UN Fury: World Leaders Just Failed to Deliver $100 Billion / Year Climate Deal

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Despite green claims that renewables are now the cheapest form of energy, according to the UN the renewable revolution simply won’t happen without billions of dollars of sustained international financial support.

UN blasts world leaders for failing to seal £72bn-a-year deal on climate

Financial aid ‘critical’ to help developing countries limit fossil fuels – and make Cop26 a success, says UN

Toby Helm & Robin McKie
Sun 20 Jun 2021 19.30 AEST

The head of climate change at the UN has warned that world leaders are still “far away” from securing a deal to limit the disastrous effects of global heating, with less than five months to go before a key summit in Glasgow.

Time is now running out, said Patricia Espinosa, who was formerly foreign minister of Mexico but now leads the UN on climate policy. She told the Observer that although advances had been made at the G7 meeting in Cornwall last weekend, progress had not been made on honouring past commitments to find $100bn (£72.5bn) a year to help developing countries invest in green technologies.

“We’re still very far away from being fully confident of having a full success at Cop26,” she said. The UN climate conference, opening on 31 October in Glasgow, is considered to be of special importance in the battle against global warming, which is now melting ice sheets, raising sea levels, destroying coral reefs and disrupting weather systems across the planet.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/20/un-blasts-world-leaders-for-failing-to-seal-72bn-a-year-deal-on-climate

Compare the government funded monstrosity the UN is trying to assemble to a genuine energy revolution.

… When a clean-burning kerosene lamp invented by Michael Dietz appeared on the market in 1857, its effect on the whaling industry was immediate. Kerosene, known in those days at “Coal Oil”, was easy to produce, cheap, smelled better than animal-based fuels when burned, and did not spoil on the shelf as whale oil did. The public abandoned whale oil lamps almost overnight. By 1860, at least 30 kerosene plants were in production in the United States, and whale oil was ultimately driven off the market. When sperm oil dropped to 40 cents a gallon in 1895, due to lack of demand, refined petroleum, which was very much in demand, sold for less than 7 cents a gallon. …

Read more: http://www.sjvgeology.org/history/whales.html

If renewable energy was genuinely the more affordable option, it would be like the kerosene / whale oil revolution all over again. Nobody would be demanding handouts to switch to renewables. People would be flocking to renewables of their own free will.

4.9 44 votes
Article Rating
100 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neo
June 22, 2021 2:05 pm

Hey, I could have a Swiss bank account if they would direct those billions to me.

JamesD
Reply to  Neo
June 24, 2021 8:29 am

Should be easy to set up since a huge chunk of the loot is heading to Switzerland anyway. Just an in-bank transfer.

Devils Tower
June 22, 2021 2:15 pm

And backing up the UN…..

PENN State and NASA

Not going to comment much, but this is a course from the PS Earth and Mineral Science Program.

Students first assignments are to write climate community impact papers.

All the spin in one place.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1054

They are to do research using the NY Times, Washington Post, and wikipedia. The source of all scientific truth.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Devils Tower
June 22, 2021 2:35 pm

Looking through their various course materials, it is all climate doom and gloom. Pictures of hurricane damage, droughts, floods and etc. abound. No science, though, just scary speculation as to the future. I wonder what kind of scientific career or jobs this stuff is supposed to provide for students. I guess it will give much entertainment value to extending their childhoods.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 22, 2021 2:58 pm

I’d like to be a rich guy, like Rodney Dangerfield in “Back to School,” so I could go to PS and attend Mikey’s classes, constantly arguing with him using logic and reason until I’d turned the snowflake minions against him.

n.n
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 22, 2021 5:47 pm

Yes, Critical Environmentalists’ Theory is an outdated and obsolete handmade tale. Even WWF has moved on to Greener pastures, braying for trumpets . That said, donate to World Walrus Foundation (WWF – no relation) , a joint project between seals and walruses. Think of the pups!

