

– World energy consumption would be 800 quads, and RE would be 400 quads at end 2050, 50% of world energy consumption.
– Significant additional CAPEX would be invested in efficiency measures.


World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration. EIA.
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.

Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.


China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive.

They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution.
Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats.
The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs.
The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.


50% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

100% RE by 2050

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y

Tom Abbott
Reply to  willem post
December 5, 2020 8:29 pm

“Are these self-serving, financial services people NUTS?”

We’re nuts, if we listen to them.

Tom Abbott
December 5, 2020 8:22 pm

From the article: “Shifting the global economy to low-carbon mode will require an estimated US$100-trillion to US$150-trillion worth of investment over the next 30 years, according to a new report.”

Pure Insanity.

December 5, 2020 10:27 pm

This post is completely absurd. Energy produces prosperity, and the cost of energy determines prosperity. The human race has never voluntarily chosen less prosperity, and never will, well, except for the Germans and California.

Renewables require batteries to provide reliable power, and the threat of no wind or solar for two or three weeks would require the complete economy of the world just to build the batteries, not to mention that there is no place to put them.

Let us return to reality, signing off…

$150 Trillion is an absurd amount of money which has never been spent on anything, and never will.

Reply to  Michael Moon
December 6, 2020 4:38 am

And yet after decades of renewable investment, Germany is still in top 10 economies and still prosperous.

Reply to  griff
December 6, 2020 8:32 am
Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
December 6, 2020 9:24 am

Yep, Germany’s economy has done fantastically well compared to China’s.

Reply to  griff
December 6, 2020 12:47 pm

No griff.. it is DESPITE the decades of renewable investment.

It was fortunate to have a very strong manufacturing sector..

… but that is slowly being eroded away.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
December 6, 2020 1:39 pm

Wait until Germany gets 100% of its energy from unreliables and see how healthy and robust is Germany’s economy.

BTW, care to comment on my earlier post?

Reply to  griff
December 6, 2020 5:52 pm

Griff-ey Jr..

You may be familiar with this event from 8 decades ago known as the Blitzkreig, or, WWII? Well the Germans still feel guilty about it, and are trying to make it up to the world.

December 5, 2020 10:59 pm

You could also spend that on 150L of reverse osmosis water per day per person + 1 AirCon between 3 people per 10 years + run the AirCon for 6hrs/day per 3 people for the 30 years. [Rough back of an envelope]

It’s best to know what other options are available and the opportunity cost of making the choices.

December 6, 2020 6:40 am

There will be a debt crisis long before then and Dems will need a high carbon tax rate to make debt service payments. There will be a lot more inflation and poverty–green poverty.

Alasdair Fairbairn
December 6, 2020 9:43 am

I see all of this as millions of angels dancing on a pin. Inevitably this will lead to a pointless singularity.

December 6, 2020 12:00 pm

China has plenty of money. Perhaps they’ll supply the $100 trillion for these experts. Don’t worry about the strings attached to that “investment”.

William Haas
December 6, 2020 2:28 pm

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. This huge expenditure will kill the global economy but it will have no effect on climate. But even if we could stop the Earth’s climate from changing as it has been doing for eons. extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. We do not even know what the optimum climate really is let alone how to achieve it. We should not be expending money and resources in this area until we really know what we are doing and so far we do not. There are many good reasons to ve conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. We cannot go back to the energy usage of 200 or more years ago and still maintain the Earth’s current human population. As an alternative to fossil fuels which are finite, renewable energy will not satisfy our current needs. The only rational alternative is some form of nuclear energy.

Harry Butts
December 6, 2020 3:24 pm

Hell, I’ll do it all for just $1 billion. Who should I submit the bill to?

willem post
December 6, 2020 6:44 pm


If man-made CO2 emissions would instantly stop, about 50% of the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere would be absorbed by natural sinks in about 50 years, increasing to 70% by about year 100, with the remainder absorbed in about 25,000 years.

In the real world, annual man-made CO2 emissions could only gradually be reduced, say 1% – 2% per year, first to decrease its upward trend to zero, and then reduce it.

That phase likely would last about 10 – 15 years.

That phase would start after a worldwide consensus is reached to finance and implement it, which likely would take several years.

Any determined effort would be lasting for many decades.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights