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 15:41Shifting 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: https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/research-and-markets/funding-the-fight-against-global-warming/
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.
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.
And yet after decades of renewable investment, Germany is still in top 10 economies and still prosperous.
Read in and soak in the fantastic progress Germany had made. Sarc/off
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05/renewables-threaten-german-economy-energy-supply-mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/?sh=79835dc08e48
Yep, Germany’s economy has done fantastically well compared to China’s.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I see all of this as millions of angels dancing on a pin. Inevitably this will lead to a pointless singularity.
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”.
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.
Hell, I’ll do it all for just $1 billion. Who should I submit the bill to?
REDUCING MAN-MADE CO2 EMISSIONS
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.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/