bill Johnston
Reply to  Devils Tower
June 22, 2021 5:40 pm

They forgot Ouija boards, taro cards and chicken entrails.

markl
June 22, 2021 2:19 pm

How does the UN account for all the money it’s given, whether for CC or just ongoing administrative costs? It doesn’t. Doesn’t that bother anyone? They’re like a mega church where you send your money for international salvation. If you don’t tithe them to the amount they think is appropriate you are shamed and ostracized. Since inception they have strayed far from their mission of preventing wars and blatantly into the realm of world governance. They have gone on record to say China’s government is the role model the world should be following….. except with the UN at the helm. The UN is past its’ time.

Hal McCombs
Reply to  markl
June 22, 2021 9:15 pm

At least kick them the hell out of America.

Coeur de Lion
June 22, 2021 2:19 pm

When Trump pulled the American taxpayer out of the Paris Agreement, the consequent rage was money not climate. I still treasure David Shukman’s TV piece for the BBC because of its multi-layered lying.

Editor
June 22, 2021 2:23 pm

Time is now running out, said Patricia Espinosa, who was formerly foreign minister of Mexico but now leads the UN on climate policy.”

Yup, time is running out for those who attended the first COP to see anything come of all of this nonsense. After 26 failed attempts, the whole COP process should be retired.

Regards to all,
Bob

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 22, 2021 2:46 pm

The preview to COP26 is underway. Poor countries: Give us money. Rich countries: We don’t have any after the effects of the ChiCom virus. Result: Chaos, with fancy-pants professional liars trying to paper it over. Long term: China dominates Third World development.

Oh, longing for the days when people had high hopes for the future. Presidential realists like Reagan and Trump could only hold the barbarian hordes from the gates for so long.

n.n
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 22, 2021 5:55 pm

Emigration reform, to mitigate the first-order forcings of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout, is a worthy cause.

Hal McCombs
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 22, 2021 9:17 pm

Especially when they were continually attacked by “patriots”.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 22, 2021 3:01 pm

Seems kind of like an example of that old saying “The operation was a success, but the patient died.”

Rory Forbes
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
June 22, 2021 11:10 pm

It’s more like the guy criticizing the old Soviet stalwart … “but Igor, your philosophy has been a failure everywhere it has been tried, at a cost of millions and millions of lives.”

“True, tovarisch, but the theory is scientific and without blemish.”

Gerry, England
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 23, 2021 5:58 am

They usually say that socialism has never been tried ‘properly’ which is why it always fails.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gerry, England
June 23, 2021 11:09 am

It’s just a variation of the old, “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Once one realizes that Marx was a fool, a clown and a wastrel … and his “theories” are simple minded balderdash, the whole picture changes. How such a fool could have been lauded as a great man of letters for over a century is anyone’s guess.

Robert of Texas
June 22, 2021 2:35 pm

The hundreds of billions of dollars would be spent something like this:

1) 30% graft for the rich and elite ruling class of these countries
2) 20% rerouted to favored projects that have nothing to do with energy
3) 20% for graft to the construction companies involved
4) 20% graft back to the energy companies that produce the turbines and panels
5) 10% actually spent of the intended target

It’s no wonder so many elites push for these socialist schemes.

Scissor
Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 22, 2021 3:22 pm

What about 10% to the big man?

Reply to  Scissor
June 22, 2021 5:21 pm

I was about to note that @Robert was being rather optimistic.

Spetzer86
Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 22, 2021 5:33 pm

Most charities run far less than 10% to the target. Most of the monies are tied up in overhead. I struggle to think the UN is more efficient than a charity.

Richard Page
June 22, 2021 2:39 pm

There is only a finite amount of money to go around. Perhaps if we enquire amongst those in academia whether we should divert all funding for universities’ climate change research into the Green Fund instead? I believe the screaming will likely last days or maybe weeks!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Page
June 22, 2021 2:54 pm

Its always funny when the climate disaster polling does an about face when people are asked to pay for the hustlers’ schemes. The whole thing will blow up in America when the Senate has to appropriate actual money (albeit, borrowed) to specific programs.

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  Richard Page
June 23, 2021 4:51 am

“Only a finite amount of money to go around”, you say?

Not so. Money is printed at the drop of a hat these days.

Just turn on the presses. Inflate your way to Nirvana.

Modern Monetary Theory says it’ll all turn out fine in the end.

Of course, those who can think for themselves understand a lemon when they see one. Not unlike CAGW.

Turn on the presses. Give them the cash. See the whole scam go up in smoke, as they tear each others eyes out in their rapacious attempts to get their grubby little mitts on as much as they can.

Richard Page
Reply to  Sceptical Sam
June 23, 2021 9:34 am

Yes. Indeed. That would be an interesting question to ask these educated idiots: “would you prefer $100 at it’s full value or $200 at half it’s value?”

BrentC
June 22, 2021 2:43 pm

It’s “climate heating” now?

LOL – I’m detecting more desperation in the messaging as this hoax runs its course.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  BrentC
June 22, 2021 3:05 pm

Hots! As in ‘me climate got the Hots, man’…

Pariah Dog
Reply to  Gregory Woods
June 23, 2021 4:10 am

Three hots and a cot, if there were any justice.

Mike Haseler (aka Scottish Sceptic)
Reply to  BrentC
June 23, 2021 4:53 am

Plants ♥ CO2
Plants ♥ Greenhouses
Greens ♥ plants ♥ CO2

Dave Andrews
Reply to  BrentC
June 23, 2021 7:40 am

No, according to the Guardian it’s now ‘climate breakdown’.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Andrews
Richard Page
Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 23, 2021 11:49 am

Well they still haven’t used ‘Climate Trauma’ or similar so it’s not quite over yet. When they run out of buzzwords and have to start repeating them, you know the writing’s on the wall!

Rud Istvan
June 22, 2021 2:49 pm

Back in 2014 I wrote essay Caribbean Water in ebook Blowing Smoke. It was about how the UN organized a 2014 conference to teach Caribbean ‘climate ministers’ how to extort the equivalent of G7 for climate reparations at the upcoming COP whatever, because their islands were going to run short of water thanks to AGW. It’s now 2021. The Caribbean islands have not run short of water, but the UN backed $100 billion per year begging scam remains firmly in place and very unfunded.

Fun factoid. The UN decided to place admin of the by 2020 imagined annual $100 billion climate reparations fund in South Korea. (Guess what country held the UN General Secretary position at that time?) It then spent more $ on the new HQ than the total of all then pledged commitments. Obama went all in wasting $2 billion. There was nothing else committed by anybody at the time. UN spent $5 billion on the new Korean bureaucratic HQ complex. See how it works?

AGW is Not Science
June 22, 2021 2:56 pm

If renewable energy was genuinely the more affordable option, it would be like the kerosene / whale oil revolution all over again. Nobody would be demanding handouts to switch to renewables. People would be flocking to renewables of their own free will.

I’d say that sums it up rather nicely, but perhaps a little garnish to make the thought complete:

If renewable energy was actually practical, AND was genuinely the more affordable option, it would be like the kerosene / whale oil revolution all over again. Nobody would be demanding handouts to switch to renewables. People, utilities and industry would be flocking to renewables of their own free will.

Waza
June 22, 2021 3:05 pm

$100 billion pa is actually quite a lot.
Does anyone have some quantitative breakdown of who pays what?

How much does Canada, Australia or South Korea pay? For example.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Waza
June 22, 2021 3:42 pm

Nobody is committed to pay anything beyond Obama’s initial $2 billion in 2014. That is why the whole fantasy thing is failing bigly.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Waza
June 22, 2021 4:37 pm

Waza,
$100 billion works out to be 0.47% of the annual GDP of the top 20 largest economies in the world. If your tax rate increased by 0.47% you would probably barely notice it.

Waza
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 4:49 pm

Izaak
As I asked, do you have a quantitative breakdown of who pays how much?

Bill Toland
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 5:07 pm

Izaak, your understanding of economics rivals your understanding of climate science.

Kevin R.
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 5:40 pm

The only taxes I want to pay are for the legitimate functions of government not political hobbyhorses. They want to fund their political hobbyhorses they can do it on their own dime not mine.

Last edited 1 month ago by Kevin R.
Christopher Hanley
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 5:52 pm

The climate-industrial complex are past masters at employing the ratchet effect.
“A ratchet effect is an instance of the restrained ability of human processes to be reversed once a specific thing has happened … The ratchet effect first came to light in Alan Peacock and Jack Wiseman’s work: The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom. Peacock and Wiseman found that public spending increases like a ratchet following periods of crisis …” (Wiki).
In this instance the fake ‘climate crisis’.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 6:11 pm

So, you are defending the waste of money because people “would probably barely notice it?”

Money that could be spent building schools and feeding children in the DR Congo so that they wouldn’t have to work in the ‘cobalt’ and coltans mines with their parents. You have to get your priorities right!

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 22, 2021 6:36 pm

Clyde,
I am not defending anything. Rather trying to point out that the claim that “a $100 billion dollars is a lot of money” is not true. “lot of money” is a relative statement that can only be decided by comparison to other sums of money. Outstanding contracts for derivatives total about $640 trillion. Compared to that $100 billion is a drop in the ocean. Smaller sums might be the $780 billion that the US spends on the military every year or the $3.3 trillion that the US government is expected to borrow in 2021 (or the roughly $1 trillion that it borrowed pre-covid). Not to mention the several trillion for quantitative easing that the US government has printed. All of those sums put the $100 billion in a better context. Similarly Jeff Bezos is worth about $150 billion so he could pay for an entire year and still have 50 billion left.

As for my priorities where are yours? How much money do you give towards
building schools and feeding children in the Congo compared to how much of your tax dollars goes on instruments of war?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 6:54 pm

$100 billion is a “lot of money” to spend for no benefit. I’m more for the early U.S. “millions for defense, not a penny in tribute.”

Hal McCombs
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 22, 2021 9:22 pm

Nailed it!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 10:55 pm

“a $100 billion dollars is a lot of money” is not true.

A hundred billion dollars here, a hundred billion dollars there, and pretty soon you’re taking real money. Every singl year.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 22, 2021 11:29 pm

Every single year.

And that is a real issue, isn’t it. It creates an enormous revenue for an agency (the UN) intent on destroying the same economies they expect to fund them. They’re not even real bureaucrats, responsible to a legitimate country. The UN expect to become the world’s only government, unanswerable to anyone.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 23, 2021 7:19 pm

G’day Izaak,

“lot of money” is a relative statement that can only be decided by comparison to other sums of money.

So President Trump asked for $10 billion to build a wall on the southern US border – and was refused. Do you really think $100 billion is just small change?

I guess you don’t live close enough to the border to have a Border Patrol highway check point north of you.

Hal McCombs
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 9:21 pm

But I would notice.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 10:37 pm

Izaak, I would notice, as I am numerate, and watch my tax bill very closely. It is very sad to think that anyone wouldn’t notice. Maybe you wouldn’t.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 10:50 pm

$100 billion works out to be 0.47% of the annual GDP of the top 20 largest economies in the world. If your tax rate increased by 0.47% you would probably barely notice it.

Although socialists may wish that it were so, the amount of tax taken from taxpayers is not 100% of GDP.

I suspect that you would notice 0.5% of GDP, because tax rates are probably about 20% of GDP, if that, so the rate would be about a 2.5% tax hike. Given that a minority party most of the taxes, that 2.5% would hit that minority disproportionately, or poorer people would suffer more.

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Bill Toland
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 22, 2021 11:36 pm

It’s even worse than that. Izaak was referring to the 20 largest economies in the world for his ludicrous calculation. He doesn’t seem to realise that China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey and Russia are all in the top 20 economies. These countries will certainly not be paying any money to a climate slush fund. In fact, some of these countries want a slice of the fund.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 23, 2021 7:34 pm

Russia’s economy is smaller than that of ITALY.
Turkey is a basket case.

Bill Toland
Reply to  pigs_in_space
June 24, 2021 12:04 am

Precisely my point. These countries will not be giving money to the climate slush fund. However, these countries are part of the calculation made by Izaak.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 22, 2021 11:25 pm

You’re missing the point entirely (as usual). It may not be a great amount relative to the GDP of the largest economies. It is, however, a great deal of money handed over to a far Left leaning, quasi political agency like the UN to do with what they choose … much of it to undermine the social stability of those same “largest economies”. Also, in their own words the issue has nothing to do with “climate change” but rather the redistribution of wealth (much of it to them to create a world government).

I suggest you learn to walk first … before you take on chewing gum at the same time.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 23, 2021 12:27 am

HAHHAHA

Here is some homework for you Izaak.

Take out a mortgage. A real one. Literally brushing your limit. Budget around it. Increase the interest by 0.47%. Stop complaining.

Lrp
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 23, 2021 3:23 am

Take it out of welfare budget, maybe?

Bill Toland
Reply to  Lrp
June 23, 2021 4:18 am

I’m opposed to the climate slush fund under any circumstances. At least the welfare budget is spent in the domestic economy and contributes to the country’s gdp. The climate slush fund is money which is taken out of the country completely and reduces the country’s gdp. I always liked the description of the climate fund as taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries.

Last edited 1 month ago by Bill Toland
LdB
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 25, 2021 6:14 am

That is about 0.4699999999999999999999999% more than the average taxpayer is prepared to pay

Paul Johnson
June 22, 2021 3:18 pm

So it’s the oil industry that saved the whales.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 22, 2021 6:15 pm

Are you telling me it wasn’t the SJWs and whale huggers that were responsible? Next you’ll be trying to convince me that there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny!

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Paul Johnson
June 23, 2021 12:31 am

Whales, however, are renewable.

Carefully managed in ethical conditions they grow back. Just like those North American trees used in that UK ‘renewable’ power plant. EXACTLY the same principle.

Gary Pearse
June 22, 2021 3:20 pm

The cartoon is very apropos of the game playing out on the ground. Realests know we are at peak renewables (Germany has had enough and who can succeed where they failed), this is especially so with Europe opening three coal power plants after depleting stored gas during three long cold winters. And this is the easiest nut to crack.

So far, the truly intractable problem that no one will acknowledge except for handwaving and wishful thinking that promising technology will come along, is the FF dependent shipping/ transportation problem. People expected to deal with this know it is an impossibility.

If all that isn’t enough, 5 billion non-Westerners are ardently pursuing coal power based prosperity and it is working beautifully.

Yeah, you got it. CO2 is going to keep rising apace and nothing will stop it. We will be happy residents of “Garden of Eden Earth^тм” That’s the other growing fear of the totality folk: nothing bad is going to happen except for the millions of people in the global warming industry. They’ll need vocational training.

June 22, 2021 3:38 pm

UN fury

That’s a phrase to strike fear into the bravest soul!
(not)

It reminds me of 1980’s U.K. politician Dennis Healey’s response to a “furious attack” by government minister Geoffrey Howe. “Like being savaged by a dead sheep 🐑 “

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
June 22, 2021 10:56 pm

It reminds me of 1980’s U.K. politician Dennis Healey’s response to a “furious attack” by government minister Geoffrey Howe. “Like being savaged by a dead sheep 🐑 “

Now that, right there, is funny!

n.n
June 22, 2021 3:45 pm

The consensus is that redistributive change will be proportional to [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate cooling… warming… change. Otherwise, there is a functional global market for commerce and travel to share resources equitably.

Dwayne
June 22, 2021 4:37 pm

As it has ever been, from the original design, a wealth transfer mechanism from idiotic Western politicians to grifters at the UN and on to despots, strong men, and various other assorted dictators.

Rob_Dawg
June 22, 2021 4:50 pm

“Time is now running out”

The klaxon call of the desperate.

John
June 22, 2021 5:29 pm

well put – again a great article

and the hydrocarbon replacement – Hydrogen would have been adopted 40 years ago
but as you clearly showed -they didn’t work then and they don’t work now – no amount of technology can turn lead into gold or a pigs ear into a silk purse

but they will destroy society by eliminating a reliable portable energy source

Rud Istvan
Reply to  John
June 22, 2021 5:55 pm

See essay Hydrogen Hype in ebook Blowing Smoke for why hydrogen will never be a practical energy solution.

June 22, 2021 6:50 pm

As I like to say:
If renewables are cheaper, why is China exporting solar panels and wind mills and importing coal and oil?

Why would they part with even one solar panel?

Dennis
Reply to  Zoe Phin
June 22, 2021 8:28 pm

And why is China providing foreign aid based coal fired power stations to third world/developing nations and not China made wind turbines and solar systems instead?

Reply to  Dennis
June 22, 2021 11:32 pm

Because they can get a better price selling crap to gullible westerners.

They are also outsourcing their production to cheaper labor areas. So they need serious technology, not an expensive joke.

Christopher Fay
June 22, 2021 9:19 pm

The alarmists have been forecasting imminent disaster since at least 1988, when I started following the debate. Still hasn’t happened.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Christopher Fay
June 22, 2021 11:36 pm

I started following this fraud during the era of Man Made Global Cooling, peak oil and when Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren were raving on about the end of the world and billions dying of starvation by 2020. So this entire thing, for me is just déjà vu all over again.

eck
June 22, 2021 9:45 pm

Eric, trillions, not billions. Get real. Every government project is vastly unrealistically priced and/or promised.

June 22, 2021 10:00 pm

Yes Greenpeace, (Greta, Biden), the wicked petroleum industry saved the whales, and the coal industry saved the forests in Europe.

The real inconvenient truths.

Iain Reid
June 22, 2021 11:31 pm

Quote:-

If renewable energy was genuinely the more affordable option, it would be like the kerosene / whale oil revolution all over again.”

Even if it were free wind, tidal, wave and solar are incapable both practically (intermittency) and technically (Asynchronous, i.e. not controlled or practically capable of being controlled, cars without a throttle is a loose analogy) to replace conventional generation. Nor are batteries a solution, that is also easily demonstrated as being false with simple arithmetic.
This message does not seem to be getting through?

There still is the general perception that because renewables generate electricity that they are equal and can replace fossil fuel generation. This is false and easily shown.
There are articles that claim that we can run on 100% renewables but practice is quite different!

All the money the west is spending on this ‘technology’ and the demand by such as the U.N. that we spend even more for developing countries flies in the face of logic.

observa
Reply to  Iain Reid
June 23, 2021 4:30 am

You can’t tell them but here’s the latest development with EVs in their electric Utopia-
Reality check for Volkswagen in China after sluggish start for electric car series (msn.com)

Notice the 2 types of EV consumers. The vast majority that simply want bang for buck transport and then there’s the rich that want badge appeal zoom zoom and all the tech bells and whistles. Guess who’s grabbed the latter market segment although he wants to be careful the Commies aren’t taking him for a ride with thanks for the technology and knowhow transfer Elon-
Tesla in China: Pressure mounts on carmaker after customer protest (cnbc.com)
Know your place Elon et al.

Vincent Causey
June 22, 2021 11:53 pm

Yes, it’s all very strange. It’s almost as if the laws of economics are now different to what they were 100 years ago.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 23, 2021 1:58 am

Indeed.

Incidently: What saved the whale?
Greenpeace? No!
WWF? Don’t make me laugh!
The invention of the kerosine lamp is wot did it. Fossil fuel usage saved the whale.

bonbon
June 23, 2021 2:26 am

Nuclear took a Manhattan Program to totally revolutionize energy. That was a government program, a crash program. Not cheap.
Fusion requires the same commitment. The R&D spinoffs are beyond reckoning.
The UN must push a World Health System with the same commitment. Otherwise we will never stop Corona if poverty prevents vaccination – it will just be a permanent reservoir of mutating variants.
So the UN has a major role to play.
Mark Carney as UN Climate advisor, ex Bank of England chief, is well known to be pushing the Great Reset of his mentor Prince Charles. This is subversion of the UN by central banks. See any interview with Carney recently.
It sure looks like he is going for Trudeaus job, cancelling pipelines there.

Note BlackRock is fully onboard for the Great Reset. Bankers believe desperately this will save their everything bubble.
So not only Russia and China are not playing along, even the G7 cannot divvy up! To paraphrase a well known politician – they are NOT in sync!

The sheer desperation of Carney’s crowd is palpable… Where’s my popcorn…

Richard Page
Reply to  bonbon
June 23, 2021 9:48 am

Idiot. Carney is an ‘ex’ employee and alumni of Goldman Sachs and Bank of Canada chief. Along with many ‘ex’ Goldman Sachs employees in Canada, USA and UK they appear to be pushing a purely Goldman Sachs agenda to make indecent amounts of money out of the perceived suffering of the world’s population. In this they are not unlike the UN – one can only speculate as to exactly who is pulling the strings and greasing the skids on this pseudo ponzi scheme but it ain’t Charlie – he’s nowhere near that intelligent. Follow the money and see who stands to gain from raking off a percentage from the top?

ghl
Reply to  Richard Page
June 24, 2021 12:13 am

Richard
I’ve posted this before.

“Al Gore and David Blood formed Generation Investment Management in 2004.
GenerationIM web site from March 28 2009
http://web.archive.org/web/20090328131153/http://www.generationim.com/sustainability/challenges/pandemics.html

More:-
http://web.archive.org/web/20091123011347/http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-generation-thematic-research-v13.pdf

Browse the above pages, follow some links for the full effect. Note the references to Global Warming, water and pandemics.”

Daniel Taylor
June 23, 2021 4:03 am

The trouble is, green energy is more affordable IF YOU INCLUDE THE CLEAN-UP COSTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE from coal and oil.

But the hundreds of billions we’re paying and will pay in environmental damage and strategic complication isn’t included in the cost of fossil fuels at the pump. Like landfill costs, they don’t go into the price and aren’t paid by the companies or users… they’re put on the national credit card and paid by all of us over the next fifty years. At exorbitant rates.

If prices included the externalities, coal would be so expensive nobody even considered using it.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Daniel Taylor
June 23, 2021 9:28 am

“The trouble is, green energy is more affordable IF YOU INCLUDE THE CLEAN-UP COSTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE from coal and oil.”

**************

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-disposal-problem/

“– The problem of solar panel disposal will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment because it is a huge amount of waste which is not easy to recycle. 1
– Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (53 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km). 2″

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/02/solar-energy-badly-harms-the-environment-it-must-be-taxed-not-subsidised/

“But don’t we get huge environmental benefits from solar? Not at all. Instead, solar energy is one of the worst enemies of the environment, even excluding the massive loss of natural habitat. Solar waste is extremely toxic. Michael Shellenberger has found that “solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants”.

********************

Yet Daniel, the environmental movement and the leftist media are pushing solar as though it were a godsend. No mention of the toxic waste, and governments are subsidizing it and mandating so-called “renewables” be in the mix of electricity sources on the grid.

Besides ignoring the toxic waste issue, solar pushers also leave out the cost of batteries (to deal with the intermittency) and fossil fuel plant backups when claiming solar is cheaper.

You want clean energy Daniel? Nuclear Daniel, nuclear.

ghl
Reply to  Daniel Taylor
June 24, 2021 12:18 am

Daniel
Detail the costs if you would.

Mike Haseler (aka Scottish Sceptic)
June 23, 2021 4:48 am

The problem with the climate insanity was always that it was impossible to justify the insane amount of money. And, the only way politicians could ever push through the insanity, is if they could con enough people that they were going to be better off with the eye weateringly expensive insanity.

They picked all the easy fruit – they’re given trillions away to selfish Big Green by dreaming up schemes to con the public about which the press never let on were not energy price rises, but massive taxes.

Now, there are no easy fruit. There is no big giveaway of the public’s money that they can hide.

Michael Shorts
June 23, 2021 5:20 am

LED light bulbs are a good example of a green technology that is unquestionably superior to what came before. No subsidy is needed to make it the dominant light bulb on the market.

bonbon
Reply to  Michael Shorts
June 23, 2021 6:41 am

Here is why leds got in :
EU orders greater transparency and quality for light sources – OSRAM Group Website (osram-group.com)
actually.
That 2009 EU was already greenie, but now on steroids – the new proposals will decimate business. Brexit did nothing about this, BoJo is greener than van der Leyen.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Michael Shorts
June 24, 2021 9:29 pm

But first we had to mandate those useless and destructive VFLs

Bruce Cobb
June 23, 2021 5:59 am

The climate apologists like to point out that $100B is, relatively speaking, a small amount of money for “rich” countries to cough up on a yearly basis, and they are correct. The response to that argument is twofold: First, the fact that advanced countries can’t even cough up what is essentially peanuts in the grand scheme of things tells us all we need to know about how serious they are about “saving the planet”, and secondly, when perpetrating what is essentially a scheme to prying sums of money from “rich” countries, you want to start off small. Then, once they cave to your demands, you ratchet them up because well, $100B is peanuts. They want the full 6-course meal including the lobster, or else they will sick the Gretamonster on you. Or something.

bonbon
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 23, 2021 6:46 am

That $100B is all sizzle no steak. When the devil’s diner invited the rich to dinner maybe they smelt that they were the menu?

Al Miller
June 23, 2021 7:41 am

Precisely!! If it made sense there would be no need for propaganda, subsidies, “education” or government censorship. People would simply use them. I’ll gladly use solar to power my phone, but it doesn’t make sense on larger scales clearly and obviously.
What would make sense is using that human energy and wasted money to actually improve the lot of humanity. It is high time the masses saw that the ruling class is only in it for themselves and a revolution is required to get back to some sanity.

Philip
June 23, 2021 9:00 am

Oh great! I now envision a ‘green’ world where whale oil fish farms dot ocean fronts around the world as we transition off of our petroleum addiction. 😏

June 23, 2021 1:52 pm

Remember this Rennixx Global Renewables stocks index
Rennixx Global Renewables 18 yrs stocks index disaster
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=6741

Negative progress till the election of Biden.

Tom Abbott
June 23, 2021 2:15 pm

From the article: “The UN climate conference, opening on 31 October in Glasgow, is considered to be of special importance in the battle against [Human-caused] global warming, which is now melting ice sheets, raising sea levels, destroying coral reefs and disrupting weather systems across the planet.”

Lies, lies, lies, and lies.

Matthew Sykes
June 24, 2021 1:26 am

With UK debt at £33k per head of population, thats 100 k for a family, we are so screwed we will need aid ourselves if interest rates go up. Let alone shelling out a few billion on foreign aid each year, and this climate change joke.

And if Boris thinks his unicorn fantasy world of heat pumps and electric cars is going to happen when we are so laden down with debt he is a fool. There isnt a hope in hell. Especially after people have lost money after housing bubble bursts due to interest rate rises.

spock
June 25, 2021 2:36 am

Kerosene, an evil fossil fuel, saved the whales from extinction. If you tell that to an “environmentalist” their oversized head will explode.

%d bloggers like this: